Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

User:Inder315

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you so panic? May be someone is putting an information which you do not like? I have told you several times, you are very good in English (that is why you delete sections giving reasons like grammatical error), why you don;t start a blog on Sonia Gandhi. That way you will be able to broadcast any information which you like and no one else would be able to modify it. Inder315 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created an RfC for this at [6]. Neutral editors are implored to comment thereat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, some user has deleted the above sections. I am also advised to respect the community's opinion. Ok, I would love to respect the community's opinion (community of 2 scholars or may be sockpuppets), but only when I get satisfactory answers to my following queries. 1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004. This is a fact. Why it is removed? 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed? If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements? You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct. I would like to hear an explanation. Otherwise, I would revert back to original version. I hope senior editors will help me and stop this. Inder315 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping. This needs to stay at RFC for reasons given, and your accusations of others being socks is not assuming good faith in the process. Let the process go through, and if community opinion again bears that your text has no relevance or importance to the article, then it should be removed unless you can garner consensus. Edit warring is not an advisable move. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously just accuse someone else of abusing sockpuppets? Last time you were on this board, filing a complaint of your own, it turned out that you have three sockpuppets. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked the comments. They are "rv POV essay, recentism, allegations over-dependent on single 1999 op-ed". ReluctantPhilosopher had been saying it for ages. What about my questions? Are there any answers for the same? Or does wikipedia is a mean of deleting something which you do not like?

Given below for your reference once again. All of them are sourced, you can go to the article and check it.

1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004 barring Goa and Manipur. This is a fact. Why it is removed? If that is the case we should remove the win of Congress inf 2004. 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed?

If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her aam admi slogan can be a part of the article, her role as wife of prime minister (don;t know what does it mean) can be part of it, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements?

You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct. Or modify them to make it look more ornamental English. But is deleting a solution?

I am reverting back to the original and unbiased version. Please stop this.

And I read the policies WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:BLP. Nowhere it talks about not entering facts in a biography. The problem is that you don't like facts and so the user User:Relata refero (may be your sockpuppet), the way you answer on his behalf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder315 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, policies do tell us that Wikipedia is not a place for you to stick whatever facts you like: WP:SYN, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Furthermore, continuing to threaten edit wars and ignore consensus (or the lack thereof in supporting the contested material) is highly inappropriate. You could be blocked for such behavior. Finally, keep your sockpuppet accusations to yourself. Unless you have some evidence, I suggest you (a proven sockpuppeteer) keep the sockpuppet issue off the table. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if the project is served by keeping this chap around. Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we talk about policies, how come the following statements, modified/removed/added by me were reverted. Please explain.

Following is the explanation of my edits.

Added by me: She was eligbile to become Indian citizen in 1974 but she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. (This is a truth, hoe does it violate any policy)

Removed by me: As the Prime Minister's wife she acted as his official hostess and also accompanied him on a number of state visits. (No such reference). This is POV. How does it continue to stay in the article, just because someone likes it?

Modified by me: In stead of 'she', I have modifed to 'her party'. If one knows the civics, one should know that a party recommends a person not a person recommends other person. Why it was removed?

Removed by me: There has been considerable media speculation about their futures in the Congress. If we go by your opinion, what is the base for this statement? It is indeed a political commentry. And POV

Removed by me: The 'general view' was that the action could be seen as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation. What is this? Whose general view is this? Clear example of a POV. Has no place in wikipedia.

I would like to have answers from all scholars who advocate wikipedia policy. And even if we assume that I am a proven sockpuppet, that means what? I can not edit on wikipedia? If that is the case how does wikipedia allows me to edit? So stop this.

Also, to answer Relata refero's argument, I have started wondering whether you guys have joined the philosopher (supporter of a party) in maintaining this article as a fan site. I have not seen worse use of wikipedia than this (using the site for campaigning for someone). Inder315 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mitrebox

Work in progress; comments welcome

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I looked into the matter and the article above, after this WP:WQA is over, should be speedy deleted. You see the content in the article that's all piped? It was added by a user with an unapproved bot, adding obscure European athletes to Wikipedia. [7] An article added that ISN'T in English, containing content that was added by an unapproved bot -- Mitrebox has some reason to be upset over the horribly low quality of Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

None of this is relevant, and none of it excuses incivility. Such behavior is inappropriate, regardless of the English skills of the person who is being subjected to personal attacks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article wasn't of the best quality, I agree, but nothing ever warrants calling an editor a foreign bastard. Nothing. Whether the target may have understood it or not is irrelevant. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. And I also want to respond to Zenwhat's question, "What's the point, here, of complaining about an edit summary by Mitrebox that Codreanu can't even read?" Firstly, Codreanu can understand at least some English, as you can see in his edit comments. Secondly, and more importantly, there is harm done whenever an editor launches personal attacks against another editor: it creates a bad atmosphere and discourages editors from working here, which degrades Wikipedia's quality overall. The best work is done when people have an inclusive, respectful attitude. That's why there's a "no personal attacks" rule in the first place. -- Hux (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusiveness (not directed at me)

Resolved

 – ANI report resulting in a 72 hour block. User will be watched thereafter, surely, to keep his behavior in line. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Incidents of incivility: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19].

Warnings issued: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28].

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

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

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

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

I am not sure this case can be meaningfully handled here, as there are other issues besides civility and this user is obviously trying to be blocked indefinitely. I would guess we are dealing with a child who wants to be set boundaries, but there are also other explanations. I have started a section at ANI. An administrator has quietly reacted to my most important concern, but apart from that it is not getting much attention. I suggest keeping this thread open for any further discussion of minor points, and using the ANI thread only if further admin intervention seems necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked BEGD for 72 hours as his behavior has not improved. See his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish ISP user

Resolved

 – Referred to the AIV if IP vandalism continues. AfD will end with the appropriate "keep" I suspect. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is in regard to delete Siobhán Hoey and Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) from an anonymous account that from the WHOIS file are all Ireland-based. Siobhán's effort to being deleted occurred last March 30, but was reinstated on April 4. Aoife was deleted, but I had brought it back in an effort to work on bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton. From both article's histories, I have seen where these edits look like they have been vandalized from these IP addresses. Also, this same user (or users) is attempting to delete Siobhán's article again and tried to put Aoife's article on the February 1, 2008 AfD before succeeding. Please have a look at this because most of these articles are Irish-based and there may be other signs of abuse as well. Thank you.

The accounts in question are shown below:

• 84.203.1.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.97.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.149.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.132.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.98.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.52.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.2.170.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.76.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.21.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.183.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.174.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.138.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.16.67.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

We are now in a possible edit war that has been going on for the past two days that i am afraid is beginning to out of control. Please help. Chris (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This exact same issue is posted at WP:ANI and is in a current discussion thread that is less than a day old. [29] If this is an issue of IP vandalism, please see WP:AIV or request to have the page protected from IP edits. Nominating an article for AfD is not vandalism, even if it has been deleted and brought back, and if the nom was made in bad faith, it will be voted down. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an article for AFD is not vandalism. In addition, if an article was deleted per consensus, and you recreated the material with minimal changes, it can be brought back up for AFD or speedy delete. Let the process go through. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article in WP:ANI has now been moved into the Incident archive. Chris (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. For the AfD, all you can do is let it run its course. The admins who handle deletion will be reading over all the comments, and it appears that the consensus will be keep. If the IP users keep interfering with the editing of the article, you can revert, warn and report for vandalism as necessary. If the IP vandalism is consistent and disruptive, after the AfD is closed, you could also try getting the article semi-protected (ie, established users can edit; IPs and newbies can't). Best, DanielEng (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SouthernElectric

Resolved

 – Only mild civility problems. One of the involved editors left WP.

This user is coming close to violating WP:POINT in this discussion here [30] [31] [32] [33] (and in related discussions here [34] and here). I've given up trying to reason with him/her and would prefer an uninvolved person to intervene. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much disruption on the part of the user there, and it does seem to be a content dispute. Are you of the opinion that consensus has been settled? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think it looks more like a content dispute rather than a real civility issue. Obviously there is a lot of tension there, but it looks like the situations I have seen several times between mathematicians and non-mathematicians, on mathematical articles. It's a structural problem. I think all the ideas for a consensus are already in the discussion: If you put all the measurements in miles and chains, the railway enthusisasts will be satisfied (including the real enthusiasts from metricised countries, I suppose). The non-enthusiasts won't bother to convert chains into yards (or furlongs or whatever), so they will only know the distance up to a mile; but surely that's enough for them? When they see chain distances they will think: "I didn't know they are using otherwise obsolete units for railways", and be happy to have learned another interesting thing from Wikipedia. So the main question seems to be whether or not to convert the units into kilometres as well, for the few non-enthusiasts from metrised countries who stumble over these articles. I think if you all sleep over this, you should be able to find a solution for that as well. It certainly looks like a very minor point from the outside. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it originated as a content dispute (on an article talk page which was then moved to the project talk page [35]). I intervened in an attempt to get the facts straight (there were lots of fallacious arguments being used) [36] and to try and restore some order [37], as it was descending into a slanging match, with two firmly-entrenched viewpoints. I also felt it was necessary to draw certain contributors' attention to some of posts, like this ([38])and this ([39]) which I felt to be inappropriate.

I'm not of the opinion that consensus has been reached--quite the opposite, in fact. To me, the disruption on this user's part is getting in the way of us reaching one. Him arguing that "we're not discussing X, we're discussing Y" is disruptive and a nuisance.

To Hans Adler: would you care to repeat your points on the project page? What you say is entirely sensible, and is the sort of clear thinking that needs to be brought to the discussion.

(If here is the wrong place to report this sort of thing, then where is, given that WP:RFC and WP:ANI aren't?) --RFBailey (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A content dispute should be settled on the talk page in question. If consensus is not clear (it actually seems to be clear here), you might wind up filing an RFC. You made several remarks regarding SouthernE's comments, stating that they were "wholly unacceptable," but the comments you are talking about are borderline (at worst) incivility. It would be, possibly, easier for us to figure this out if you gave the right diffs: don't show us what you said about him, show us what he said. You've linked mostly to comments that you made (although some of them contain diffs of their own, which I've just mentioned don't seem to substantiate much of a case against SouthernE). You claim that he and several others have been hostile towards a third party, but I don't see any diffs that don't just look like a content dispute (one in which the aforementioned group of users is probably right). --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did "show [you] what he said", in my original post. The diffs containing SouthernElectric's edits which I felt to be disruptive are the ones I posted originally: to be clear, I'll repeat them here [40] [41] [42] [43]. The diffs I posted containing largely my edits were an attempt to give some background as to how I became embroiled in this mess, that's all. For the hostile behaviour I was alluding to, read all of WT:RAIL#Metric/Imperial system (Moved from Talk:WestCoastway line) (and the related discussion at Talk:West Coastway Line).

Regarding whether there is consensus or not, I would agree that there is a consensus that miles and chains should be included. However, some of us are trying to address the concerns of those who believe that metric units should be included somehow, for instance by having the functionality of {{convert}} improved. This user arguing "we're not discussing that, we're discussing this" (diff) is the real problem that I was trying to bring here. It's not up to him to decide that something is "totally irrelevant" (diff) to the discussion, just because he isn't interested in discussing it. --RFBailey (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but none of that is incivility. It may be miscommunication, or disagreement, or even a lack of time on SE's part to understand better what you're trying to say (or maybe he's right and it is irrelevant). None of this is incivility. If the diffs you've provided are the only ones in question, then there's really nothing going on here. If anything, you need to slow down when it comes to accusing others of acting in bad faith or hostility. His comments do not appear to be out of line. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was incivility; I felt that the edits were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --RFBailey (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was also named by RFBailey in the list of editors accused of bad faith or hostility to his consort, which is a POV and hardly in keeping with good faith. I too have no objections to metric units (km) being included after the recorded Imperial distance measurements. Wikipedia should be about verifiable information, much of the information that this user complains about in Template:West Coastway Line is verifable (in miles and chains from the pre-grouping railway junction diagrams (1914)) - although no source was quoted in the template. This argument appears to be one of mutual intolerance between youth (under 25s) and those not in that category. RFBailey has made it clear which side his loyalties are, and his use of hyperbole against other editors in not particularly helpful; although he has made belated attempts to contact some of the participants in an attempt to cool tempers.Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to defend my actions, in response to Pyrotec's post above, I'd like to say the following. First, I don't have a "consort". Second, the reason I listed Pyrotec was because of this post at WT:RAIL, which I felt rather missed the point that was being made (she didn't appear to be suggesting chains were difficult, just unfamiliar). I'm not claiming that the miles/chains measurements aren't verifiable either (of course they are, and I doubt that even hardcore metric-pushers would dispute that), and I'm not "complaining" about them necessarily. At no time have I "taken sides": I appreciate both sides' points of view. And, if I'm supposed to provide diffs for everything, I'd like to know which posts of mine (s)he feels contain hyperbole.

For the record, I am over 25, but was also subjected to the British school system at a time when all new books, schools TV programmes, etc., etc., would use the metric system over imperial measurements to levels of absurdity (for instance, I remember a schools geography programme from around 1990 about the River Severn, which was constantly talking about kilometres), so I can appreciate that there are people in the UK who have a better understanding of metric rather than imperial measurements. That's not to mention that there are millions of English-reading people around the world (of all ages) in fully metricated countries. Personally, I'm not intolerant of imperial measurements: I use them all the time! Our job as editors isn't to force either system down readers' throats, but to write encyclopaedia articles that can be understood.

Finally, the reason I posted on this page was because of disruptive behaviour, not necessarily because of incivility, and definitely not because of the content dispute. If this is the wrong forum for that, then I apologise. --RFBailey (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SouthernElectric now claims to have left Wikipedia, and his user page and talk page have been deleted at his request, after receiving a 24-hour block for a matter unrelated to this. This discussion should therefore be closed, I think. --RFBailey (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk-page flaming and insults

Resolved

 – User advised to sound less unfriendly in exchanges with the reporting editor

User:JasonAQuest responded to an initial communication from me here and here with an attack on my politeness, here, throwing out the first volley of personal insults ("condescending", "presumptuous").

I continued to be polite, even when he insulted the work of our Project Group. He finally flamed me here, with personal insults ("mean-spirited," "You treat people like retarded children," etc.).

It's incredible to me that someone starts right off by insulting you and insulting your Project, and then calls you "mean-spirited" and more as he himself is flaming you. Aside from this, he makes suspect claims that a large number of my longtime fellow and colleagues — many of whom have been kind and generous enough to place Barnstar awards on my page — would refute.

I ask for some help to make him stop insulting me and slandering me. Please help me. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you notified the editor in question on their talk page about this alert? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright I did that myself and posted a note. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This exchange actually began with Tenebrae completely reverting a good-faith edit I made, which (in addition to the change he objected to) contained a perfectly legitimate addition to the article. A minor offense, but hardly a civil and constructive opening. The "flame" to which he refers was an attempt to explain that his manner of dealing with people is not always appreciated or constructive. I advised him of my past bad experiences with him (I've edited anonymously for quite a while) and of others' comments to me about him, to help him understand how he's perceived by some of those who don't give him barnstars. I'm willing to take the lumps for that outbreak of frankness.

I admit to criticizing the WikiProject Comics guideline he was enforcing (a rule for formatting biographical articles which is not widely applied and is disputed in WikiProject Bio) as an "inappropriate demand"... but I don't see how that's an "insult" to him or the entire Project. I did describe one of his comments as "presumptuous", but that's because "thanks for understanding" does in fact presume that I would understand and agree with the guideline (I did not). Finally, what I said to him is only "slander" if it's untrue that he has upset other editors and gotten into fights with some of them. I could take the time to dig up examples, but I don't think anything constructive would be accomplished by that. I'd rather focus on the content than on this one person with whom I have troubles. I'll continue to avoid him as much as our overlapping interests allow, and I ask that he try to restrain himself as well... and maybe try to understand how his tone and William F. Buckley-isms might be off-putting (though I don't presume that he will). - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the MoS guideline or not, and whether it is enforced on every article or not, it's still there and must be respected. If you don't agree with it, that's fine--you have the choice to refrain from editing biography/comics articles or to raise your concerns on the MoS page and perhaps see if you can raise consensus for a change. In the meantime, if it's there and in use on an article and you're not respecting it, another editor very much has the right to leave a note on your Talk Page reminding you about it. Editors leave such notes for each other all the time on Wiki. It's not because anyone thinks you're stupid; it's usually because there are pages and pages of policy on Wiki and it's easy to forget something or to be completely unaware that a particular policy is in place. If you look on admins' pages, you'll see that they call each other out all the time.

Tenebrae's note to you was succinct and civil, and was completely appropriate. Did you ever think that he left the note to give you the courtesy of letting you know why you were reverted and keep it from happening again, instead of just deleting your work out of hand? You could have ignored it or left a short "thanks for the info" acknowledgment but instead you went off on a long uncivil diatribe on his Talk Page. Looking at other entries on your Talk Page, it appears you've also been less than friendly with other editors. Your tone and manner come across as being hostile, even if that isn't what you're intending. Stop and think about what you're writing. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

TomPhan's postings are condescending

Resolved

 – User indef. blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TomPhan. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

TomPhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ..and inappropriate. He doesn't seem to learn at all. Given the hostility and history of his interactions with me, I suspect he is an WP:SPA sock of someone, though I don't know who. Anyone who can help would be appreciated. For specifics, please check his edit history (less than a couple of dozen edits). Given his request for a "self-block", I would request an actual block to be listed in his history (but given his lack of concern for such a block, I truly doubt it will help too much other than to have it on the record). — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. His edits don't seem to match those of a "new" user, no. The first step might be to figure out if he's a sock and work from there. I'd normally say this should go to suspected sock puppets but since you don't know who he could be, maybe a request for CheckUser might be appropriate. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU submitted accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to edit your RFCU request (I don't think I can, anyway) but you might want to clarify it a little as to why this user looks like a sockpuppet. You might want to specifically note that the user's very first edits were comments and votes on RfA matters and that the user left comments that seemed to show some familiarity with you--both of those points are red flags that point toward a possible sock. Best, DanielEng (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe you based on past interactions(between BQZip01 and myself, I don't know TomPhan), but to make things easier for those who may not know you could some examples be cited? Anynobody 05:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. First of all, please look at his edit history. His edits are all related to my RfA (all users contacted responded in my RfA). as for his disruption, here are some examples: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] (please note his accusation of a crime in this one) — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:69.91.139.228

Resolved

 – Just a really lonely IPuser. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Between 22:59 and 23:03 today, posted 6 messages to 6 different users, all variations on the theme "I don't like you." (Actually, I assume that's what the one in Spanish said.) [49], [50],[51],[52],[53],[54] Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a standard drive-by IP vandal to me--probably a bored kid--especially since there are no constructive edits in that IP history at all. I left a L3 warning on the Talk Page; if it continues, they'll likely be picked up and blocked by an admin somewhere along the way. Best, DanielEng (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Thanks. Now, I feel loved. Awwwww. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

Resolved

 – This complaint is being brought by the same person who brings us comments such as this. No diffs provided, no incivility on Penguin's part as far as any reasonable searching could find, except what could only be considered minor (and only in response to Karaku's inappropriate comments). Honestly, it appears that the problem here is Karaku. Many other editors have already intervened to ask Karaku to calm down and behave appropriately (see his talk page), and his claims here are unsubstantiated. Penguin is clearly not trolling, nor wikistalking anybody. In the end, he wants us to block the Penguin, which we don't do here anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect him of trolling, he is refusing to listen to me after I give him sources, being rather rude, wikistalking me, and I'm trying my best to be calm, assume good faith, and try to reason with hi, but he won't cooperate. I would appreciate him being temp.blocked to see if he'll cool down. -Karaku (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, this user considers comments such as this and this assuming good faith and being reasonable. See User talk:Karaku#Troll... for the whole conversation. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Trust not the Penguin. Karaku has only been editing for a few days, and has already been blocked for 24 hours. His activities are very frustrating and disruptive (such as the WP:SNOW nomination of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann for deletion) and people have been extremely patient. Harry the Dog (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Karaku, with your vague accusations here you seem to be continuing a pattern of just saying "I am right and you are wrong" and not justifying this in an intelligible way. Currently the only person who has a chance of getting blocked is you. If that is the best you can do, then you need to learn a lot to become the kind of team player you are expected to be here. Please make a harder effort to argue facts rather than personal relations. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry- Nominating Madeleine McCann for deletion is not disruptive, it's helping. It seriously isn't notable. But let that go on at the AfD talk page. I haven't been editing for a few days- more than that, I've been here before editing under an IP, i believe, and decided to make an account. I was blocked for a day for the (pointless, no offence meant) 3RR rule. And don't act like TrP has never been blocked before. I'm a positive contributor, and trying to help the articles, and i'm getting Wikistalked and trolled by TrP. I'm getting annoyed by him and being as calm as I can without unleashing personal attacks.

Cheese- He is wikistalking me, He seems to watch my contribs page, then rv nearly every single edit I make, then won't listen to me. (Such as him not listening to me on Code Lyoko and Matoran). I am not a problem, thank you very much. I'm the one trying to be calm about this and trying to get it resolved, but TrP just has to stay in his own little world and believe what was there before, even after i give sources. My comments are not innapropriate, and I am behaving.

Hans- I have tried to tell him I'm right in a more detailed way, but he won't listen, he'll just RV it. Even when i GIVE SOURCES. Why do I have the chance getting blocked here? Trying to help Wikipedia? I am trying to argue facts, but TrP is refusing to listen, -Karaku (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"He won't listen." Yes, that's likely to happen when you try to push an excentric position against the consensus of everybody else, using weak arguments. E.g. Madeleine McCann not notable? An article with 185 references? And insinuating that Penguin has been blocked before when it is demonstrably false is what we call a personal attack. It's normal behaviour in school yards, but hereabouts you can be blocked for it. The policy for this is WP:NPA. For easy reference: Here is your block log and here is Penguin's block log. You have been here since January, and Penguin has been here since November 2005. I would say the difference is striking. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to make me an angry bastard here? Yes, She isn't notable. I don't care if there are 5358934 references. Now this is not the AfD page for her, drop it. I have not been here "since January", I've been here longer than that without an account editing. This just proves I'm being ignored once more. -Karaku (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are responsible for your emotions. If they are out of control I strongly suggest you take a break. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zebra91

Zebra91 (talk · contribs)

This user continues to revert the removal of content from a school article (Patrician Brothers' College, Fairfield). Three editors, including myself have put forward their opinion on the article's talk page, however Zebra91 has made it clear on the discussion page and on user pages that they do not intend on backing down (e.g. here and here) and subsequently the discussion seems to be going no where. I suspect the user has also used a new account and two IP's to support themselves or improve their image (e.g. here, here and here). The situation seems to have gotten out of hand and i'm not sure what to do. Would appreciate some input/an uninvolved person to intervene. Loopla (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For the abuse of alternate accounts, file a report at WP:SSP. For the edit warring see WP:AN/3RR. I don't see particular incivility, just a horrible misunderstanding of what should and shouldn't be in the article and doesn't seem to understand that nobody has the "right" to edit Wikipedia (and that consensus must be respected). --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems like a chronic failure to understand WP:NOT and WP:N - common in newbies, but the aggressive attitude is somewhat problematic and may result in protection of the article. Orderinchaos 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Quizimodo

I wish to report Quizimodo for uncivil behaviour and responding to a proper comment with personal attacks. On Talk:Dominion, Soulscanner responded to unhelpful personal remarks made by Quizimodo

Instead of personal attacks, why not tell me what your take is on any of the three quotes given above. How have a misinterpreted these? --soulscanner (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I added my own comment:

There would be less occasion for ad hominem remarks if, as Soulscanner says, material was consistently cited. This is the major failing of the article. Quizimodo accuses 'flagrant misinterpretation'. It is certainly an interpretation, but how he can judge it is a misinterpretation I cannot tell. I for one don't read his quotes the way he does. This is the problem with relying too much on one text: it can be interpreted different ways.--Gazzster (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He responded: Well, most of the commentators to date apparently disagree with you. As well, your commentary is even more applicable to your ally in this: given editorial behaviours to date, entailing the flagrant dismissal of references already provided regarding other notions (e.g., multiple reliable references attesting to the official/legal nature of 'Dominion' as Canada's title) and other long-standing dickery, are you really surprised by the reaction? Quizimodo (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And: 'My ally?' Frankly you don't deserve a response.--Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the emptiness of your commentaries, we are not missing much. Quizimodo (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing provocative in my comment. The jab about ‘my ally’ was completely unjustified. The last remark even more so. I responded on his talk page:

I do not know what I have said to merit your rudeness. Your attitude toward me and other users who happen to diagree with you is ridiculous and bloody-minded. Your comments about 'my ally' is completely inappropriate. Assume good-faith and show some respect, even if you don't mean it. And if you carry on like this to me or anyone else you will be reported.--Gazzster (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He responded on my talk page: Your comments have been read. Wikipedia isn't your mother. Spare us your threats. Now, run along ... Quizimodo (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied:

The warning stands. And you've just given it more justification.--Gazzster (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then:

I quiver. Do not comment on my talk page, capiche? Quizimodo 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He then removed my comments from his talk page (which he may do) with the comment ‘removing juvenile commentary’.

I request that Quizimodo be warned about his uncivil comments. They are all too frequent, and obstruct meaningful discussion.--Gazzster (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It breaks my Wiki heart to see things getting personal on Wikipedia (particulary with Valentine's Day around the corner). For now, I request a starting over approach, a shaking of hands, a hug. Therefore I hold out my hand to all involved in the Dominion disputes & make a personal request. Forgive one another, put aside personal frustrations & remember, we're all Wikipedian. Do I see any hands (please respond with Aye). GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to forgive. But my issue is Quizimodo's rudeness. If he isn't going to show respect to other Wikipedians a bucket load of forgiveness means nothing.--Gazzster (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've personally asked him to come here. I'm hoping I can also smooth things between him & Soulscanner; Soulscanner & G2bambino aswell. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quizimodo has chosen not to appear at this Wikiquette report. He's given his reasons at my 'talk page'. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• Quizimodo tends to be uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him, even slightly. I've recently filed for mediation over dealings with him. He generally bullies anyone who disagrees with him when he is not being arrogantly dismissive. His tendency to focus on personal attacks on editors who disagree with him is matched by a talent to avoid any comment on referenced material. Quoted from Dominion Talk page:

--soulscanner (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's an example of Quizimodo obstructing a discussion by uncivil behaviour. Quizimodo, please give us an undertaking to be civil to others, and to try and listen to what they are saying.--Gazzster (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Offers of mediation here and here were also rudely rejected here. --soulscanner (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is how Quizimodo responded on GoodDay's talk page:

Thank you for your attempts to broker peace and foster amity. Unfortunately, I will not be participating in that discussion: it has no standing whatsoever, and (as with many other aspects of this situation) is an unnecessary distraction and time-waster for which the purpose and outcome are unclear. As well, I will not provide additional fodder for those who have issues nor will I provide an opportunity for said editors to snowball. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from this response that he doesn't even acknowledge the complaint, let alone address it. So I believe it's time to take the next step. I will post a report to Admin.--Gazzster (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, a RfC definitely might be an option for you. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm as bit new to all this. Is that the best thing to do?--Gazzster (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Rfc. I'm trying to figure it out myself. --soulscanner (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, ta. But I doubt further discussion will do any good, given that he doesn't even acknowledge the complaint. I might just wait for the response from the noticeboard.--Gazzster (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is mostly for situations needing immediate intervention by an administrator. They don't tend to intervene in cases of incivility unless it's crossed over into personal attack and is serious enough to justify a block. There might not be a lot they can do here. If Quiz. won't go for mediation and you want to pursue this, your next step would be RfC. RfC is used when other means of dispute resolution (mediation, WQA) have broken down or failed and the situation is ongoing and serious enough to warrant further attention. It doesn't matter if the user wants an RfC, and it doesn't involve discussion with him--basically it has outside editors commenting and perhaps making a binding plan of action for dealing with the situation. Best, DanielEng (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My complaint is now referred to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo.--Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

64.107.58.130 / 68.60.240.82

For several months now, 64.107.58.130 has been engaging in a seemingly willful, consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. S/he has repeatedly inserted problematic text (OR, POV, essays, text dumps from other websites, etc.), and continually reinserted it with significantly uncivil edit summaries in response to its removal. See e.g. here here here, here), and here — this is a nonexhaustive list taken just from Chrysler Hemi engine, which was indefinitely semiprotected as a result of this editor's repeated disruption.

Further, and of greater concern, this editor has used various articles' and users' talk pages to launch personal attacks and other significantly uncivil behaviour, to declare Wikipedia policies and norms irrelevant, and to issue statements of intent to continue behaving disruptively — as well as persistently deleting SineBot's automatic signatures of this user's talk page comments. See e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (nonexhaustive list from Talk:Chrysler Hemi engine); here from User talk:Anthony.bradbury, here from Talk:Ford FE engine, and here from Hemi engine.

I have patiently and repeatedly tried to reach out and engage this editor constructively, see here, here, here, here, here, without success. I had a brief glimmer of hope when this editor made some constructive and Wiki-compliant edits to Hemi engine, and I made special effort to thank him/her for doing so, but as you can see from the diffs I've provided, that appears to have been a one-time thing, not an indication of growing awareness or coöperative spirit.

This user obviously has a lot of passion and interest in particular topics, and it seems a shame for that to be channelled into disruptive, uncivil, divisive behaviour rather than productive, coöperative behaviour. I could use some additional perspective on how an editor such as this might best be handled. Thanks in advance. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Scheinwerfermann's characterization of my actions, motives and contributions. I have been forceful in my responses, but only because it has always been 'his way or no way'. I have, according to other editors (Duk) contributed valid and accurate material which has been blocked, deleted and deemed unacceptable by Scheinwerfermann for reasons that seem opaque and obtuse, cloaked in huge cut-and-paste verbiage taking up space, but not addressing the problems. Scheinwerfermann refuses to cooperate, refuses to accept others' viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that I am an editor who has just happened across this dispute, have never edited any of the articles contributed to by the complainant or the plaintiff, and am not a sockpuppet.

Having examined the edit history at Chrysler Hemi engine, as an example, I have to say that most of the contributions by 64.107.58.130 seem to border on original research, introducing a slanted point of view, and with no attempt whatsoever to verify the insertions made during the edits. There seems to be a definite campaign to right some wrongs within the article. Whatever we may think individually of the subject of the article, we should not look to introduce our opinion into it (though we should, conversely, look to remove all other obvious opinions we come across which have been placed by other editors). A thorough re-read of all the Wikipedia guidelines is urgently needed, and, for now, some cooling off is also much required, I think.

And that goes for the complainant also. It is not really policy for blind reversion of complete edits, a dismissive act which should only occur in cases of vandalism. Those parts of the plaintiff's contributions which are not original research or non-NPOV should remain within the article, as long as they are relevant to the subject. Invitation should then be made for third-party reliable sources to be included (where missing), by tagging with the {{fact}} device in the edit.

There also appears to be a measure of patronis(z)ation creeping into some quite strident posting to talk pages. For instance, describing a fellow editor (whatever you think of their edit history) as "an editor such as this" (see above) is hardly likely to placate them. It's dismissive in tone, and is a veiled incivility, and will naturally inflame both their senses and the situation. Whilst the complainant's talk page posts appear to be quite detached and aloof, I sense that they are not made from such a position, and an element of tension is detectable. If you truly believe you need to bite to protect the integrity of the article as you see it, then perhaps the bite should not be so hard.

To close, I would urge both to step away for 48 hours, and return with the intention of fostering better relations throughout their contact during editing. Hope this helps in some way. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just as willing to let this go for 48 hours as I have been to let things go at the Ford FE engine article and have been willing to let things go at the Chrysler Hemi Engine article. In both instances, I am waiting for some constructive response from Scheinwerfermann. At the Chrysler Hemi article, another editor placed some kind of lock on the article with the intent that it would be removed when we came to an agreement about it. I presented the points that I thought needed to be corrected...I am still waiting for some response from Scheinwerfermann. All I get are large cut-and-paste's that are not on point, just flaming against me as near as I can tell.

Is this some part of some formal 'procedure' here at Wikipedia? Do I need to be combing through articles, talk pages and what-not gathering quotes, instances and history?

Again, I'll give things as much time as anyone thinks is needed. But so far, it hasn't resulted in any kind of resolution other than incorrect articles remaining up, with missing citations and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The lock, as you call it, is an administrators' semi-protect, which prevents those who have not created an account and logged into it from making any edits to the article whatsoever. When you view Chrysler Hemi engine, you probably see a 'view source' tab instead of edit or history tabs. Anonymous IPs (such as yours, 64.107.58.130) cannot make any contributions, good faith or otherwise. The admins' other option is to fully protect the page, in which case no-one but admins can make edits, and we all see the 'view source' tab instead of the activity buttons, logged into an account or not.

In this instance, I have one more suggestion to put to you. Formalis(z)e your editorship by creating an account for yourself. I am not putting this to you as a way round the semi-protected pages, but so that you can feel as though you've joined the Wikipedia community more fully. Because it is a community, containing all the things you would expect from a physical neighbo(u)rhood collective - great acts of kindness, tons of help, but also disagreements and negatives. The reason you're posting here today stems from the latter. It honestly is so much easier to resolve things when one is dealing with a name and not a number (literally, in this instance). I can tell from the way you put your messages and arguments together that you are a very intelligent individual. But your potential here is not being realis(z)ed properly, and I believe that creating an account would be a fine first step to integrating, resolving and then moving on to make some first-class edits to what I'm sure will become first-class articles. It needs a lot of give and take, though.

However, I'd like to get a response from user Scheinwerfermann before we go any further. After his/her input, the future course of things may become a little clearer. Thanks for your so far very civil posting in response to my attempt to help. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref, thanks for getting involved here. I've been observing your recommended time-out, have read your comments a few times, and will read them a few more times before responding substantively. This is just a short acknowledgement note; more to follow soon. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref, having read and mulled your comments at some length, here are my thoughts:

I appreciate your perspective on the tone of my talk page comments directed at 64.107.58.130, but I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you. There was absolutely no explicit or implicit malice intended in my use of the phrase "an editor such as this", for example; I could just as easily have said "this editor", for that's what I meant. Both 64.107.58.130 and I are in North America; I'm speaking North American, while you're across the pond, reading English. Unintended connotations have been read-in over much less, so it seems likely this is at least part of the basis for your perception of my tone. I'm confident my edit history overall speaks well for itself in terms of compliance and cooperation, particularly when dealing with new editors, but perhaps there are adjustments I can make to the way I present the information. It would be nice to have some additional perspectives on the matter beyond the generally favourable evaluations I've had from a few admins I've asked to look over my work.

Furthermore, you seem to perceive my careful efforts to keep my comments relevant to content, format, protocol and procedure as patronising and dismissive. This leads me to wonder what you'd rather see me do in my attempts to reach out to 64.107.58.130. I have no intention or desire to get in pissing contests or mudslinging matches with this editor, so even when 64.107.58.130 has called me a Nazi (amongst many other blatantly uncivil personal attacks) I have continued to steer the conversation back towards the content, format, and protocols at hand. I believe that to be a reasonable, proper, and compliant way of dealing with personal attacks; you seem to perceive it as a "bite", and I'd be keen to learn your thoughts on how such attacks might better be handled.

It's a pleasant surprise to see 64.107.58.130's civil, coöperative tone in this discussion, and I sincerely hope we'll see more improvement in that direction, but it's difficult for me to hold much hope for it, given his/her significant track record of vitriolic, abusive behaviour. The diffs and links I posted are not exhaustive, but they are extensive, so I wouldn't fault you for having not have read them all. As recently as yesterday, 64.107.58.130 was still objecting (on his talk page) to being asked to properly sign his/her comments on talk pages, thus continuing a longstanding pattern of not only refusing to sign his comments, but going in and deleting SineBot's autosignatures of his/her comments. This, together with repeated and strident wholesale rejection and derision of Wikipedia policy and those who adhere to it, make it difficult for me to see this 64.107.58.130's civil tone in this thread as sincere and genuine. I hope I am eventually proven wrong on that point.

64.107.58.130 objects to what he says is "my way or no way" behaviour on my part. As I have repeatedly (and patiently, and politely, and in a civil manner) tried to explain to 64.107.58.130, what he perceives as "my" requirements, "my" rules, "my" policies, etc. are nothing more or less than the standards and norms agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. Tagging uncited facts, adding applicable templates, removing unencyclopædic text (OR, personal essays, large text dumps from web forums, etc.) does not constitute messing up an article; rather, those actions are each a part of working towards that article's improvement within the structures and provisions of Wikipedia. Each time I have tried to present this and other salient points of order and structure in Wikipedia, they've gone unread and explicitly dismissed by 64.107.58.130. Until s/he understands that Wikipedia's policies, standards, and norms apply to us all, I imagine s/he'll continue to feel censored, "wikistalked", and otherwise mistreated — If not by me, then by the next editor who comes along to clean up an article to which 64.107.58.130 has contributed unencyclopædic content.

The question of good/bad faith is not always simple, and I fear this is one of those cases. It seems to me that an editor who is repeatedly asked to cooperate and follow WP policy, and shown where and how to do so, and who repeatedly not only doesn't do so but overtly expresses his disdain for those policies and his willful intent to carry on disregarding them, is editing in bad faith. Ignorance of the rules doesn't constitute bad faith, but willfully and defiantly maintained ignorance of the rules might be a different matter. I realise that 64.107.58.130 is certainly not alone in his views; any kind of enforcement of Wikipedia policies is probably always going to be unpopular amongst those who have a strong passion for the subjects that interest them and aren't interested in formal structures or strictures, but this is an encyclopædia, not an enthusiast website or a blog or a car magazine or a book. Anybody may contribute, but everybody must do his best to do so within the rules and behavioural standards of this community. Just as I am confident my own edit history speaks generally well for itself, I am also pretty sure 64.107.58.130's edit history speaks for itself, only it doesn't paint a very uplifting picture. Having had a few admins look things over and received several confirmations of that view, I'm hoping to avoid initiating official administrator intervention; it's no fun for any of the parties involved and would probably not go well for 64.107.58.130. I sincerely hope s/he'll make the choice to behave coöperatively rather than combatively.

Again, thanks for your perspective and whatever further thoughts you may care to offer. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments regarding "cross-pond" use of English (North American? Why do I understand your writing if you are not using English?). When I see a humo(u)rous remark, US or UK, I take it for what it is and laugh. Conversely, when I see a barbed or arrogant remark, US or UK, I do the same, except I don't laugh. Not that I am saying your remarks are anything of the kind, but I am trying to illustrate that 90% of what you perceive as a language difference is a fallacy. Where the difference can lie is in common intelligence, or the lack of it. Ignorance is bliss, but it's also the death knell for anyone wishing to edit successfully here. Luckily, all three of us involved in this discussion are of the former, and able to string three words together cohesively. I therefore cannot agree that 64.107.58.130 can be described as ignorant. I am afraid that, if I sense the "tone" of the words used might be dubious, then it's highly likely that another involved editor may well pick up on that too, whether they come from the United States or United Kingdom. And judging from 64.107.58.130's reactions to some of your postings, he/she is incensed or outraged by what meanings are perceived. Unfortunately, those emotions need to be handled better by the anon editor, or there is no future for them in Wikipedia. I hope I have previously given that impression consistently. And there is no doubt your edit history holds up well, but the matter of your respect or standing in the Wikicommunity is not at issue. We're not here in a Wikiquette dispute to decide which editor was right and which one was wrong. We are looking to find a way in which both can successfully edit in the future in the same areas of interest/expertise.

To use the words "but it's difficult for me to hold much hope for it, given his/her significant track record of vitriolic, abusive behaviour" is, again, unmistakeably dismissive and critical, whether true or not, and whether used here or "over the pond". To deny this is hugely insensitive to a person's feelings (we don't switch them off to edit this encyclopedia, we continue to be human emotional beings throughout, and some thought has to be given to this aspect).

I believe that the root of the problem for (not 'with') 64.107.58.130 is the feeling that nothing they contribute is deemed worthwhile, and that they may expect all their good faith edits to be treated in the same way. Which is why I reiterate that any possibly sourceable, neutral, balanced and relevant information they have added should not just be wiped off in a carte blanche action.

There is a real impression given that this IP editor may well have been initially tarred with the vandal brush, and I am able to see why, but not given enough fair chance subsequently to prove good faith, given the possible sense of injustice I have highlighted above. The matter of whether a person signs their contributions or not is between them and SineBot, usually. It can't really be held up as an indication of what type of editor they are.

I still believe that it will be possible for both of you to successfully edit the same articles, and I would be interested to hear back from 64.107.58.130 once more, although I suspect I have gone as far as I can in trying to set out a common ground from which both can develop. I would also invite other neutral editors to join the discussion with their thoughts on this. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading-in considerably more than I put into my comment regarding English vs. American usage. Of course we're all using English; I was pointing out that the connotation of words and phrases can differ significantly between UK and North American usage. "Scheme", for example, can be a perfectly innocuous synonym for "programme" or "system" in the UK, but it has decidedly negative connotations of chicanery and underhandedness in North America. Likewise, I think the way you heard "an editor such as this" in your head is probably not the way I intended it. I'm sure we can agree that communication happens between or among parties involved, so I'm not laying blame or pointing the finger, merely pointing out a linguistic phenomenon that may be at work here.

I am curious what term other than "willfully ignorant" you would prefer I apply to an editor who does not learn the rules and has clearly stated s/he has no intention of doing so. I agree with your supposition that this editor may feel a sense of injustice at the lack of durability of his/her edits. If that's so, the remedy is quick and easy: when 64.107.58.130 makes his/her contributions in a manner consistent with the behavioural and procedural norms of the Wikipedia community, more of his/her edits will survive for longer and longer periods and his/her sense of exclusion will evaporate. That is the common ground upon which all editors can effectively coöperate towards the betterment of individual Wikipedia articles and the project as a whole.

I bear no especial animosity or ill will towards 64.107.58.130, beyond the annoyance s/he is causing by behaving disruptively and abusively on an ongoing basis. Thanks for your participation. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"…Both 64.107.58.130 and I are in North America; I'm speaking North American, while you're across the pond, reading English. Unintended connotations have been read-in over much less, so it seems likely this is at least part of the basis for your perception of my tone."

Funny, I’m from North America and that’s the impression I get too. "

"I'm confident my edit history overall speaks well for itself in terms of compliance and cooperation, particularly when dealing with new editors, but perhaps there are adjustments I can make to the way I present the information."

” Aw hell, you're just being vindictive. I've been closer to these cars than you'll ever be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semi-Gloss (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)”

“NEXT time, please insert a request for a citation before willy-nilly deleting something. You know, a FACT tag. THEN, you can discuss things further on this page. DO NOT just delete stuff. Zaq1qaz (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)”

"Furthermore, you seem to perceive my careful efforts to keep my comments relevant to content, format, protocol and procedure as patronising and dismissive. This leads me to wonder what you'd rather see me do in my attempts to reach out to 64.107.58.130. I have no intention or desire to get in pissing contests or mudslinging matches with this editor, so even when 64.107.58.130 has called me a Nazi (amongst many other blatantly uncivil personal attacks) I believe that to be a reasonable, proper, and compliant way of dealing with personal attacks; you seem to perceive it as a "bite", and I'd be keen to learn your thoughts on how such attacks might better be handled."

” In the mean time, feel free to remove the "NAZI" and otherwise abusive comments. --Duk 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)”

So why did the comments remain? Because Scheinwerfermann doesn't WANT to remove them. That's not what Scheinwerfermann WANTS to do. Why all the effort expended on making sure my I.P. address appeared? What is your I.P. address?

I’m picturing a train on a set of tracks that doesn’t understand how it might be a wise thing to maybe curve around some obstacle and not cling to a set of rails so assiduously. The Wikipedia “rules” you cut and paste and refer to soooo much are actually “guidelines”.

”An editor who consistently refuses to learn the rules is being disruptive just as willfully as an editor who knows the rules and chooses not to follow them.”…by Scheinwerfermann.

Let me tell you how I think this should be handled: I went through your contributions page; probably 75% of your activity is with Chrysler and its related subsidiaries articles. I can’t find a single instance where you have contributed anything to a Ford article. Suddenly, you perceive a personal attack and you retaliate with an abusive edit of an article you saw I had recently worked on. Then you go to the Hemi Engine article where you saw that I had put in extensive work and contributions and start the same bullying there. You don’t like anyone messing with ‘your’ Chrysler articles. Not the Hemi articles, not the Dodge Dart article, nothing you have 'blessed' can be allowed to be improved. Errors, inconsistencies, lack of references and citations; they don't matter once you have made a Wiki-cross over the article and locked it down.

I have continued to steer the conversation back towards the content, format, and protocols at hand. And yet, the whole Wiki-community is still blessed with a Chrysler Hemi article that contains incorrect information and few citations because you refuse to discuss the points I made so that the protection can come off of the article.

The way I see this being handled is I put in for some kind of tattletale report of Wikistalking, abusive editing, tendendentiousness or whatever this place calls schoolyard bullying.

” he seems to be what is known in Canada as a "shit disturber". It means exactly what it sounds like it means. -- Scheinwerfermann. 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)”

” OK, I can do some of what you ask, like unlock the article for unregistered users to edit, but not if people are just going to keep reverting each other. Can you and the other editors come to some agreement here on the talk page first? Maybe start a new section and pick something small you can all agree on? It might be difficult because of your previous name calling, but if you make the effort, maybe the other editors will too. --Duk 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)”

So this is where it stands. Scheinwerfermann refuses to come on point and discuss the facts that are in dispute. S/he refuses to do anything except complain about my use of an I.P. address instead of a user name. As I stated on my talk page, an I.P. address is more personal and a more reliable means of identification than a made-up user name and I don’t understand the issue here. And I especially don’t understand why it is preventing the correction of a agreed-upon erroneous article that is missing references, citations and additional information pertinent to the subject.

"64.107.58.130 objects to what he says is "my way or no way" behaviour on my part. As I have repeatedly (and patiently, and politely, and in a civil manner) tried to explain to 64.107.58.130, what he perceives as "my" requirements, "my" rules, "my" policies, etc. are nothing more or less than the standards and norms agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. Tagging uncited facts, adding applicable templates, removing unencyclopædic text (OR, personal essays, large text dumps from web forums, etc.) does not constitute messing up an article; rather, those actions are each a part of working towards that article's improvement within the structures and provisions of Wikipedia. Each time I have tried to present this and other salient points of order and structure in Wikipedia, they've gone unread and explicitly dismissed by 64.107.58.130. Until s/he understands that Wikipedia's policies, standards, and norms apply to us all, I imagine s/he'll continue to feel censored, "wikistalked", and otherwise mistreated — If not by me, then by the next editor who comes along to clean up an article to which 64.107.58.130 has contributed unencyclopædic content."

Please note that Scheinwerfermann refuses to discuss changing his viewpoint on the matter. It is my fault, and now apparently your fault. He has made, in this long-winded reply, no real compromise, nor shown a willingness to discuss the article that started this dispute. He does not own up to his abusive editing and stalking of me across two other articles. In short, it really is “his way or no way”.

I would also like to let Scheinwerfermann in on how some of us write. We don’t write an article, with nice citations and references all at once. We may have have some time and write a paragraph, clean up a few paragraphs, then take a break. Then we’ll come back, maybe add a relevant photo, maybe add a citation or two.

According to Scheinwerfermann’s view, it seems, we should have everything all nice and perfect and ready to type in during one session at the keyboard. If we don’t, everything gets reverted, all work gets undone, and who cares about “some” citations when all of them are needed in order to satisfy Scheinwerferman’s “rules”.

” I provided the citation requested, but you deleted the referenced source, and the citation, for the above two examples, as well as for numerous other requests for citations. You seem to be deliberately sabotaging my attempts to provide you with citations. Do you have a problem with a citation from a published book, with an ISBN number, that I cited down to the page number? You are a classic whiner. You can harp and criticize and find flaws, but what exactly are you adding to the project? I’m waiting to see. Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.221.60 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)”

I went through a bunch of talk pages and history last night. I don't know how to link to inner parts of pages, but I kept a log of where quotes came from. There is a CURRENT history of innocuous edits and softsoaping treatment in his first page and a half of edit history. You need to go back to before he first realized I might report him for a more relevant picture of his 'style' of editing and treatment of others.

So, all I take away from this is that Scheinwerfermann doesn't think anything's amiss. That he's right, everyone else is wrong, and everything should just stay the way it is. Is that everyone else's take on this roundy-round?

(Unindent) Well, you've totally lost me there. Disengaged quotations which I take to be unformulated diffs (and impossible for me to refer to easily), and which have severely backtracked this informal process. Quoting other people's gripes with Schweinwerfermann is nothing to do with this method of resolving differences.

I suggest you both now take this to a higher resolution process, because what is being brought out here is far beyond rectification through a Wikiquette alert. I did try. Thanks and good luck. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ReluctantPhilosopher

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This is not a wikiquette issue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is dominating article Sonia Gandhi and is not allowing anyone else to edit/add/delete any information. I had made some recent changes which were reverted by him without any discussion. I had asked hat is disruptive about it? I had already given valid reasons for the same. And in fact, according to him, Political commentry and POVs do not have any place in wikipedia. So why is he worried? And his problem is not anything else, but someone is opposing him with facts.

He is maintaining this article like a fan site and monitoring it daily and immediately reverting any edits which he does not like (I am talking about valid edits). He has also threatened me a lot of times that I will be blocked when he does not hold any such rights.

Following is the explanation of my edits.

Added: She was eligbile to become Indian citizen in 1974 but she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. Removed: As the Prime Minister's wife she acted as his official hostess and also accompanied him on a number of state visits. (No such reference) Modified: In stead of 'she', I have modifed to 'her party'. If you know the civics, you should know that a party recommends a person not a person recommends.

Removed: There has been considerable media speculation about their futures in the Congress. If we go by your opinion, what is the base for this statement? It is indeed a political commentry.

Removed: The 'general view' was that the action could be seen as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation. What is this? Whose general view is this? Clear example of a POV. Has no place in wikipedia.

I request someone to help me adding.modifying valuable information to the article on most powerful lady politician in India. The article needs a lot of cleanup and should be saved from editors like ReluctantPhilosopher.

I would like to ask everyone whether it is ok that someone is dominating the article everyday and no one bothers to look at it?

08:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. If you two still have a legitimate content dispute, you should be able to discuss it using the dispute resolution process. You made this exact complaint a few weeks ago, which ended with arguments about who's a sockpuppeteer until it came out that you were the one using sockpuppets and then the discussion promptly died down. Do you think people have forgotten that? Stop coming here to hash out your content dispute. There are no etiquette violations here, at least none that exist outside of a bitter, pointless content dispute (in which you two seem endlessly entangled). The WQA is not the place for this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

confusing behavior from User talk:ApsbaMd2

Could someone please take a look at recent edits by User talk:ApsbaMd2 and see if they can figure out what's going on. This brand new account has started reverting edits as vandalism, but it seems to be almost random. My good faith edit, and those of User:Huaiwei and User talk:Gryffindor have been unfairly accused. IP User Special:Contributions/152.160.39.70 was accused of vandalism to a page that he did not even edit. It addition, this strange revert was also made. I don't know if it's a bot, or just a strange user. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird. Some, but certainly not all, of this user's revisions have legitimately been vandalism. I'll drop a line at the user's talk page and see what response I get. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a L3 notice for his continued vandalism, in applying false warning templates to various talk pages. It seems to now be a vandal-only account, although I still hold out hope. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rokus01 (concerning article Nordic race)

The conduct of User:Rokus01 in the talk:Nordic race needs to be brought to attention. The controversy is about the question whether the sentence: "For example, the later Nazi minister for Food, Richard Walther Darré, who had developed a concept of the German peasantry as Nordic race, used the term 'Aryan' to refer to the tribes of the Iranian plains." This statement is sourced to a biography of Richard Walther Darré by an accepted historian. Common sense as well as wp:NPOV would mandate the mentioning of Darré's theory on the Nordic Race in this article. Rokus01 objects this, but from his writings on the discussion page I personally cannot perceive if has has actually understood wp:reliable sources and wp:NPOV. His opinion is unsupported by the two other editors who participated in the discussion. More importantly, his conduct has left the limits of what is acceptable within the guidelines of wp:civil and wp:assume good faith. In the edit summary I have been asked to " Go to the nazi pages please" [55] and been named a Troll [56] and Extremist [57]. In his last message on the talk page, Rokus01 accused me of conveying "Nazi POV" [58].

In the discussion so far I have avoided any political viewpoint, and I have the intention to continue this. I am only concerned about depicting Nazi ideology (and it's connection to theories about a "Nordic Race") correctly. That I have an interest in Nazi ideology OF COURSE does not allow the conclusion that I would be an adherent thereof, and I totally object these presumptions by Rokus01.Zara1709 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like Godwin's law applies on a much shorter timeframe when a discussion is already about Nazis. Most of what you describe is a content/source dispute. I'd recommend a third opinion, request for comment, or possibly posting on the reliable sources noticeboard. His conflating your agenda or intentions with Nazism is inappropriate and I have left a warning. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I still think that the ARTICLE ISSUE is below a RFC. Darré has written a book with the title: "Das Bauerntum als Lebensquell der nordischen Rasse" (The Peasantry as Live-Spring of the Nordic Race). Usually there should not be an argument about whether it is appropriate to mention a known politician who has written a book on a topic WITH ONE SENTENCE in the article on the respective topic. That is what I meant with common sense. However, since we are talking about a Nazi politician here, this would also be mandated by wp:NPOV. In anyone else on the discussion page does seriously search for a reason why this wouldn't be relevant, I guess one would have to put up an article rfc, but otherwise the only subject for an rfc here is the conduct of User:Rokus01. He continued his allegation that I would convey "Nazi POV" [59]. He now is of the opinion that the sentence in question would be prohibited because "WP:RS also protects Wikipedia from extremist sources". This is most likely related to an edit war he started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and in which he broke wp:3RR, about which he was informed by Francis Schonken [60].Zara1709 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits of Zara1709 involved the point of view of a Nazi (Darré). Thus, the edits of Zara1709 are Nazi-POV. Moreover, the Nazi-POV was brought in by Zara1709, so it is linguistically correct to say "your Nazi-POV". Why it would be different, because it is Nazi-POV we are dealing with here? Did I say "your Nazi-PPOV"? I don't know Zara1709 at all, nor do I know anything about his personal beliefs or the state of his mind. I did NOT make a statement on his PERSONAL point of view. Nor did I break the WP:3RR rule. That would hardly apply to revert vandalism and undue Nazi-POV anyway, as far as I am concerned. Rokus01 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop and John Zizioulas article

Despite repeated requests to cease, User Cebactokpatop repeatedly bad faith, incivility and several times has mounts unwarranted personal attacks against me:

• 'I have not detected even the smallest desire on your side to learn that there are people out there who do not agree with either JZ or his followers. If you were expecting arguing from my side in typical internet forum fashion - one by one sentence, you are badly mistaken about the mind of the Traditional Orthodox. How low you can be is in the fact that you even modified my own text adding quotation around the first word in the title on this page - Unproven Claims by Seminarist. If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself. In the end, followers of JZ cannot be any better, as the spring they are drinking from, is tainted. ' (01:17, 18 February 2008)[61]

• 'Just because he is the fan of the JZ, his personal orientation should not be emphasized on the Wiki's article. Seminarist needs to learn that other opinions are valid on Wiki, as well.' (20:28, 17 February 2008)[62]

• ' This below is for your own benefit and speedy revival from the falsehood of Zizioulas, Afansiev, Shmeman, etc. "Even if false hierarchs, while being in heresy, will succeed in deceiving and enticing a certain number of ignorant ones and in gathering even a considerable number of followers, then they are outside the sacred walls of the Church just the same. But even if very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, they are in the Church, and the authority and the protection of the ecclesiastical institution resides in them. And if they should suffer for true piety, then this will undoubtedly contribute to their eternal glory and salvation of their souls." - St. Nicephorus the Confessor' (05:56, 17 February 2008)[63]

• ' You are continuing with the vandal approach putting unverified claims "pro" while removing references to the voice of those who recognized in JZ - a faulty man with heterodox ideas.'(14:25, 16 February 2008)[64]

• 'you are trying to push down the Traditional Orthodox View, by creating numerous sections' (21:32, 15 February 2008)[65]

• 'Nope. You came as vandal and backed off only after my reaction.' (21:08, 15 February 2008)[66]

• 'Your constant quoting attitude whenever referring to the term - traditional, explains who you are and where you come from.' (21:05, 15 February 2008) [67]

• 'Your attempt to hide the fact that many people disagree with his work is obvious. What is very low is the way you are tying to do it.' (20:11, 15 February 2008)[68]

• 'This person is trying to quiet down the voice of the traditional Orthodox people who do not see the work of JZ as Orthodox. That is precisely what we call vandalism, and that is why you deserved tag - vandal.' (20:06, 15 February 2008)[69]

(The context of these remarks is a dispute in which I wish to have removed POV material from John Zizioulas article - see Talk:John Zizioulas.)

I do not believe such comments are acceptable on Wikipedia.

Seminarist (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

Stuck

 – If administrator attention is required, you'll have to go to an administrator's noticeboard. In general though, posting repeated warnings isn't helpful - if you're complaining about someone's behavior at a place like this, it's best to let others warn him (and only once). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a situation where an editor (who is also an admin, for what it's worth) is exhibiting unprovoked rudeness and belligerence. The user is also expressing an attitude in clear defiance of WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS.

• My post

Mikkalai's response

• My post

Mikkalai's response

• My post

Mikkalai's first response

Mikkalai's second response

• My notice that I had opened the above discussion (I placed this template on each of the relevant article talk pages)

Mikkalai's response (he posted this same response to each instance of that template)

As far as I can surmise, Mikkalai took issue with my first post, in which I agreed with someone else's opinion (someone with whom he appears to have already been arguing) on a simple matter of style, and from that point on appears to have decided that nothing I say is worth any of his time. Everything I've suggested with regard to the articles in question and his conduct has been met with rudeness and an attitude that says, effectively, "Go away, you don't know what you're talking about, I own these pages and I'm making the decisions". I don't think that this is appropriate behavior for any editor, much less an admin. -- Hux (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above edits, User:Mikkalai is being unnesecarly rude to you, and is not appreciative of Wikipedia's policies. I will leave a warning with this user. (Note to anyone: This is my first case, so if I am doing anything incorrectly, just say.) Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help from others as User:Mikkalai is levaing me rude messages now. I will leave User:Mikkalai another warning. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai is deleting any and all warnings left by me. As I am now being attacked, I shall no longer be a mediator in this case. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai's responses to my warnings As you can see from the link, User:Mikkalai is attacking me more. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Case is now at an administrator's noticeboard. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I posted a response on Mikkalai's talk page regarding his Wikilawyering accusations, the nature of which suggested that he didn't fully understand what the term meant. -- Hux (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that now he's simply deleting all record of communication regarding this issue from his talk page. For example, Southern Illinois SKYWARN's warning about personal attacks and a violation of WP:OWN was reverted by Mikkalai one minute after it was posted. The same user's notice that he'd opened a case at the admin's noticeboard was reverted five minutes after it was posted. A few minutes after that the entire talk page was blanked and replaced with an attacking message that clearly refers to this alert and the ANI case. He also did the same thing with his user page. This latter action is kind of interesting because of what was blanked out: a story that appears to lay bare his general attitude of how Wikipedia should work.

Taken together, I think it's obvious that he has no intention of being part of this process (indeed, he appears to be actively trying to cover up its existence on his talk page, along with any other criticism) so I doubt this alert will solve the problem at hand. -- Hux (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk page. As much as this does or does not demonstrate a willingness to participate in the WQA or whatever, he is allowed to remove such messages. I will not comment as to how that reflects on the current dispute, but you should be aware of the fact that users are free to remove whatever unwelcome messages they want from their talk page (whether or not they should be unwelcome is another matter). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that users can never remove messages from their talk pages. (If you inferred that then that was my mistake.) However, I believe I'm right in saying that removing such content when it is relevant to an ongoing dispute in order to cover up one's actions, or otherwise influence the resolution of that dispute, is considered bad form. That's the reason why I made note of Mikkalai's user/talk page activity above. -- Hux (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, that is true. However, since it's Mikkalai's talk page, he is entitled to remove the comments whenever he wants, with no explanation. Removing warnings and blanking the page are, for purposes of this type of issue, taken as a sign that he has read those warnings and acknowledges having received them - at that point, if he continues doing the things that the warnings are being given for, further action can be taken, and a reviewing admin will be able to see the prior warnings in the edit history. Meanwhile, it sounds like you're right to take this to the Admin Noticeboard - we can only really help you here by providing guidance on how to resolve disputes, but that can only help so much when one party is unwilling to cooperate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I appreciate it. And yes, I agree that this WQA isn't going to accomplish much unless Mikkalai chooses to take part which, given his recent actions, is unlikely to happen. -- Hux (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Prester John

Resolved

 – Capitana (talk · contribs) indef. blocked as sock of Lancastria (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prester John seems to (for lack of a better word) "follow" articles related to Islam around and suck the life out of the and insert images and content obviously intended to portray Muslims badly.

I will counter-claim that this brand new disruptive user is a SPA sock designed to harass me with baseless personal attacks. A checkuser request soon should re ban this user. For clarity my responses shall be in bold' Prester John (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This "brand new disruptive user" will quote "Checkuser is not for fishing" --Capitana (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_and_antisemitism&diff=190695993&oldid=190642446 - Ignores consensus and adds an image because he wants to (without a coherent edit summary).

   A blatant falsehood. See the relevant consensus at the talkpage here. Prester John (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Hicks&diff=prev&oldid=190524982 Removes chunks of text without a summary.

   Quite funny this one. Sock originally deleted a whole slew of my edits in one go here with no edit summary whatsoever. Prester John (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_and_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=190701033 Undoes my reversion of his image citing WP:Stalk

   Well, It is obvious, Prester John (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prester_John&diff=190526378&oldid=190347374 Removes simple warnings from myself and another user with the edit summary "trolling".

   Which they are, and which I'm entitled to do.Prester John (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shama&diff=prev&oldid=191989588 Removes adjectives in an Islam related article this time citing WP:PEACOCK - a welcome change from WP:MOSISLAM. This is a fine example of Prester John rigidly quoting policy to further his own ends.

   User seems to unable and unwilling to follow the rules and regulations laid out by wikipedia.Prester John (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

6. His username itself! See Prester John. Apparently Prester John was a king responsible for "resisting Muslims". An obvious indicator of PJ's contempt for the religion and (in my view) his sheer racism.

   A coment that should get this user indef blocked for WP:NPA. How he thinks he knows my race is very interesting.Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=176736988#User:Prester_John_on_another_delete_rampage Prester John's previous community backed block (for reference).

   Is digging up a previous block relevant to the Wikiqette alert section?Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=105742385 Insults the victims of the "stolen generations" (just look at the edit summary!)

   Keep in mind this edit is over one year old, this dude is totally stalking me.Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=88774784 An early edit of Prester John's - one of many where he insults the previous user's edits.

   This edit was made in 2006, hardly relevant to Wikiquette alerts.Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Wood&diff=prev&oldid=88782647 "Morons should not create articles" says Prester John.

    Another edit from 2006.Prester John (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prester_John&diff=prev&oldid=170663669 Here Prester John shrugs of admin advice "boring, I know what a sources is"
12. Prester John has previously been reprimanded for referring to "left wing scum" - still trying to find the link I had it five mins ago!

In my opinion, Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is behaving in a racist manner - however as I have stated in the talk page of David Hicks - as a human rights activist it would be a Conflict of Interest for me to get involved. I therefore request comment here. Also if you look through his contribs he seems to make niggly little edits at every corner to Islam related articles such as removing "holy" from Koran, changing "makkah" to "mecca". He basically uses WP:MOSISLAM to the letter (the parts he agrees with) in order to make nasty edits where they are not needed! His block previously seems to have done little or no good at all as he is still exhibiting the same behaviour as always.--Capitana (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the user has repeatedly interfered with this report (see history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=192345406&oldid=192197739 ). --Capitana (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are being a dead horse into glue at this point. Many of these vios. date back to 2006 or 2007 and some are really not specific to wikiquette. Further, some are content removals without edit summaries, hardly the work of a vandal -- although if it continues on and is persistent, then an issue can be raised regarding that. I noted that Prester John was blocked previously for prior vios., so including those vios. that date to 2006 and 2007 into this report is pretty much voided as a result. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And although inserting comments into other user's replies may be considered bad form, it is by far not interference or incivil. I made a notice on the user's talk page regarding this, and he has corrected it by adding in signatures to note that the inserted comments were made by him, and not by someone else. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A CU request has been made under Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Capitana. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And... Capitana (talk · contribs) == Lancastria (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mrg3105 and articles with accented characters in their titles

This user has been adding "disputed title" tags on dozens of articles (mostly Romanian cities/regions), arguing that any article whose name contains diacritics (such as the Romanian letters Ă, Ş, and Ţ) indisputably violates WP:UE and must be changed to an accent-free form. See, for example, Chişinău (the capital of Moldova), and its talk page, where prolonged discussions of the issue seem to be going nowhere. Could we please get some outside input as to whether Wikipedia policy really demands that all articles in the English Wikipedia must have diacritic-free titles? Richwales (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify that my tagging was intended as an exercise in trawling and not trolling, to see if anyone other then User:Eurocopter tigre will join the discussion --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wiki to make a point. Placing dispute tags for no other reason than to try to drum up editor attention is inappropriate and can be considered disruptive. I'm sure there's a Wikiproject Romania, so if you want to get other editors interested in certain pages, why not try asking there? Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your advice. I have replaced the tag on the one article with a suggested alternative title to reflect ongoing discussion on the dispute. I have also requested advice on the 3RR rule. I am also in an ongoing discussion elsewhere on a related issue. Thank you --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 09:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. I would suggest that the titles remain with the proper accents, FWIW. There's nothing on the English Wiki that prevents accents being used in proper names. On a lot of Wiki pages for places and people with accents in their names, the unaccented title is a redirect to the proper accented one (for instance, Andreea Raducan leads to Andreea Răducan). You could always do the same thing for Chisinau, et al. Best, DanielEng (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are not suggesting we discuss this here. If you wish to join into the discussion in Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I'd be glad to explain to you why the Wikipedia editors were mistaken during previous discussions, and how your proposal can not be applied. I strive to use only Wikipedia policies, guidelines and conventions and not to use my own POV to arrive as the conclusion that accents are not something that should/can be used in Wikipedia.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not even remotely interested in joining any content dispute. I was just offering a suggestion you might not have been aware of. If you wish to debate this, I suggest you do so at Wikiproject Romania et al with the relevant editors. In the meantime, please be reminded of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. Best, DanielEng (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. I will soon be submitting a proposal for policy change on Village Pump which has Worldwide consensus, not on one, but two points of Wikipedia policy. By the way, would you agree that Wikipedia policy is there to make a point? Administrative enforcement of Wikipedia policy is therefore not same as WP:POINT? Am I correct in this?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. Wiki policy is a set of rules developed through consensus, trial and error and any applicable laws (as in BLP) and they are there to keep the project in some semblance of order, not to prove a point. At the moment, you don't have any official policy or consensus to back you up--only your belief that the current consensus is wrong--and so yes, you are trying to prove a point. You've already stated that your reason for tagging so many articles was to 'trawl' for user response. If your naming convention is accepted by consensus as policy, that's fine. If it's not, you'll have to accept that the majority does not agree with you and move on. It really won't be the end of the world and there will be plenty of other articles to edit. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

USER:Andyvphil personal attacks

Stale

 – Incivility on both sides, and clearly no willingness to work through the WQA constructively. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

---

This user has become increasingly incivil and the personal attacks, including Straw Man discrediting attacks, failure to WP:AGF and generally hostile comments have recently culminated in this edit. More diffs available if needed. WNDL42 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional Diffs:

• here
• here

More as time allows.WNDL42 (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed at how an editor can make a personal attack, and strike it through originally. Strike-through is almost always for comments retracted later. To make a personal attack, strike it through, and say "oh sorry, forgot about WP:CIVIL" doesn't seem to respect WP:CIVIL at all. His talk page indicates that he's had issues mislabeling his reverts as "rvv," making personal attacks, not assuming good faith, edit-warring, etc. I've left a warning, however, this incivility seems to be a piece in a bigger picture (the bias/agenda that are quite transparent in his contributions regarding Obama). I'm not sure what kind of attention is necessary here, so I'm hoping somebody else has a better idea. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WNDL42 keeps accusing me of being a Moonie MEATPUPPET for User:Jkuhner, better known as Jeffrey T. Kuhner, editor of the online magazine Insight. I debunked this when he first did it a week ago but he keeps doing it.[70] And he's been giving me bogus 3RR warnings for about a month. You write of similar activity "This kind of bullshit (and that is what it is) le\d me to stop contributing so actively to the WQA and has made me reconsider the value of spending my time here at all", and I suppose I could follow suit. Buit for now I will continue to undo WNDL42's attempt to transform any mention of the Insight/madrassa controversy into an assertion that Kuhner lied about being told lies about Obama, a BLP violation if I ever saw one. Outside of Insight (magazine), that is, where I am POINTily letting him have his head in the expectation that the stink level of the POV may finally reach the nostrils of someone who will object to it.

And, no, I'm not a Moonie and have had no contact with Kuhner outside of Wikipedia. And he didn't respond to my comments when he objected,[71] to a much less tendentious (pre-WNDL42) version of his bio and the Insight article. Do I really have to say this?

Let me emphasize: I don't know if Kuhner is telling the truth about what he was told. But I know I don't know, and I know WNDL42 doesn't know, and I know the various (non-principal) sources we quote don't know, and that any assertion to the contrary is a falsehood directed at Kuhner, a "smear" at least as mendacious as that directed at Obama by (party uncertain). And I won't stop writing and rewriting the necessary distinctions into articles where they are not made.

Btw, I searched my user page for "rvv" and didn't find it anywhere. What are you talking about? Andyvphil (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost the entirety of your response has nothing to do with the civility complaint lodged against you... --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither was your assertion that my bias was transparent. I chose to respond to that rather than deny the obvious, which is that WNDL42's POV-pushing "bullshit" (your word) has sorely tried my patience. So, tell me: what is my bias/agenda if it's not what I've said it is? If it's so transparent it shouldn't tax you much to describe it. And the description will tell us a lot about your biases and suitability to sit in judgement on this matter. Answer my question before you change the subject. Andyvphil (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You've decided to incorporate personal attacks based on decontextualized and unrelated items from my userpage into this discussion, which should have nothing to do with me and everything to do with your inappropriate conduct in the middle of a content dispute in which you, as I said, appear to be adding nonNPOV material. Because you've decided to lash out at me in an inappropriate fashion, I am going to discontinue responding to you in this complaint. I've made my assessment of the situation, and your opinion of my userpage has nothing to do with that. I will point out that the users who've made a habit of personally attacking WQA respondents, third opinions, or mediators, they don't get alot of help around here, so maybe you should try changing your attitude about the dispute resolution process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I've made a "personal attack" on you??? Where? Quote me. Or, if you won't reply any more, anyone please quote the "personal attack" in question. I don't see it. What I do see is someone who's accusing me of adding non-NPOV material (no specifics or diffs specified) and having a "transparent agenda/bias" (which he refuses to specify), and who sees evidence of my having "issues mislabeling his reverts as 'rvv'" where none exists and who feels free to call the actions of other editors "bullshit" (which indeed they may have been) telling me that when I do the same I'm supposed to be contrite. nb: You can't "discontinue responding" to me if you never responded in the first place. But, no, I see no evidence that I should welcome your input. Andyvphil (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's break this down to a bit more simple level: 1) Complaint is filed. 2) I warn you and mention here that these are serious complaints and make a parenthetical remark about how the underlying content problem, in which you appear biased, is the real issue. 3) You respond by quoting decontextualized remarks from my userspace back at me, and question my "suitability to sit in judgement [sic] on this matter," despite the fact that the only issue here is your incivility. You have demonstrated that you are clearly unwilling to participate in the WQA in good faith, so I don't see the point in explaining this in any more depth. Stop making demands about diffs too. When you were given a 3RR warning, for example, there is no requirement that you be provided diffs (not to mention four of them - the 3RR warning comes before revert 4). --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What part of "bogus 3RR warnings" didn't you understand? When faced with bogus 3RR warnings I will ignore your instructions to me and continue to demand the diffs that don't exist. And civility does not require that I pretend that your opinions, still less your instructions, have any validity. I'll reconsider if and only if (a) you identify what I said to you is a "personal attack", (b) you identify a non-NPOV edit such as you assert I've made and defend your characterization of it as such, and (c) describe my "transparent agenda/bias" in specific terms. Barring that, it's not my "good faith" that's in question. Andyvphil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is. That's what a WQA complaint against you entails. I'm not going to defend my tangential/parenthetical comments about the larger content dispute because (despite you flying off the handle, and yes you did, about it) that is not what the WQA is about. You've made some rude comments, attacking other editors. Stop making them. Those aren't my "instructions" - it's policy. Follow it or don't. I'm not interested in being dragged into your content disputes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, what WQA is actually supposed to be is intervention by neutral paries to provide "perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." Read the damn box. When you start out by announcing that my "talk page indicates that [I've] had issues mislabeling [my] reverts as "rvv," making personal attacks, not assuming good faith, edit-warring, etc.... incivility seems to be a piece in a bigger picture (the bias/agenda that are quite transparent in [my] contributions regarding Obama)" and then compound the offensiveness of your attacks by refusing to substantiate them I don't think I need pretend that that you are someone whose intervention I ought to welcome or whose judgement(what was that "(sic)" about? That is thea way the word is spelled.) I need respect. Andyvphil (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want neutral third-party advice and mediation if their opinions suit you? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. And "sic" means you misspelled judgment. It's a part of how one quotes another. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong about that too. Both spellings are acceptable.[72][73]. And, no, I'm not much interested in "mediation" by purportedly neutral third partys when their "parenthetical comments" indicate a preexisting hostility and they proceed to do things like demanding that I not respond appropriately to bogus 3RR warnings spamming my talk page, etc. Judgment or judgement, you haven't demonstrated either. Andyvphil (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been contributing to the articles in question, mainly to be sure that they are not used to attack Senator Obama unfairly. I have found that Andyvphil is basically fair-minded and constructive, although he does lose his temper sometimes WNDL42 does seem to be sincere, however he sometimes goes overboard about trying to make the articles express his own opinions. Redddogg (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

another contributor here- i think that Andyvphil is not using personal attacks in any problematic sense, but they need to work on making their edit summaries more clear and using talk to resolve countering proposals, rather than instantly reverting which is a behavior I see too often from this user. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Andyvphil, the only topic that is being discussed on this page right now is your conduct toward other editors. Not your content disputes, not your bias, not the Moonies, not what another editor has on his or her personal User Page, not whether or not a particular editor tries your patience. Your behavior. That's the basis for this WQA. Nothing else. Even without looking at the diffs (which I did), the way you flew off the handle and snapped at Cheeser1 above would make me think that this particular complaint has some merit.

You're editing an article on a controversial subject, we know. I'm sure discussions there can get heated and editors with conflicting opinions can get frustrated and ornery after a while, all the way around. Fair enough. Conflicts from Insight have been dragged in here before, in fact. All the same, commenting on the user and not the content, and lashing out, is not a way to win allies here. If what is happening at the article is pissing you off, back off and take a break. If there are BLP violations going on, there's a noticeboard you can consult for help. If there's an issue you can't resolve, take it to someone for a third opinion. It's that simple. You have options. Turning into an angry mastodon won't help you and it won't help the article, and it might drive away those who would have been willing to help you before. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Further instances of Andyvphil's incivility can be found at this AfD discussion, as well as these diffs from Talk:Insight (magazine): here, here, here, etc., not to mention the (deleted) talk page of that deleted article. User misrepresents and disregards arguments made by other editors, employs abusive and unhelpful language to describe the comments of others, and disrupts by moving goalposts, semantic games, and failure to assume good faith. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 06:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He's already been admonished--all the examples really won't do anything else at this point. We can't do blocks and bans, and if you feel there's a more serious issue with the user, it will need to be addressed through the proper channels. The advice I gave above goes for everyone working on this article, FWIW--disengage if necessary and take a break before the warring gets out of hand. Insight seems to have a lot of ongoing issues among the same group of editors, and WQA really is not the place to find counsel for ongoing disputes (see "What WQA CANNOT do" at the top of the page). You might as a group want to try to find a neutral third party editor to step in on that article to mediate the discussions and edits, as is done on some other controversial pages around Wiki. Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lessee, Cheeser1 mischaracterizes the contents of my talk page and volunteers that I'm editing with a transparent agenda/bias and you characterize my stiff but civil inquiry as to what he specifically means as "flying off the handle"? And the only question is my behavior and not that of the other editors involved? Well, those are your opinions, and given that as a sample I think I've had ENOUGH of them. Btw, WP:3O evidently doesn't apply (someone did ask and was turned down) and a BLP noticeboard posting got no input from anyone not already involved. The next step is actually a RFC, but I haven't had time to put it together. It's already on my todo list, though. Andyvphil (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I never used the words "flying off the handle." --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't say you did. "You" in the relevant sentence is DanielEng. Andyvphil (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil (talk · contribs) for easier access. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Breach of incivility:

• Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008: [74] [75]

Outside of that, I can't find that much (dating back to 17 February). Wndl42 (talk · contribs) has been far more incivil than Andyvphil. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it's not only my behavior that deserves attenton here, DE's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. Andyvphil (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As you'll notice, above I said that the advice I gave applies to everyone working on that particular article. This complaint however was specifically posted about you, so yes, that means we're talking about your behavior, not anyone else's. The article disputes don't excuse you from having to be civil. Even if you thought your reply was "stiff but civil" that is not how it came across. Telling someone "If it's so transparent it shouldn't tax you much to describe it..." is going after the user and straying from the issue. Perhaps other editors are also interpreting what you're writing as being uncivil and lashing out, even if that's not what you were trying for. And I don't see the phrase "flying off the handle" in my reply anywhere either, for the record. Best, DanielEng (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"you flew off the handle"--Daniel Eng, initial post, the one beginning "ENOUGH". And the purpose of WQA is not "to to discuss the behavior of the person complained about, severed from the context in which it occurred". Among other things, that Wndl42 (talk · contribs) (the complainant) "has been far more incivil than Andyvphil", according to User:Seicer. And if you are going to transform this into a kangaroo court, I am damn well not going to be silenced about the evident biases of one kangaroo just because another yells ENOUGH. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You seem to think that because there are comments about your behavior, we're siding with the complainant. Not so. As I've said numerous times, many of the editors on that article need to completely chill out and stop bickering. If you look a little further up the page, you might notice that Wndl42 had another complaint here that didn't go so well. I can't speak for anyone else, but I doubt that any of the WQA editors care in the least about the content or political nature of the dispute, your personal biases, or if the article implodes from all the edit warring. We're looking at the complaint as it's filed, and the observations have been that you're behaving in an adversarial fashion.

Again, whatever the other person is doing, it doesn't give YOU the right to level personal attacks or be uncivil. Even if you're dealing with an IP vandal troll, if you start personally attacking them and being rude, you'll get blocked too, because the rules apply to everyone, regardless of context. Step back and look at how you've acted just in this WQA...you've been openly hostile to everyone who has responded. And why? None of us really know you from Adam, do we? What reason would we possibly have for any sort of grudge or skewered viewpoint?

It's really your choice. You don't have to listen to any of the WQA editors, or anything anyone else says to you. It's of no consequence to me. You'll just have to decide what kind of experience you want on Wiki: getting angry, making personal attacks, arguing and possibly getting blocked, or trying to calm down, being more civil to other editors, and having a more productive time here. Every single minute you've spent fighting other editors here could have been spent elsewhere, editing. Perhaps that's something to consider. Best, DanielEng (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"I can't speak for anyone else, but I doubt that any of the WQA editors care in the least about the content or political nature of the dispute, your personal biases, or if the article implodes from all the edit warring. I willing to believe that of you. I think you merely decided to jump in on the side of a fellow WQA editor when he complained of a "personal attack" without thinking enough about whether one had actually taken place. But Cheeser1's unjustifed attacks make it quite clear that he has a dog in this fight. And you need to reconsider any line of argument that leads you to think that you can look at my conduct in isolation from that of the other editors involved. Get real. In the real world of Wikipedia the civility police aren't so active and effective that standing up for yourself isn't usually the best policy. Notice that the implication of your comment is that you can waste all your time in fora like this, otherwise. Andyvphil (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of the WQA is to examine the editing of the editors in question. The fact that I responded in a way that was critical of your "dog" in this "fight" does not mean I have some horrible agenda against you as you seem to think (a "dog" of my own). Responding to a WQA complaint is not a personal attack (bizarre, coming from someone who's perfectly willing to parrot the instructions at the top of the page to me, but doesn't notice the big one at the bottom there explaining that contributing to a discussion about people involved in WQA disputes does not itself constitute a personal attack). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

When your "contributi[on] to a discussion about people involved in WQA disputes" began by declaring that my "incivility seems to be a piece in a bigger picture (the bias/agenda that are quite transparent in [my] contributions regarding Obama)" you announced your adherence to one side of a content dispute. It's too late for you to pretend neutrality. And I'm not the one who squealed "personal attack!" without being able to back it up. I haven't used that phrase at all, except when referring to your misuse of it. Andyvphil (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to reinforce my assessment of this situation. This discussion has degraded and is no longer serving to address the problem at hand - your incivility. I'm closing this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Verita & User:Subhan1

This is my first time using the alert system, so let me know if I am doing something wrong. User:Verita & User:Subhan1(same person) has been editing the page on Prof Hamid Dabashi, with excessive peacock terms and constantly removing any cited information that he sees as unfavorable. This person lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him, accusing them of being "zionists" and "losers". In fact, I suspect he might even be Prof Dabashi himself, since his entire editing history is about 99% on that page alone. I, and others, have warned him about his uncivil behavior and to stop removing the material. If you look at his comments on the history and talk pages they speak for themselves.BuboTitan (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:BuboTitan

It is laughable that BuboTitan who has been obsessing on Hamid Dabashi's page for months gives himself the psychic authority to declare who people are and aren’t and what information are deemed universal truths and thus worthy of putting up on wikipedia. I User:Verita have not lashed at anyone who has been decent enough to contribute truthfully to the page. But yes, obsessive and consistent vandals (obsessed to portray him as a racist) have heard what I think of them. I have used the Talk page, provided sources and explained my actions. I hope for his own sake [User:BuboTitan|BuboTitan]] will stop his accusations and slanderous projects on wikipedia and get out of sites where he has nothing to contribute! His projects are sinister, abusive and unsubstantiated by any mainstream and decent source.

User:Huaiwei

Huaiwei is not respecting WP:CONSENSUS on Certis CISCO. There was a dispute between two users, and a third opinion was called in. The third editor gave an opinion that Huaiwei did not agree with, which ended in an argument. The head editor of one of the Wikiprojects under which the article falls - and an administrator - also gave an opinion agreeing with one of the original editors and third editor. Despite this consensus, Huaiwei remains defiant and is still reverting edits, the latest with edit text of "no due consideration for concerns raised." Discussion is on Talk:Certis CISCO#Incidents section. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the following text is probably unwarranted due to procedures as outlined above, but I must point out that this is a highly one-sided comment. Clear WP:CONSENSUS has not been established in the said article, particularly when there was not even ample time given for me to give my opnions before each member proceeds to revert the article. Defiance is not the word to describe someone who has been following basic wikipedia guidelines all along, while a few users with less familiarity of the said topic persists to allerge non-notability despite full compliance with WP:Notability. Kindly be conscious about the selection of words and WP:assume good faith.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability does not govern article content, and a third opinion is one of many steps in the dispute resolution process intended to stop content disputes, not exacerbate them. If outside opinions weigh in and you're the only one who continues to disagree, you might want to think about the fact that WP:Consensus is not WP:Unanimous. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I am implying that WP:Notability "governs article content" exclusively. I highlight its relevance in a situation where individuals with less familiarity of a topic continue to allerge non-notability when notability was proven. I fully understand the virtues of inviting third opnions, but when the third opinionator than attempts to enforce his opinion by wikiwarring as thou he has the finaly say in the matter, I consider that an overstep of authority. WP:Consensus is not WP:Unanimous. Well WP:Consensus is not WP:Democracy either. While I am fully aware of the possibilies of being more accomodating in this dispute, that a small group of users continue to demonstrate non-familiarity in the said subject cannot be discounted.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not wikiwarring; it's trying to put a debate to rest. This issue isn't about non-familiarity; you don't WP:OWN the article. While it's good to have someone editing the article who's familiar with the topic, the article still needs to conform to Wiki policies. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would challenge you to provide evidence on my alleged ownership of the said article. Do not escalate a simple content dispute to one on article ownership if you cannot find a better charge to accuse me of. Till this day, you have failed to support your opinion that the said article do not conform to wiki policy, with many of my comments on notability and NPOV sidestepped or simply ignored. Is this the true spirit of concensus building in wikipedia, or a display of bullying tactics by several individuals who are indifferent about the topic at hand against a single contributor who was only interested in writing an article of reasonable quality?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that everyone but you shares the same understanding of the relevant policies and content - that's called consensus, not "bullying." WP:OWN is a perfectly legitimate concern in many cases, and cannot be dismissed by "you can't prove my version of the article doesn't conform to policies." --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.101.160.213

This user has had civility issue for a while. You can see at [76], [77], and [78], he has had hate against users, especially. Compwhizii. He seems to be discriminating against 13 year olds, getting mad at people for reverting his vandalism, and it doesn't stop. He does not seem to know Wikipedia policies, and is questioning them in the wrong places. He has claimed also to be a dynamic IP address, as seen here. I don't know if this user should be blocked, or just given a severe warning. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may not have started out as vandalism, no one would give him the time to get traction to make his edits, and when you accuse someone who is editing in good faith of vandalism, I can see them getting annoyed. And Compwhizii should really not be telling people "go away, you won't be missed". It appears that CWii simply reverts without actually paying attention to what is being done, he recently had rollback pulled for just this reason. I say both editors should be warned. Maybe someone with more article writing experience than I have could offer the IP help to get the article sorted out in a sandbox space? Legotech (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting unconstructive edits may not always be the best course of action, but when an IP user who contributes alot of said edits starts lashing out, "go away" isn't such an unreasonable response (although no response is usually better). Also, if you're going to quote "go away" you might want to provide a source - decontextualizing a part of what CWii said makes it sound alot worse than it was. As for "traction" - the hostility that this IP user expresses is completely independent of his contributions - even if his contributions were the best ever, such behavior isn't acceptable. Let's also point out that CWii has made a number of obviously valid reverts like this. In fact, that's CWii's only revert in the recent history of that article. I will also note that several others are reverting the IP's edits, which amount to removing content that links to another article because it's proposed to be merged somewhere else (a merge that the IP himself proposed!) That is not a reason to remove content from an article (certainly not reason to edit war)! (See [79] [80] [81].) I see little good in warning either editor (the IP because I don't think it'll help, and CWii because s/he's done nothing wrong), but if someone else wants to stick out their neck and drop the IP an npa level 2 or something, that might not hurt. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dahn and User:AdrianTM

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

---

Resolved

 – This complaint duplicates an issue above, and the concerns in this section appear to be only content-related. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like the users User:Dahn and User:AdrianTM, or any other editors of the article Chişinău to stop persistent removal of {{Disputed title|alternate title=Chisinau}} on Chişinău.

• The title is disputed based on interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on use of non-English language article titles.
• The issue was discussed in the article talk page, but there was a failure to cite verifiable and non-exceptional sources by User:Eurocopter tigre (or anyone else), and the discussion was discontinued by user:Eurocopter tigre
• However, to solve the issue definitively, a more global approach to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on WP:NC was deemed required.
• The issue was being discussed in appropriate WP:NC talk pages, however the two users were not participants
• The issue is a subject of imminent presentation at Village Pump policy review/amendment
• It is an informal convention of good faith in Wikipedia that dispute templates are not removed until the dispute is resolved as per Template:Disputedtag which is itself disputed!
• I would appreciate if the template was replaced on the article until all issues related to it are resolved

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the thread a few sections up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Before you put that {{Resolved}} on the request, you will note that this complaint does not relate to the previous complain, and is not content related! Because of this, I am not exactly sure what it is that you refer me to in the previous section.

Please note that the previous section objects to me

• 1. adding "disputed title" tags on dozens of articles
• 2. arguing that any article whose name contains diacritics indisputably violates WP:UE

To summarise for you

• I agreed with desisting in the case of the first part of the complaint Resolved
• I advised that this issue is outside of the scope of a single article, and is being resolved elsewhere (WP:NC). WQA in progress

I refer you to the section in this page which defines what Wikiquette alerts can and can not do, one of which is Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility

• Do you think that removing a {{Disputed title}} template without the dispute having been resolved (or indeed participated in) is a civil form of behaviour? If so, I will be sure to included it in the template use guidelines.
• Do yo think that 3RR policy applies for longer then 24 hours? If so I will advise the relevant policy administrators to amend their content.

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been given a neutral perspective. In addition, since you yourself stated that you put the tags on the articles solely to 'trawl' and didn't protest when they were taken off other pages, your argument that they were critically related to a discussion in progress is null and void. And you can't dispute non-adherence to a policy that currently doesn't exist. Not to mention that none of these issues are WQA matters. You seem to have missed this part of the guidelines: What WQA CANNOT do: Intervene in content disputes, extreme personal attacks, vandalism or 3RR incidents. Please stop Wikilawyering and trying to get WQA to intervene in your content dispute. We don't replace tags. If you don't like the response you've been given here, you're free to look elsewhere. This discussion is closed. Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Incivility and Personal Attacks by User:Cebactokpatop

User:Cebactokpatop displaying prolonged and continuous incivility and making repeated personal attacks. Primarily on User_talk:Cebactokpatop and Talk:John_Zizioulas, but also on on User_talk:Seminarist.

Seminarist (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop is an Wikipedia:SPA who is openly editing the John Zizioulas page to promote a religious fringe-view, which he calls 'traditional Orthodoxy', and which he sees himself as representing on wikipedia. [82] [83] [84]

He says that because of his religious position, he will not discuss issues of disagreement over wikipedia content in detail, point by point.[85] Instead, he resorts repeately to unjustified reverts, unexplained removal of material, false accusations, incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith:

• He repeatedly deleted my constructive additions to the John Zizioulas page without justification, [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] until an administrator protected the page.[96]

• He repeatedly deleted text of mine from his talk page, [97] [98] [99] [100] until an administrator stopped him.[101]

• He repeatedly reverted my attempts to remove his pov cation of IMAGE;MZIZIJLAS.JPG [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]. An adiministrator then tried to stop him,[107] but he then reverted the administrator,[108] and so was blocked for 31 hours

• He falsely accuses me of lying.[109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] An adiministrator had to stop him repeatedly adding allegations of lying to my talk page. [116] [117] [118] [119]

• He falsely accuses me of vandalism for removing POV material.[120] [121] [122] He maliciously added a level-2 POV tag to my user-page (in retaliation for my removal of NPOV material from the John Zizioulas page).[123]

• When I remove POV material, I am accused of attempting to hide or 'push down' the views of others. [124] [125] [126]

• When I raise doubts about the validity of a source am accused of 'blindness' or 'dreaming': [127] [128] [129]

• I have been subjected to the following personal attack: 'If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself.' [130] (Despite requests, [131] [132] he has refused to withdraw this attack.)[133]

• He tells me he knows 'who I am and where I come from'[134]

• I am accused of being 'very low'[135] [136] [137]

• He repeatedly misrepresents my views in discussion. [138] [139]

• He falsely accuses me of dishonesty. [140] [141] [142] [143]

• He falsely alleges that I removed text from Talk:John Zizioulas [144] [145] (Later this becomes the false accusation that I modified text from Talk:John Zizioulas.) [146]

It seems impossible to engage in constructive edits with Cebactokpatop. Could I have some advice please?

Seminarist (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, Cebactokpatop (talk · contribs) and Seminarist (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. I see numerous bad faith assumptions on both sides, and clear cases of incivility. I suggest that both editors edit other articles or patrol Recent Changes, clear your head regarding the dispute, and come back and have amicable discussions. Nothing is achieved when discussions are heated and it revolves around tit-for-tat arguments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Pgsylv on Quebec page

After 48 hour 3RR Ban for vandalizing Quebec page

05:44, 17 February 2008

User:Pgsylv commits essentially the same reverts with first message:

17:04, 21 February 2008

And leaves message: [147] "We had a consensus Soulscanner. What the hell are you doing ?"

Please undertake to remain civil and discuss on Discussion board. --soulscanner (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the blocking admin regarding 3RR problems and left a note on the user's talk page regarding incivility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Quebec has been protected from further dispute, and discussions are (weakly) on going. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Treelo

Resolved

 – Bad faith nom. from a suspected sock. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Treelo is very rude to all wikipedians. And it was clearly stated in the rules that politness is manditory. Honestly I want him blocked. A lot of users had tried to talk to him, but it didn't work. Also he uses harsh language. User:Treelo —Preceding unsigned comment added by The C. Leader (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs that illustrate the uncivil behavior. Also note that WQA cannot block people, so please let us know what other type of intervention you'd like here. Do you want us to try to talk to him, advise you where to go, etc.? DanielEng (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Treelo (talk · contribs) and The C. Leader (talk · contribs) for further reference. I'm heading out so if no one tackles this before I do.... best of luck :O) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• groan* why do I have to be online tonight? This is a sock, isn't it?? Contacting Treelo to see if he knows who this could be.DanielEng (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:O) I'm back and online. But going to bed. If I have time at work, which I surely will, and someone hasn't tackled it by then... well, I'll probably leave it up to you! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But I've met my drama quota for the week already! You know, this Alert is giving me a lot of impetus to hop off Wiki, stop procrastinating and get back to work myself. :) I contacted Treelo to give him a heads up...it seems we do have a sock puppet on our hands with this report. DanielEng (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The C. Leader is a sock puppet of Crips r us. [148] Made some little group that vandalizes articles. Close this now, Treelo's a good editor. DietLimeCola (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. C. Leader only has a handful of edits since his account was created Friday, and 50 minutes into it... he posts down at WQA? Let me know if there is an open SSP case. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, got notice of this due to Dan's alert on my talkpage and yes, there is an open SSP case for this vandal. [149] --treelo _talk 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

C. Leader is now leaving me messages on my Talk Page trying to convince me he's not a sock...oy. I think I'm hopping off Wiki again for a while, no more drama for me this week! Anyway, Treelo, good luck with this case. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Saul Tillich

• Paul Tillich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saul Tillich (talk · contribs)

Help would be welcome at Talk:Paul Tillich. Article development has completely halted due to disruption by this single purpose account editor who wants the theologian Paul Tillich to be described as "an atheist". The consensus is that this is unsupported by sources, is a breach of WP:SOAP, and is based on original research - particularly this user's personal synthesis of primary sources (in clear breach of WP:PSTS). Excessively long postings are also proving obstructive. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs that show uncivil behavior. What I'm seeing on that Talk Page thus far is that it's an ongoing content dispute and that's out of our area. If it is content and not incivility, you might want to ask at any of the Wikiprojects associated with the article to see if any of the editors there might be willing to step in and build consensus. DanielEng (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

please note that all previous talk page commentary for the article had to be archived very recently, as this user's massive posts had in a very short time bloated the talk page to enormous proportions. it may be worthwhile (or not, depending upon how much free time one has) to look at the recently archived material. the user routinely ascribed motive to me where none was even evident from my relatively terse commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is not content: whether Tillich is an atheist is not unarguable per se. It's the disruptive tactics and incivility this user is applying to push this view.

• 2800-word polemical essay defending breach of WP:NOR [150]
• Personal attack on Anastrophe - assumption of bad faith motive for removal of badly sourced material [151]
• Modification of another editor's Talk page comment to change the meaning [152]
• Lengthy OR essay including personal attack "I realize that the other contributors to Talk have closed minds when it comes to the possibility that Tillich’s God is nonsupernatural" [153]
• False accusation of wikilwayering when warned of overt breach of WP:NOR [154]
• Personal attacks: "You are back to your old trick of basing your claims on nothing but imagination and preconceived opinions" ... "Anyone (meaning you) who does not understand the concept of atheism and thinks it is just an empty label should not be discussing theology" [155]

DanielEng, would you be able to advise? Incivility is only part of this: the major cause of disruption is this user's long and repeated disputations that he refuses to accept are original research. Is there anywhere better to tackle this? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me take a look at this in just a bit. The original statement was in regards to this mass blanking and this. It may be an indication of a longer issue, as indicated above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk page. There are clear cases of not only incivility, but a personal attack and bad faith assumptions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint against ScienceApologist

I am considering a formal complaint about ScienceApologist because of his comment at [156]. I am co-director of the AA-EVP [157] and an active researcher in the field of EVP/ITC. He knows I monitor the EVP article, and so I am assuming that he intended his comments to me and my fellow researchers as a personal insult. Alone, this event could be considered an editor having a bad day, but he has used the same tone many times and his active expression of this attitude in his edits has become an obstruction. I now believe the only remedy is to bar him from editing in the paranormal subjects. The offending quote is here:

"This topic is pretty ridiculous, almost to the point of patent nonsense. Almost everyone who believes in this stuff is basically a moron or an absolute wacko, so it's a little difficult to write an intro that they would find fair. Nevertheless, we are instructed by Wikipedia to write an article with wording that follows NPOV. That's our goal. The perceived slights by those who believe in EVP is not our concern. Since there is no "theory" to speak of, nor is their really anything more to this than the pop-culture significance of it, we are basically charged with writing an article about something that is simply so preposterous that it's "not even wrong". We'll continue to pursue a neutral wording given that we must maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)" Tom Butler (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)