Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

Personal attacks and "outing" threats continue after debate has ended

The following one time or new users have all launched and continue to launch personal attacks on me and other users for having edited the article mentioned below. There is a legal sounding notice on LegalEagleUSA user page threatening those who will edit or reverse any of their contributions on Wikipedia and he/she has attacked me and another user in a long rant on this page here

Also, the following users joined in the Ad Hominem attacks on the proposed deletion page and followed me around to other debates to continue the harassment:

Mr. Brown

Alteran1

66.65.66.144, now known as ElizabethCB123,

These and MANY other new users have only contributed to the same one article and have personally attacked me even after being warned by several editors to stop. There is currently a threat to expose my identity (which they believe they know) on Wikipedia. I would appreciate an experienced editor or administrator looking into these users behavior and history of abuse towards me and others since the abuse shows no signs of stopping even after I had moved on from the debate, stopped responding to them, and moved on from the article in question. These accusations are here.

Thank you!Aa1232011 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I told LegalEagleUSA not to threaten to out, and that it was a personal attack. I have not looked for other potential harassment. Jesanj (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I took Jesanj (talk) advisement to strike a comment and apologized to you on the noted page. However, please be thoughtful before deleting entire sections of articles and/or removing a single person's name from numerous articles without attempts of improving their inclusion. I suspect this (at least in my case despite knowing who you are) is the red flag others have noticed from your edit history. As for new users, anyone can be an editor. No need to finger point as you are also new to Wikipedia and began your edit history with Marisol Deluna. Not to worry, I will not "out" you on WP and remain civil. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your threats of "outing" whoever you have in mind are not only slander but also breaking Wikipedias rules, which I've notcied you don't mind doing. I began my editing history with several other articles at least two months before editing Deluna's article. When I signed on for an account (which I did because I was about to do major edits as opposed to a series of minor ones) all my previous edits did not register in my history. Second, I'm not about to go on a wild goose chase for citations on an obscure personality when their inclusion in other articles is blatatly undue, incorrect, or can't be proven anywhere because it is untrue. Such as Deluna's inclusion in articles saying she was an Argentine and French amongst MANY other inaccuracies. You say "anyone can be an editor" but then attack me for doing just that? You say "no need to finger point" and then you point your finger at me and accuse me of blatant nonsense like you knowing my identity? You say in your page that personal attacks against you will be reported and then go on to canvas several other editors with your conspiracy theories, personal attacks on me, write a long rambling accusation against me and another editor in Deluna's talk page, and then pretend it's personal because you "know" who I am? Sorry, you crossed civility many, many, contributions ago!Aa1232011 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarity, when I made the comment not to "Finger point", it was in reference to "new users" on Wikipedia- As your edit history shows that you are also a "new user". Please do not take this out of context. You have asked editors to review your history. If so, to make a fully determined discovery- Under what user name or IP Address other than Aa1232011 (talk) did you edit from before Aa1232011 (talk) as this would show your fully claimed history?

Additionally, I understand after it was pointed out to me that I had not followed Wikipedia rules on "Outing" as previously mentioned. However "Slander" by definition has not been committed. This is a common misuse of a legal term. Being "Libel" would apply if I were to post your name and I had mistaken your identity which caused you harm. I promised not to expose anyone on Wikipedia, so this is not an issue.

Question: Who is the other editor that I went on a long ramble "accusation" about? I responded to an editor and later took his advise. Please do not misrepresent my postings here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna

One last comment- I looked at the edit history about Ms. Deluna in reference to being American. She is. Under the article about "French people" she was noted as an "Expat" not as a naturalized citizen. She has been an expat. The same in Argentina and may have her papers in order for dual citizenship. I do not know, yet another editor might. Citations would have been helpful instead of complete removal of her from articles and whole sections of the article about her. I am not accusing you of being wrong. Simply it would have been helpful to seek citations first. I am proposing a truce as it is counter productive to quarrel. Thank you. LegalEagleUSA (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As a reminder, Wikipedias policy for living persons is: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." [1] so there was no need to delay the process where there are no originating sources. The mention in a "notable expatriates" section alongside household names of a much more renowned caliber and who can be easily verified to have been living in France for years through many published reports was (with all due respect) undue since there are no third party citations for her at all and even now, her notability is in question due to lack of coverage from enough varied independent sources not related to her. As for Argentina: their law states That's why first you find reference articles, THEN you add the information on Wikipedia. Otherwise every article would be full of incorrect information for years. But if you or anyone else can find third party PUBLISHED reports BEFORE you add info (the way Wikipedia works) I don't see why not do that instead. Finally, your accusations here have not been striked through, deleted, or completely recanted even after three editors have told you they are in the wrong place, against Wikipedia's policy, and uncourteous. I would appreciate some action from your part on this matter. Thank you.Aa1232011 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ and unnecessarily impolite measures to make a point

• Δ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Windows Home Server 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List of Rozen Maiden characters‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Δ resolves to unnecessarily impolite measures to make his point in Wikipedia. In Windows Home Server 2011, a user removed File:Windows Home Server logo.svg from the article; I contested the removal and immediately fixed the issue. However, Δ sent me a level 3 warning and begun an edit warring in the article over a non-existent issue! This is very impolite. What happened to WP:BRD, WP:AGF and WP:DTTR?

This is not his only instance of unnecessary impertinence. A day before, I contested the removal of images in List of Rozen Maiden characters‎, he resolved to edit warring. Even when three other editors objected, he kept reverting to the limit of WP:3RR. Someone please tell me, what makes this guy the law and the rest of Wikipedia criminals? Why he does not assume good faith? Why he does not enter discussion? What makes him the owner of Wikipedia? Fleet Command (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Fleetcommand. You re-insert the image, but the image still does not have a FUR. You may be working on it, but that is not what you indicate (your initial re-insertion comment is "I cannot spot any NFCC 10 violation. Removal by mistake", which clearly does not show that you are working on it). Also, you do not ask for clarification for the first removal (you just assumed it was a mistake, which is already bordering on not assuming good faith).

I find however 'Sometimes, it won't hurt if you assume good faith.' lacking good faith - there was something wrong, they remove the image as it does not have a fair-use rationale, neither removals are in bad faith: something was wrong, you did not understand what was wrong and thereby just re-inserted the violation, you did not bother to ask what was wrong, and when you get warned you go here?

Next time, when Delta, Hammersoft, I (or others who remove images because they fail WP:NFCC, please assume that something is wrong, and if you do not see what is wrong, or do not understand what is wrong, ask first. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I did a good-faith check, then I reverted. I did not asked because I immediately discovered on my own on a second check and immediately fixed on my own. (You even provided evidence to that effect.) Are you telling me that simply because of my slightly flawed first check (inspite of a second complementary check and voluntary fixing of the issue), I do not merit receiving a friendly notice? Being exempt from not just AGF, DTTR and BRD but also Wikipedia:Civility? Fleet Command (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, why should only I ask first. Why shouldn't Delta? (WP:BRD says he should.) And why should only I assume good faith, not Delta. (Right now, it seem I did assume good faith and Delta didn't. -- I did a second check after all, didn't I?) And how comes that you reprimand me for my mild edit summary and not Delta for his DTTR-violating level three warning? Why do think I should have less rights than a normal Wikipedian or Delta? Fleet Command (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, FleetCommand, the message was sent in response to a re-insertion where you, in good faith, did not see the mistake. And that is already where the problem begins. People revert violations back in because they do not see or understand the problem. Sure, there is a possibility that the editor does see the problem later, but the 'I cannot spot any NFCC 10 violation. Removal by mistake' does not suggest that, it assumes the remover made a mistake. If such an image then gets reinserted, a thread should be opened on the user talkpage. That could be a custom message, or a warning template. Here, the warning template that is made for warning editors about NFCC use, is a sinlge-level warning: {{uw-nonfree}}; {{uw-nonfree1}}-{{uw-nonfree4}} do not exist. Moreover, since you were here already earlier pointed towards the WP:NFCC-policy, I think that it is actually a fair warning that repeated violations of policy can result in a block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)No .. but that does not give you the right to violate policy, or to keep things in place which violate policy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you quote WP:DTR I can just as easily quote WP:TTR, which states the exact opposite. BRD does not apply to NFC issues, just like it doesnt apply to BLP issues or copyright violations. AGF is a strawman, I make no assumptions.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Well, well! I am overjoyed to hear all this. These statements are the worst vengeance that you could inflict upon yourself. (Dirk's second message helped too.) A brutal punishment too, if I may say so. If at any time you wanted to apologize and take them back... Ah, what am I saying! Please never apologize! Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't see an incivility here. (Putting a standard template on a user's talk page isn't incivil.) Gerardw (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this user is insolent and aloof and further action should be taken! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Evidence? Diffs? Opinions don't count for much when you're talking about "further action". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You realise that that is a personal attack, Puffin? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be persistent problems with this Delta fellow. Why? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He does have a curt manner dealing with others and is very resolved in what he's doing. Those aren't wrong by themselves but add in that he is working in the area of NFC - which numerous editors already struggle with accepting - and that there's a short fuse if discussion becomes heating. Perfect storm combination of elements to make Delta a constant target for admonition from others. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, back off! I have not personally attacked anyone because this person has been very rude and unethical to me. I believe that your contributions have been unethical, corrupt and unconstitutional as well as hurtful and untrue because I have been warned for an inappropriate reason for doing nothing because on the subatomic molecular levels of the particles of time and space, your ergo in incorrect. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your baseless claims or redact them as personal attacks. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@Puffin: Umm, unconstitutional? Care to explain? No constitution has bearing here on Wikipedia except Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The constitution is the policies and guidelines which this user has broken and destroyed. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also noticed, that this user gets a fair trial for his or her so called "personal attacks." or maybe even impolite replies. But me? No, I get a warning straight away. The user who sent me a warning has not given me the same treatment as another user treating them better than me which can be classified as a personal attack as well. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• If you're going to make a claim that he violated any given policy or guideline, you're going to need to provide diffs to support that assertion. Just saying it has happened is insufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it me or is Puffin's tongue located near their cheek? Gerardw (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: TV and visual media are most adept in creating inapplicable extreme examples that do not apply to Wikipedia. For instance, in a film, I saw a man in front of a court shouting for justice because the murderer of his wife and children was not found guilty; a police officer was holding a gun towards him and reminding him that "shouting is illegal". That extremely stupid example is completely inapplicable, especially in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, we do not have court, law, guns, wives, kids and murder. We just have simple issues: Delta openly condemns and violates Wikipedia:Civility#Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility#No personal attacks or harassment. Puffin only violates Wikipedia:Civility#No personal attacks or harassment. Delta is a hero. Puffin is reprimanded. Another person who did none of these is also offended and reprimanded. Fleet Command (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

@Puffin and FleetCommand. Let me be clear, there is never a reason to be incivil, not to assume good faith, or to issue personal attacks. You may very well be right that you think that an editor is violating that. What you then do, is either tell that person, or you warn that person, or you bring it to another board. What you do not do is issue a personal attack in return, or be incivil in return, or not to assume bad faith in return.

Now, let me also be clear about something else. Someone thinks that something is violating policy. That may have been inserted, boldly, in good faith originally, it may even have had a consensus that it was to be that way, whatever the reason. Someone else 'reverts' that situation, also that is in good faith, as he finds that it violates policy (the editor inserting it may boldly not have been aware of policy, Delta may be wrong, consensus may have changed, whatever. That removal gets reverted. And it gets re-reverted. Clearly, there is no consensus there. Now, editors disagree, fine - bring it to a decent discussion in whichever state it is, if it is there, Wikipedia will not die, if it is out for a couple of days, Wikipedia will not die. Sure, the remover should not go into an edit war, but neither the editors who want to insert it. All of you should be wiser than that. But what happens, the removers get shouted at, even when they show input towards a solution, that gets simply ignored, because the state that it is in is fine, there is simply no discussion possible showing that there actually is no violation or if there actually is a violation.

What Puffin should have done is, if they found that Delta was rude towards them, is remark on that, warn on that, or bring it to the attention of others (and notify Delta that they did). What I saw here, was a (albeit mildly) uncivil remark towards Delta. You may very well be right that Delta did the same, but yes, I warned Puffin to take care. Issuing that type of remarks never helps the situation.

And FleetCommand - this is plainly rude, uncivil and chilling. Moreover, reverting my first removal as 'edit warring' is plainly untrue, and calling my first edit to a page a case of WP:OWN ... I, also in good faith, thought (and still think), that that page overuses non-free material. Removing that violation is not vandalism. You have not tried to discuss the issue, you just claim consensus, you just warn (>24 hours after my edit). And similar for Island Monkey - this is rude, uncivil and chilling the situation (not to mention that I am not even close to 3RR after a first removal in more than 28 hours ..). And after you warn me for my first revert, you go on and revert 4 times. You have all been uncivil here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:141.165.199.134

8 July 2011

• 19:5319:53, 8 July 2011 diff hist +144‎ Paramus High School ‎No edit summary
• 19:5019:50, 8 July 2011 diff hist +6‎ User talk:NJZombie ‎No edit summary
• 02:2502:25, 8 July 2011 diff hist +279‎ Triple H ‎No edit summary Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism

28 June 2011

• 03:0103:01, 28 June 2011 diff hist +183‎ Triple H ‎No edit summary

• Triple H (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paramus High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On June 27, this anonymous user vandalized the Triple H article with this change. I reverted his vandalism and left him a warning. 10 days later, he responded by vandalizing the article again, with a personal attack against me. I reverted his vandalism once again and left another warning on his talk page. I refrained from attacking or even commenting on his attacks. Today, the user returned and not only vandalized my own talk page but also vandalized the Paramus High School article, which I had recently edited, with more personal attacks directed at me. Another editor has placed a 24 hour block on the user after the vandalism on the Paramus High School article but I'm of the opinion that the incivility need to be addressed. NJZombie (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just a budding young troll. Hopefully nipped in the bud. What about the incivility do you want addressed? Doc talk 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not asking for a ban necessarily. It just seems odd that if the user bothered to create an actual account, instead of using an anonymous IP, there would be no hesitation in doing so for personal attacks. I agree that it's some kid trolling and while I can take it for what it is and not get into a war with the user, no legit users looking to make actual contributions should have to just deal with it. Incivility is incivility. I don't know that there really needs to be specifics. The posts pretty much speak for themselves. NJZombie (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Trolls both old and young switch IP addresses and named accounts. Keep an eye on them and they'll be dealt with eventually. From what you've presented, this is not an editor that plays well with others. Maybe they'll learn and maybe they won't. Keep watching for the disruption and report it. Doc talk 07:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like it's coming from summer camp at GSU. It will probably go away when the session ends. You have my sympathies. Jojalozzo 14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru

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

QuackGuru has left several posts ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6]) on my talk page related to an extended dispute on Talk:Pseudoscience involving a large number of editors. I pointed out that the issue was not personal but involved the whole editing community for that article and I clearly requested that QG stop posting on my talk page.[7][8][9] I am quite responsive in the article talk page and I see no need for QG's personalization of the disagreements by posting the same arguments on my talk page. Today another long posting appeared.[10] I find QG's talk-page style to be dogged, repetitive, not-hearing, and tenditious. It's difficult enough in article space. I have been hiding QG's posts to my talk page but I'd rather not get them at all. Are there remedies that will keep QG's posts off my talk page? Jojalozzo 03:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, do you agree you will stop violating core Wikipedia policies? What is the abbrevation dnft stand for? Why did write in part: If not, let's stop cooking this trollish feast.? QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that QuackGuru does not actually communicate but only leaves variants of the same announcement on your talk page (basically saying that he is right and you are wrong and your responses worthless), I think you can simply follow the same approach that I did here. Presumably (I haven't checked), after that he went around telling people behind my back that I was wrong and he was right and I wasn't responding at all, but at least he left my talk page alone. Hans Adler 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim is supported by the source. I recently explained this in detail on the talk page. Do you agree you won't replace sourced text with OR again or delete sourced text from a mainstream peer-reviewed source. See WP:WEIGHT. Your previous approach was not productive. You failed to explain why you are against including the mainstream source. QuackGuru (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither this nor my talk page are the proper place to conduct a specific discussion about editing Pseudoscience. Here we are discussing how to help you recognize boundaries and to limit discussion to locations where the editors involved can participate. Jojalozzo 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

See argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum verbosium, begging the question and straw man. Also: When did you decide that trying to cause nervous breakdowns in serious Wikipedia editors is more fun than beating your wife?

You should have been banned per WP:COMPETENCE years ago. I am pretty sure if you hadn't simply stayed out of the recent Arbcom case which you caused and in which you were named, without any excuse or explanation whatsoever, you would be banned by now. Hans Adler 15:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to said ArbCom case please? DigitalC (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling. QuackGuru's current baseless complaints are the continuation of events in February/March that only he is still interested in. At the time, Ludwigs2 took him to ANI because of the disruption, but Sandstein decided to shoot the messenger, leading to the Arbcom case. QuackGuru was named as one of four officially involved editors, but played dead. The evidence page was blanked. For an overview of QuackGuru's disruptive activities over the years (not exclusively WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE issues but also more active disruption), see here. Hans Adler 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. DigitalC (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Hans Adler. Take QG to ArbCom again please. Why they didn't deal with him when they had the chance I don't know, but they need to do so- unless he can be community banned. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Already done, see WP:AE DigitalC (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So far the responses here have been from those with their own problems with QuackGuru. I would appreciate hearing from uninvolved third parties with expertice in wikiquette. Thanks. Jojalozzo 14:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am. (at least I'm uninvolved) BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am having a disagreement with this editor over dramatic, large scale removal and replacement of cited and referenced content in the Socialist Party of America article. However, I feel that I cannot even begin to reach a reasonable accommodation or even discussion with this editor because the incivility of this editor has been so extreme. My first encounter with this editor was an alert accusing me of disruptive editing for changes to the Socialist Party of America I made 5 years ago and warning of a block for my "disruptive editing". [11] After placing an "NPOV" tag on the replacement section of the article, this users language has become more heated, and he is now calling my earlier edits "plagiarism". [12] This editors strong language around this topic and wholesale dismissal of entire sources can also be seen here: [13] [14].

I would like to settle this content dispute amicably, but do not feel this is possible given the behavior of this editor at this time. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG? Kiefer has some proof of plagiarism here. In addition he has been very civil, so I don't even understand where your statement of incivility comes from. I checked the edit summaries and there are no problems there. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You should be careful with that tool, Ryan. It is the nature of brief histories that substantial overlap must occur. The talk page of the article contains the selected and tell-tail matchings that I found, which were in the cited but improperly paraphrased "history".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ARE YOU KIDDING! First, the "plagiarized" lines shown ARE NOT EVEN MY EDITS. Second, your match detection software is showing things like use of the same personal names as "plagiarism". By that standard, *any* summary of a prior source is "plagiarism". Peter G Werner (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually found the link on Kiefer's talk page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, but it is at least plausible that my edits crossed a line of incivility.

EC

Werner did violate WP:copyright policy by plagiarizing the following pamphlet, which is not a reliable source to begin with.

The tool http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ matches the following strings, the important ones being already listed on the talk page of the article by me:

Automated comparison

Then he added multiple references to DraperDrucker's book, without page references, to support claims based entirely on the SPUSA history, as noted on the page. (He also added 2 1/2 items that I could find supported by Drucker, which I have listed with page numbers on the talk page of the article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

There were BLP violations about the persons in the organization, who are still alive also.

Finally, Werner tagged the SPUSA article as violating WP:NPOV, without stating any specific problems. Even when prompted to list problems, he made attacks on my good faith and alleged political motivations.

I asked Fetchcomms earlier to check whether I was out of line, btw, since I've seen him fix copyright violations quickly. He'll be travelling for some weeks, however. I noted that there may be a difference between the indignation endorsed by Aristotelian and Christian ethics and the standards of WP: I invited Fetchcomms to block me if I was overzealous in describing the plagiarism.

On the other hand, you can see instances where I commend Werner for other good editing and note that this seems to have been an isolated case ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC), so that my criticisms were specifically about 4 behaviors and not personal attacks, clearly, imho 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)).

Regardless, we'll have to take this up more in a few days.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please show me where it's a WP Manual of Style requirement to show page numbers. And that removal of entire content is warranted for lack of page references. The level of changes you demand based on mere nitpicks is incredible. You have basically removed all mention of the disagreements between different factions over the Vietnam War. That's a key piece of history you've thrown out. And all because you're miffed about Hal Draper's take on SPA history, a partisan argument I'm not even privy to, but something you've attacked my motivations for using as a source nevertheless. In any event, WP:NPOV would commend that neither the SPUSA or Draper version of events is favored over the other, but both reported in a neutral manner. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Read "Drucker" rather than "Draper", last night's mistake by both of us.

The SPUSA document is not a reliable source, per WP:RS, WP:Primary, etc: It is also wrong on the facts. Just read Harrington's memoirs and biography (and Harrington was leader of the minority), or the New York Times, or Drucker (who is a Trotskyssant socialist, so has no axe to grind, certainly not one favoring the most centrist organization, SDUSA). The "Debs caucus" was very small (2/33 NEC votes in '72), apparently, and so it is ignored in most accounts, even by those mentioning McReynolds. (Only Busky's book seems to discuss it, and Busky discloses that he was a SPUSA officer since 1978; maybe SPUSA national officer Eric Chester's book discusses it.)

For comparison: User:TheFourDeuces just removed my addition of material from Solidarity (U.S.) from American left, because it lacked secondary reliable references—while I devoted a good hour on Google Scholar and Google Books looking for references—and finding only references that cannot in good conscience be used, because ALL of the authors are members or very close associates of Solidarity. I fear that the Debs Caucus and SPUSA are in the same boat.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Update: I added a very short description of Solidarity, based on a publicly available footnote in Nelson L.'s book on the CIO in WWII (2nd ed.) I wouldn't use an account by him, or Buhle, etc., for more, because they seem to be associated with Against the Current more than WP:Secondary likes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You can use secondary sources published by the academic press regardless of the views of the writers because the nature of the publishing process requires accuracy. We use them as sources of facts not opinions. As you found however, few sources are available on-line. However, the article American Left was well-sourced, using academic publications with news sources only used for current events, so adding unsourced material clearly was noticeable. TFD (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I had hoped that my having (by 10 a.m.) referenced Lichtenstein for a brief Solidarity description clearly had been noticeable too! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a policy requirement to show page numbers where material may be challenged, not just a guideline. WP:VERIFY says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there's some difficulty in establishing the accuracy of the accusations that form a significant part of this WQ alert, I've asked for feedback here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed material that was based on a SPUSA pamphlet, most of which was nonsense, certainly violated numerous WP policies.

Nonetheless, I preserved the beating heart cadaver with life support: I provided the page numbers to exactly 3 assertions, exactly those that could be said to be based on Drucker's book; I suggested "IMHO" that one could be added (judgement call), one was okay but uninformative (and therefore could be replaced with an expanded description of the conflict rather than an uninformative statement of conflict), and that one was more relevant to biographies of Shachtman/Harrington rather to an article on the SPUSA. Werner has not commented on these suggestions.

Werner still hasn't dealt with the issues raised on the article page, but has renewed personal attacks and AGF violations. I wrote a self-criticism and a defense of Werner on my talk page, suggesting that Ryan relax and consider things from Werner's side: Werner would do better to cut and paste that material, free under the WP license, in his complaint, imho!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I redacted my comments on the article's talk page (which had not been replied to there) to improve compliance with WP:AGF and WP:Civility.

On second thought, I think that Werner naively thought that SPUSA, with its tolerant and idealistic history, could be trusted to produce a pamphlet that (at least) got the facts right, and (in a moment of extremely poor judgment) overlooked the alarming turns of phrase (especially "Stalinist democratic centralism" or calling Harrington Shachtman's lieutenant). I also believe that Werner cited Drucker intentionally (apart from 2 1/2 cases) as a reliable reference for further reading (rather than intentionally as pseudoscholarship duplicitously adding weight to the SPUSA falsehoods), although this was a serious error because those WP:BLP-violating sections were obviously contentious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Out of courtesy, one should avoid templating established editors, merely explain to them what policy we believe they have violated. In any case, one should not template someone for an edit made five years ago. One should also assume good faith that another editor may be adding information he believes to be accurate even if it may be worded in a non-neutral way. Just explain what your position is and await the response. A lot of articles about the Left in the U.S. were written years ago and are poorly sourced or may not otherwise measure up to standards that would be acceptable today. We should work cooperatively to improve that. Also, there are procedures for resolving content disputes, but one should try to resolve them with other editors of the article first. TFD (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. In retrospect, I was probably reacting to the "democratic centralism" slander as well as a concern that nobody had caught the undue weight/NPOV/Reliable/BLP/Secondary problems with these articles in 5 years, despite them being edited by officers and activists in the SPUSA and similarly sophisticated and intelligent editors outside the SPUSA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:65.93.15.213

20 July 2011

• 05:3405:34, 20 July 2011 diff hist +2‎ Template talk:Cleanup weighted/sandbox ‎No edit summary
• 05:3305:33, 20 July 2011 diff hist +224‎ Template talk:Cleanup weighted/testcases ‎No edit summary
• 05:3305:33, 20 July 2011 diff hist +29‎ Template talk:Cleanup weighted/sandbox ‎No edit summary
• 05:3205:32, 20 July 2011 diff hist +41‎ N Template talk:Cleanup weighted/testcases ‎ ←Created page with '{{nobots}} {{template test cases notice}}'
• 05:3105:31, 20 July 2011 diff hist +514‎ N Template talk:Cleanup weighted/sandbox ‎ ←Created page with '{{nobots}} {{Template sandbox notice}} {{Ambox | subst = <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly> | type = content | small = {{{...'
• 05:3005:30, 20 July 2011 diff hist +23‎ Template:Cleanup weighted ‎ +small param
• 05:2605:26, 20 July 2011 diff hist +193‎ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 17 ‎ →‎Template:Cleanup-weighted-section
• 05:2105:21, 20 July 2011 diff hist +235‎ Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Wikipedia:FOO
• 04:5004:50, 20 July 2011 diff hist +4‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology ‎ →‎Bannering
• 04:5004:50, 20 July 2011 diff hist +285‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology ‎ →‎Bannering: new section
• 04:4404:44, 20 July 2011 diff hist −29‎ Talk:Ron Larson (disambiguation) ‎ was disambiguated
• 04:4004:40, 20 July 2011 diff hist +302‎ Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics ‎ →‎Algar, Uttara Kannada: new section
• 04:3804:38, 20 July 2011 diff hist +178‎ Talk:Algar, Andalusia ‎No edit summary
• 04:3304:33, 20 July 2011 diff hist +9‎ N Talk:Urinal (health care) ‎ per discussion at WPMED
• 04:3204:32, 20 July 2011 diff hist +302‎ User talk:65.93.15.213 ‎ →‎Project overtagging?
• 04:2504:25, 20 July 2011 diff hist +150‎ Talk:Defecation postures ‎ →‎Move proposal
• 04:2404:24, 20 July 2011 diff hist +136‎ Talk:Stammer (disambiguation) ‎No edit summary
• 04:2304:23, 20 July 2011 diff hist +360‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations ‎No edit summary
• 04:2204:22, 20 July 2011 diff hist +360‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States ‎No edit summary
• 04:2104:21, 20 July 2011 diff hist +229‎ Talk:United States Foreign Service Career Ambassador ‎ →‎Bannering: new section
• 04:1704:17, 20 July 2011 diff hist +74‎ Stenodus leucichthys ‎No edit summary
• 04:1604:16, 20 July 2011 diff hist +170‎ Talk:Stenodus leucichthys ‎ →‎Move request
• 04:1304:13, 20 July 2011 diff hist +201‎ User talk:EEK Research/Duoyuan Global Water ‎No edit summary
• 04:1204:12, 20 July 2011 diff hist +5‎ Duoyuan Global Water ‎ copyedit
• 04:0404:04, 20 July 2011 diff hist +284‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia ‎ →‎Eastern religion: new section
• 04:0204:02, 20 July 2011 diff hist +224‎ Talk:Eastern religions ‎ →‎Bannering: new section
• 04:0204:02, 20 July 2011 diff hist +128‎ Talk:Eastern religions ‎ →‎Requested move
• 04:0004:00, 20 July 2011 diff hist +249‎ Talk:B. B. King ‎No edit summary

19 July 2011

• 07:2007:20, 19 July 2011 diff hist +332‎ Talk:Galaxy morphological classification ‎ →‎Lenticular classification arm: new section
• 07:1407:14, 19 July 2011 diff hist +221‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Eclipses task force ‎ →‎eclipses: new section
• 07:0107:01, 19 July 2011 diff hist +72‎ Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 17 ‎ →‎File:GrimesCrimeScene.jpg
• 07:0007:00, 19 July 2011 diff hist +70‎ Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 17 ‎ →‎File:GrimesCrimeScene.jpg
• 06:5906:59, 19 July 2011 diff hist +211‎ Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 17 ‎ →‎File:GrimesCrimeScene.jpg
• 06:5306:53, 19 July 2011 diff hist +165‎ Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 16 ‎ →‎File:Autorouteexitsign.jpg
• 06:5206:52, 19 July 2011 diff hist +164‎ Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 16 ‎ →‎File:Autorouteentrancesign.jpg
• 06:4806:48, 19 July 2011 diff hist +259‎ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 18 ‎ →‎Template:Filmation
• 06:4406:44, 19 July 2011 diff hist +172‎ Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 15 ‎ →‎The Twelve Days of Christmas
• 06:4106:41, 19 July 2011 diff hist +183‎ Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 18 ‎ →‎Laughlin High School
• 06:3606:36, 19 July 2011 diff hist +54‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Category:Quebecois sculptors
• 06:3606:36, 19 July 2011 diff hist +160‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Category:Quebecois sculptors
• 06:3506:35, 19 July 2011 diff hist +60‎ Dragon School ‎No edit summary
• 06:3506:35, 19 July 2011 diff hist +285‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Old Dragons
• 06:3306:33, 19 July 2011 diff hist +176‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Old Decanians
• 06:3106:31, 19 July 2011 diff hist +193‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Icenians
• 06:3006:30, 19 July 2011 diff hist +161‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Old Bristolians
• 06:3006:30, 19 July 2011 diff hist +188‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Old Alleynians
• 06:2906:29, 19 July 2011 diff hist +191‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Old Cholmeleians
• 06:2706:27, 19 July 2011 diff hist +196‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Old Lancastrians
• 06:2606:26, 19 July 2011 diff hist +232‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Category:Old Elizabethans
• 06:2406:24, 19 July 2011 diff hist +235‎ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19 ‎ →‎Category:Downe House Seniors

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

I have never seen anything like this before, so I don't know where to report it. This anonymous editor is adding various (and sometimes irrelevant) WikiProject templates to the Talk pages on a wide variety of articles (and not rarely AfD). He never leaves an edit summary about it, so it kind of easily goes unnoticed. The Stars_in_astrology article suddenly has been added to the WikiProjects Astronomy, History of Science, and even Agriculture. Diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stars_in_astrology&diff=prev&oldid=438861338 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stars_in_astrology&diff=prev&oldid=438861579 Looking at this editor's history I see he has recently started doing this on the Talk pages of all kind of articles. I wonder, how can this editor be working on so many different Projects? And are the other members on those Projects aware that completely unrelated topics are silently being put under the scope of their Project? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like simple vandalism. Surprisingly, there are no warnings on the user's talk page. Looking into this further I can see logic behind the contributions (e.g. stars in astrology have been and still are used by some to time agricultural activities). Perhaps you could post a message on their talk page asking for clarification.Jojalozzo 14:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to clarify. I was not sure myself. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes the additions appear very far fetched to me. But I see the templates have been removed already, so maybe it is considered vandalism. I also raised the question on the WikiProjects Council because this is something I have never seen before, and they may want to look into it. Why are articles of minor importance suddenly being added to 3-4 different WikiProjects? It's puzzling. I searched the guidelines for maybe 1 hour and found nothing about this kind of practice. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Overtagging is disruptive. That guide calls it "spamming" when minor articles are added to projects. When the motivation is a good faith desire to get attention for an article that needs work it's not comparable to adding links to an external web site. However if the article is for a commercial enterprise (which is not the case here) then the spamming label fits. Jojalozzo 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not overtagging, since the study of the cycles of the stars in ancient times is the basis on which astronomy grew from. And the cycles were studied to determine the correct time to plant. So, it would fall under history of science, astronomy and farming.65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but consider that it is a very minor article with very few other articles linking in to it. I am sure the stars were also used for navigation in ancient times (and still), so should we then also add it to the Projects that deals with navigation? The Project Ships and Project Transport among others? Birds also navigate by the stars, so let's add Project Birds..

Where will it stop?

The imperfect rule of thumb is to go to the main article(s) related to the WikiProject and check what LinksHere. If an article is not linking to it then it is probably not under the scope of the Project. Of course that can change if an article gets more developped. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This specific article covers the relationship between the stars and the equinox and solstices, which I would think, is where astronomy and astrology meet. And it deals with it in a historical context. I do see the point you're getting at. And that's why I only added these particular tags, instead of all possible WPPs. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We're also discussing this on 65.93.15.213's talk page and the article talk page. I suggest we close out this and the one on 65.93.15.213's talk page and continue, if necessary, on the article talk page. Jojalozzo 13:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. No need to discuss this in 3 different places. 65.93.15.213 is responding to questions, and we still have to give the benefit of doubt that the edits were done in good faith, because the motivation he gives is not completely unreasonable. Continue on his Talk. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi

• Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has depleted my patience with this edit, where he calls me "anti-Palestinian". Likewise some time ago in this edit he said I have a "Zionist POV". In addition he is childishly mimicking my edits in discussion, like in this edit. In general his tone in discussion is derogatory. We disagree, and disagree strongly, on certain points, but he has no right to accuse me of having certain sentiments. I'd like an uninvolved admin to admonish him for his violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Please note the many blocks and topic-ban on his talkpage, indicative that this editor is problematic. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Debresser (talk · contribs), I'm not sure but shouldn't you be pursuing this at AE? It sounds pretty clearly like an I/P-related dispute if you're being called anti-Palestinian and Zionist on account of your edits.—Biosketch (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't want to do so, because that would look as though I am gaming the system to gain the upper hand in the issue the discussion is about, since it would be likely to lead to his being blocked. Not that I would consider that a bad thing in itself. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Then as a note to Chesdovi (talk · contribs), calling another editor "anti-Palestine," regardless of the circumstances, could very well be considered a violation of your most recent topic ban. You had best retract any comments made in that spirit.—Biosketch (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

I am being accused of "sickening bias and double standards" by Whatzinaname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on an increasing basis, notably here at Talk:Jenson Button#ridiculous POV pushing. This editor's problem is not that I added biased statements, but that I did not remove supposedly biased statements written by others. Elsewhere, there is this kind of thing [15], accusations of bad faith and bias against foreigners [16] and similar accusations a while ago at his IP talk page (he does not always log in) here: User talk:66.190.31.229#Vettel. On more than one occasion he has used his IP to help his named account in an edit war [17], [18]. Do I have to defend myself against this kind of abuse, or can somebody do something about it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't "edit war" with my IP. I forget to log in sometimes. And sometimes I just don't want to bother to log in. Secondly, YOU are the one biased against foreigners with your easily demonstrable bias against non-british drivers, not me. You are merely upset I completely destroyed your claims of being ubiased in the jenson button wiki talk page, and are trying to save face with these absurd claims.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The accusations of bad faith and bias are thus reproduced here, first hand by this editor. He has yet to produce a single piece of biased information that I have added to any article. If it's so easily demonstrable, then he should produce something here which I have added, that is biased - NOT somebody else's work which I have left in place. This accusation of bias against foreigners is deeply offensive. I edit articles on Formula One drivers of all nationalities and utterly refute all accusations of racial or xenophobic bias, and I request that this be retracted as completely unfounded. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit history shows a distinct double standard for british formula one drivers and non-british ones. It's a simple fact I've detailed several times now. Whether ir's "xenophobic" or not is non of my concern. I intend to crush it whenever I see it. Wikipedia should be an unbiased source of information, period. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If it shows such a thing, prove it. You haven't, and can't, because it does not exist. This is unacceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

you edit war for the inclusion of NPOV edits here for Jenson Button http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenson_Button&diff=prev&oldid=438725819 , then you have no problem with similar edits when it involves sebastian vettel http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Monaco_Grand_Prix&diff=prev&oldid=431640701 . This isn't an isolate incident either, but a pattern of behavior. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• If an editor exhibits a pattern of biased behavior, the correct thing to do is to address this in the form of dispute resolution preferably showing through cogent arguments that the editors edits are not in line with NPOV - not by engaging in accusations or personal attacks. Whatziname has not demonstrated any bias here but has engaged in quite a few borderline personal attacks, ad hominem arguments and accusations of bad faith. This reflects badly on you and frankly does not make anyone look more kindly on your case. You have to stop that and instead discuss strategies for improving to articles rationally and with arguments based in sources. That is the only way to move forward. Any further repetition of accusations against other editors that are not backed by solid evidence will make it likely that some kind of sanction will have to be carried out against you (whatzinaname) regardless of the merits of your arguments. I urge you to step back and adopt a more collaborative and less conflictive editing behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

i find it interesting you mention things like bad faith and borderline personal attacks, ad hominems, etc. when Bretonbanquet does the exact same thing. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to Whatzinaname - those diffs are so weak, I'm surprised you brought them here. The first diff shows me reverting your addition of unsourced information - you used an existing reference to appear to be backing up your addition. Two other editors also reverted you when you kept re-adding it. The second diff appears to show no bias whatsoever, either in my edit, or in the existing text. Thanks to Maunus for his comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

According to you it's wrong to state the 100% FACT that jenson button was advantaged by the safety cars, at the same time it's perfectly ok to claim that vetel was "majorly advantaged by a late race safety car(technically a red flag)" which is 100% SPECULATION. The only difference being the drivers nationality. If that doesn't prove a biased editorial outlook, then nothing doesWhatzinaname (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The racing incidents and their effects are your opinion, as I and several others have said before. Back them up with sources. The statement that Vettel was "majorly advantaged" was written by somebody else, not me. You appear to be attacking me for what someone else has written. Again, you repeat your baseless accusation of bias on the grounds of nationality. How many more times are you going to be allowed to do that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You directly edited the biased sentence for gramma. How can you edit something for grammar without reading it? You read it, you knew about it, and you had no problem with it, not even asking for a cite. You jumped headlong into an edit war between me and some anon IP editors who wanted to delete my write up of tghe race and replace it with their own. Their write up had nothing to do with the reference supplied, You tried to hide behind your jumping into the edit war claiming the material was sourced. The "sourcing" wasn't an issue, which you well knew. It was a blatant attempt to remove a fair, unbiased NPOV description of what happened in the race, and replace it with a grossly biased one. You simply saw your chance to edit war with me and jumped on it with the anon IP editors because you are annoyed I won't cave in to you on the vettel wiki page.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So my crime is leaving someone else's bias in the article? Is that the best you can do? "You read it, you knew about it..." You are taking an assumption of bad faith to outrageous levels, and I'm amazed that you're still doing it, here of all places. You've just accused me again of "gross bias", again of premeditated bad faith, now also of looking for opportunities to harrass you along with some IP editors. Still with no evidence. Anything else? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are able to edit a sentence for grammar without even reading the sentence? Impressive. I'm sure that would stand up in a court of law. I'm not playing any wiki games with you or anyone else.I've got better things to do. I will not allow grossly biased wikipedia articles/edits to exist when I come across them. The end. Whatzinaname (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I've posted at ANI with a link to this discussion. This has gone far enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ending this

Whatzinaname needs to provide diffs exemplifying the supposed bias or cease such accusations per WP:NPA. WP:DR is not optional. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

User:222.127.231.29 starting to get personal - please head this off

• 222.127.231.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Burma (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) and other talk pages

Did I do anything wrong... nothing I know of. Editor 222.127.231.29 seems to have a particular problem with me. Maybe under a previous IP? I don't know. I reverted blanking he did to the Talk:Burma page and put the appropriate general note on his talk page[19]. He erased it. He has also soapboxed the Burma talk page. I deal with this stuff all the time so no big deal but now he is constantly slipping in personal notes on others peoples talk pages, [20], and after asking him to be civil he posted the following, [21]. I could have removed that last post on talk:Burma but thought it would simply inflame the situation more, so I'm bringing it here first. He's only popped up recently looking at his few posts so I'm thinking maybe a past banned user I have reported in the recent past? Anyway he is now starting to carry things a bit far for my liking and I was hoping that someone would tell him so and keep this a pleasant place to edit. Obviously he will not listen to me. This editor has also vandalized the following page [22]. I do not edit that particular article but I include it for perspective. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope, "user" Fyunck(click) is satisfied then after my notification. 222.127.231.29 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

User:NickCT

• NickCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Malik Shabazz (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I never know if this is the right place to bring issues of this nature (the new message at the top isn't really helpful), but here goes:

1. 12 July, 06:11 - I initiate a discussion with an Admin on his Talk page.
2. 12 July, 16:10 - NickCT (talk · contribs) replies with a comment attacking me as, among other things, "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." He supplies no evidence of any kind.
3. 13 July, 06:41 - I remove the "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" remark from User:NickCT's comment, per WP:NPA#WHATIS, 4th bullet.
4. 13 July, 06:48 - I leave a comment on NickCT's Talk page requesting that he not make accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence and advise him that, should he have grievances regarding an editor's behavior, he make sure to accompany them with evidence.
5. 13 July, 11:46 - NickCT demands evidence from me that I'm not a POV warrior.
6. 13 July, 11:57 - NickCT restores "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" to his comment with an edit summary encouraging me to pursue the matter further via arbitration.

I note the comments of two Admins in an unrelated discussion above this one:

• If an editor exhibits a pattern of biased behavior, the correct thing to do is to address this in the form of dispute resolution preferably showing through cogent arguments that the editors edits are not in line with NPOV - not by engaging in accusations or personal attacks.
• Whatzinaname needs to provide diffs exemplifying the supposed bias or cease such accusations per WP:NPA.

I shouldn't have to prove my neutrality with diffs to every Tom, Dick and Harry that dislikes my contributions to the Project. But since the issue has been raised now anyway, I may as well point out that my record as an editor is flawless, which one could say is astonishing considering where I edit a lot of the time. NickCT, on the other hand, has been formally warned and blocked in the past for making personal attacks. I don't think it unreasonable to insist that, rather than him demanding I be the one to demonstrate that I am a neutral contributor, he be the one to demonstrate the opposite, or else withdraw his accusation.—Biosketch (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also has some minor problems with NickCT. I had not planned on escalating it anywhere, and am only doing it because I saw this on his talk page, and it seems like it is a consistent problem. NickCT asked me if I'd ever edited under another account. Fair enough. But then when I told him in unequivocal terms "No. Never", he responded by in effect calling me a liar. That's hardly a civil way of behaving towards other editors. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Biosketch's comments - Bio, you've posted this kind of bullet point list of how you think others have been offensive twice in the past several days. I think most people reading through the lists will recognize the alledged "violations" is the kind of thin gruel that would only upset the most die hard adherents of WP:NPA. The kind of "drop-of-the-hat" complaints about personal attacks you're lodging have the distinct odor of wikilawyering. The WP Israel-Palestine POV wars do not need any more wikilawyers. What it needs is some wikilove. Please stop the lawyering. Additionally, your removal of my comments (i.e. point 3) is pretty likely in violation of WP's talk page guidelines. In future, you ought to request editors redact or remove their comments before taking it on yourself to do so. re Your "record as an editor" being "flawless" - Note that I have edited under a single account since I got here several years ago. You on the other hand "appeared" on Feb 1, 2011 making suspiciously experienced looking edits. New account? If so, why? Previous account not so flawless?

On another note Bio, thanks for post here and not ANI. This is definately a better place to go for discussions of behavior of this nature.

Responding to Bob drobbs' comments - Bob in this comment to your talk page, I actually said " I'm not calling you a liar. All I'm saying is that the editing pattern looks extremely suspisous". I recognize it's not fun when people question whether you're a sock (I've been there before), but unfortunately socking happens, and I think anyone who reviews the SPI in this case will recognize that I'm not throwing these accusations around for the fun of it. As I've also said to you before "If I did get this wrong and the odd editing pattern is just a coincidence, I'm sure you'll WP:AGF and recognize that I'm not doing this to try and persecute innocent people". Frankly, I think I've handled this SPI about as politely as can be expected. NickCT (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yea, a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior isn't a cool thing to say, and it would be nice if you redact it.
• Regarding the sock thing, yes, you're repeatedly questioning drobbs veracity. Once the question was asked and answer you should just take it to WP:SPI if you think the editor might be a sock. Gerardw (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

NickCT (talk · contribs), your comment isn't a response to mine. It's a reply maybe, but not a response. You still have failed to produce any evidence whatsoever in support of your accusation that I am a "committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." Moreover, instead of working towards a resolution of this matter, you've now compounded it by baselessly suggesting I may be a sockpuppet. There is a time and place for you to explore that possibility – but this is not it.—Biosketch (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

re You still have failed to produce any evidence - Wow. Bold face type. Your complaint seems so much more legitimate now. As I'd previously mentioned here, all the "evidence" needed is a quick review of your contrib history. Are you upset that my comment is inaccurate or just that I didn't provide evidence to support it?

re suggesting I may be a sockpuppet - Wrong. Suggested you might have a previous account. Important difference.

re time and place for you to explore that possibility - Hey, you raised the point by citing your "flawless" record. NickCT (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but linking to a contributor's edit history isn't admissible evidence of anything. Solid evidence means diffs that compellingly establish a pattern. The fact therefore remains that you continue to abide by a serious accusation made against me with no evidence at all to back it up.

And your last remark doesn't make any sense, frankly. I mentioned that my record was flawless because even if you tried, you would not be able to make a case against me that I edit in violation of WP:NPOV. I am a regular contributor in an area where "committed POV-warriors," to paraphrase your expression, seldom survive for longer than a handful of edits. Yet never has a case been brought against me for violating NPOV since I started contributing to this Project. I don't mean to wave my reputation in anyone's face, but I do value it and do not appreciate when it is dishonestly misrepresented, as you have been doing.—Biosketch (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, do you think it makes using language like "Yet never has a case been brought against me for violating NPOV since I started contributing to this Project." makes you clever b/c it so craftifly avoids admitting that you've had cases brought against you for lots of other stuff while holding previous accounts? If you do think language like that makes you clever, believe me when I say it does not. Talk about dishonesty....

Look, frankly, I don't think you're really up to a constructive conversation here. Best would probably be to quit sniping and let third parties weigh in here. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)