Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Greg L (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 13 November 2007 (→‎Concluding this). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

    Active alerts

    User WaltCip

    Resolved

    In User Categories for Deletion, The discussuion of removing the category Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer was rather personal when User:WaltCip responded to my comment to "go ahead and delete the category but have you read previous debated archives dealing with this". I noted his first comment was a rather personal slight but I did not attack anyone personally. His next comment clearly equated my actions as similar to anti-semetism which is very offisive and highly personal as the subject at hand (surviving cancer like I did) has zero to do with religion. I ask that the volunteers review this discourse and rener any appropriate decision. Respectfully, Mikebar 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    His somewhat personal, sarcastic comment was more likely in response to this comment from you: "The zealots who cannot read previous archived discussions win." In other words, sarcasm begat sarcasm. The point of the analogy regarding anti-semitism had to do with deleting categories, not to call you anti-semitic. It wasn't the most prudent analogy, since it can be easily misinterpreted as a suggestion of racism. But it's possible to assume good faith about it. To me, it looks like just cooling down and taking a break from each other is the best solution. The etiquette violations are on both sides, and relatively minor (assuming he didn't mean to call you racist). Let the personal dispute go. Bsharvy 09:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I basically agree with Bsharvy and would say that this is incredibly minor. Unless this incident has caused some sort of hard feelings or ongoing dispute, you both seem like you'd just as easily let it drop and never have a problem again. That's definitely the way to go. --Cheeser1 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like that is what has happened. Call this one resolved & thanks to both of you. Mikebar 07:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right. I've also agreed both of you guys. Well, For me we better ignore those minor concerns like saying "Do what you want" without directly hit your feelings but with in your senses. It's understandable that all of us have the rights of what to say or what to do but with the attitude without hurting anyone feelings or with no personal intention to hurt feelings. So we better ignore somewhat personal intention and it is just like a comment to accept and to response.--Hannahmarqueza 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    OK, I used to be one of these annoying people and have recently decided to stop being a detriment to such a useful tool as this website. My personal opinion is that someone needs to step up and get rid of the guy or ban him indefinitly. I believe this because your not going to get anywhere with this type of problem unless people that have authority step up to do something about it. THanksWeston 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Meatpuppet allegation

    In an edit summary, GreenJoe made the allegation that I am a meatpuppet. I take this claim seriously and have repeatedly asked GreenJoe to either withdraw the comment or present his evidence at WP:SSP. Thus far, all requests have gone unaddressed. The exchange can be found under the subject "Edit summary" at Concordia University talk page, GreenJoe's talk page, and my own talk page. Victoriagirl 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that edit summaries are effectively a write-only medium; it's possible to change them but not always practical. So, retracting the comment is not an option--certainly not within his hands as a user. I think an apology would have been a polite thing to do. It's not inherently incivil to not apologize, but it shows less than an abundant show of good faith in fellow editors.
    That said, the comments are in his edit history, and should he start committing other acts of incivility or disruption, it would be weighed by the administrator determining how to deal with him. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I recognize that an edit summary might not be easily changed. In asking that the comment be withdrawn, I am not seeking a deletion or rewriting of history, but an acknowledgement the allegation is incorrect. That said, since filing this alert, GreenJoe has placed a post on my talk page indicating that he stands by the comment. I have responded by again asking that he present his evidence. Victoriagirl 19:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've chimed in on the talk page as well. This seems to be unfounded and in violation of WP:NPA, not to mention WP:CIVIL. --Bfigura (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    GreenJoe has indicated that he will nether withdraw the charge nor present any evidence in support of the allegation. After mulling over the advice offered, I have decided to walk away from the matter and have written GreenJoe as much. My thanks to all who offered council. Victoriagirl 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably not a meatpuppet. Definitely a stalker with an agenda. Dominic J. Solntseff 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

    While I usually ignore comments by Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs), the irony is of such a level that it is worthy of note. Victoriagirl 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A typical non-answer answer by this dishonest and disingenous editor, who works so very hard to push an agenda on Wikipedia while trying to Wiki-fiddle her way into an admin spot. Dominic J. Solntseff 23:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide evidence of your accusations against Victoriagirl. We cannot help mediate this situation if we don't have anything to go on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's "counsel", Victoriagirl, not "council". For someone who does so much wikifiddling, you should be more careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.167.209 (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict between users regarding pages on Korean Universities -pers. attacks, incivility

    Resolved
     – Patriotmissile has apologised. Conflicts have been resolved.Jame§ugrono 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Users: Epthorn and Patriotmissile

    Pages involved: Talk pages of users, and following articles:

    1) Korea_University (talk page and very recent edits)
    2) Sungkyunkwan_University (talk page)
    3) SKY_(schools) (Talk page, bottom)

    I do not want to go into detail here (for neutrality's sake) but this is a conflict I am afraid my end up moving from the talk pages to the actual articles. I hope this will provide some help of an informal nature. Especially useful would be some help from users who cannot be accused of puppetry, etc because of their long wiki histories. I would be tempted to just leave the issue alone but since there are few users interested I think there is little chance the articles would be improved.

    I apologize for the general scope of the request, it does stretch across several articles- if someone would like me to explain reasoning or establish a better timeline, please let me know via my talk page. Thanks for any help you can provide. Also sorry for the format, I'm not yet particularly good at linking within wikipedia. Epthorn 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Epthorn - I'd like to help, but I would really appreciate it if you would summarize the conflict, and maybe provide some representative diffs. It's pretty overwhelming to jump in there without context. If you're worried about neutrality, just be as neutral as you can; we're pretty experienced at cutting through non-neutral content summaries anyway. Sarcasticidealist 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted a calm down message here to see if people will stop slinging around blatant insults. I'll wait on a summary before doing anything else though --Bfigura (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the quick response. I will try and summarize the situation as best I can, and then see if I can figure out the diffs (I've not had to do this before)

    -I read through Korea University's wiki page and thought it looked like an advert and was not NPOV. Overall I considered the article to be a poor example of what an encyclopedia should look like, so I decided to remark this on the talk page. I also added a "POV" tag to the page.

    -User Patriotmissile seemed to immediately believe I was a puppet of another user, "Brincos." He continues to accuse me of this, despite my requests for him to take it up with an admin. Believing that I am from another University in Korea trying to vandalize Korea University's website, he has made several veiled threats to "edit" that article in kind (my characterization of 'threats' is, of course, my own).

    -Patriotmissile also brought me up on the Sungkyunkwan_University page. At that point I got annoyed that he was misquoting me as an excuse to make edits there.

    -Patriotmissile and I also clashed on the SKY_(schools) page even though I basically agreed with him (at least insofar as I thought the page should exist). He still remarked that I was a puppet for Brincos. I'm not sure how much of this is miscommunication, but I haven't had much luck clearing it up and it's making editing difficult.

    Now that you've heard my 'side', please give me a few minutes and hopefully I can provide the specifics in terms of "diffs" Epthorn 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Okay, sorry if this is a poor format, but here is one example I found particularly unnecessary as P.M. tried to misquote me on a page and then tried to blackmail me by threatening another University's article (which he has since marked as POV in the last few minutes). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASungkyunkwan_University&diff=166315966&oldid=157049751

    Here is the infamous "dog" statement. Please judge for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APatriotmissile&diff=165811617&oldid=165361250

    Finally, if you look at this page you can see what started all this. I cannot quite get the diffs right for this one, sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korea_University#POV.2FNeutrality_redux

    Those are somewhat extensive diffs, and there are more. Many, many more. All basically follow the same pattern though... I'm a puppet from some other Korean university who should leave the country. Anyway, I hope this helps a little. Epthorn 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    And now, since it's 7am in Korea, I should be getting to bed. Please let me know via my talk page especially if there's anything further I can do later. Hopefully I've roused enough 3rd parties that a consensus will eventually be possible (it's hard with 2 people who simply don't agree). Epthorn 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the diffs - those are very helpful. I agree that User:Patriotmissile has been behaving uncivilly. I'll leave him/her a polite note, and see where things go from there. Sarcasticidealist 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I hope that is the end of it. The user apologized for the allegations of puppetry. Hopefully this will result in a more productive edit discussion, especially with some new blood. Unless it attracts sharks. This was a useful board, hopefully I can pay it back as I gain experience. Thanks again, Epthorn 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Sarvagnya's deletion of my Talk:India posts

    • Earlier today I made this post on the Talk:India page about some potential problems I foresaw with the rotation of images being currently tried in two sections of the India page. (I had earlier organized the straw poll for/against this rotation here.)
    • Almost immediately after I made the post, user:Sarvagnya deleted it in this edit, with edit summary, "this is a discussion page. not a blog. blogs are free, go find one and record your idle musings about your "vivid experiences" with encarta or whatever."
    • user:Sarvagnya's edit was soon reverted here by user:Dwaipayanc, however, user:Sarvagnya re-reverted here with edit summary, "rv abuse of talk page. see WP:TALK and WP:NOT."

    This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.

    • He deleted my post there in late August 2007, (see here).
    • He then made a post in early September 2007 on the Talk:India page here, which ended with, "For now, I reject all of Fowler's filibustering as nonsense. Can somebody tell me why I shouldnt delete all his nonsense as rank abuse of a talk page?"
    • This in turn elicited a polite but firmly opposing response here from user:Abecedare.
    • However, when user:Sarvagnya persisted in the very next post here and, moreover, accused me of "defecating all over the talk page," he brought on a more aggressive response here from user:Hornplease, who threatened to report user:Sarvagnya to Wikiquette alerts.
    • I should add that user:Sarvagnya is less than forgiving when he is at the receiving end; my edit once here that merely put his out-of-chronological order interruption in proper chronological order, elicited this response from him, with edit summary, "i will add my comment where I think fit.. stop moving other people's comments around!"

    If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. His general rudeness is one thing, but this is beyond the pale. Please advise! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, look who's talking. Mr. Fowler, let's look at these Wikiquette (sic) edits of yours:
    To User:Sarvagnya Perhaps you could return to the Karnataka article and start preparing for its next FAR and in your wake spin-off yet another generation of shimmering daughter article ... For an editor, such as yourself, whose ill-humored, carping, and nonsensical comments on these pages (including ones above directed at me), are a legion, it is presumptuous to decide what is nonsense
    To User:Gnanapiti what the heck is the matter with you? what is illogical other than you knee-jerk tendency to revert; don't you have anything better to do
    To User:Embargo don't know who you are, but you are a new comer to this page, which I am not (see talk page)
    To User:Bharatveer you are pathetic! I wrote this article and knew him; you don't know the first thing about the guy, and keep wasting time with your precious little obsessions
    To User:Bakasuprman what's the heck is the matter with you dude; read the discussion, there's a link to pdf whhich explicitly says he an athheist; hkelkar still pulling your strings?
    To User:Nikkul Don't know what the heck you're trying to pull dude, but you're getting to be tiring...
    To User:Szhaider If you can't write grammatical English, then don't.
    To his so-called Indian POV warriors Apparently the Indian POV warriors can't write the English Language. May I suggest the Hindi wikipedia
    To User:Nikkul Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself.
    The reason these users have not pulled you to admins for the personal attacks above is that they assume good faith with you. The least you can do is to reciprocate that gesture. So stop feeling tired, pained and grieved if people return the above favour that you have been giving them.-- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a note regarding the refactoring of your comments. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To user:Amarrg: I am assuming the links above are meant for me? Since this section is really about user:Sarvagnya's actions and not mine, you should really open a new case against me here on Wikiquette Alerts or on some other Wikipedia forum. Meanwhile, I have replied to your post elsewhere. I apologize to the Wikiquette Alert volunteers for replying here and adding to their work. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You are not immune from scrutiny here, and your comments to others are certainly relevant to the way others deal with you. -- But|seriously|folks  20:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On the contrary, I am requesting user:Amarrg to open a Wikiquette Alert against me. I just felt, given what user:Bfigura gave me to understand in another context (about not increasing the volunteers' work), that this was not the best place for it, but if you think it is, please go ahead. However, please examine both the past and the aftermath of each of those incidents. As I say in my post, referred to above as "elsewhere,"

    My point is not to attack the characters of these people, but to make the point that my words were (inappropriate to be sure) responses to their behavior, not vice-versa. That nevertheless doesn't absolve me of responsibility for those words, and for them I apologize unreservedly to my interlocutors. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PS What I mean by the "past and the aftermath" is this: I am quoted above as saying, "Nikkul you should be ashamed of yourself." I did say those words, but what is not mentioned is that, I made a series of edits and a few minutes later my words looked like this:

    Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself. After all you've been through on the India page, you go back to the goofy stuff. Why? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Nikkul, I apologize for my choice of words. I didn't mean to be demeaning. You are someone who is clearly interested in improving the image content on India-related pages, and everyone can see that you have talent and drive, so why not use them more productively? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

    The changes were made of my own volition, not consequent to a response from Nikkul or anyone else. Here is the relevant section of the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS And now that old memories are being dredged up, an isolated quote from what I said to Nikkul doesn't say that I gave him the benefit of the doubt even after he had been banned for sockpuppeteering on the India page, when I tried to patiently explain to him how to paraphrase an article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Forum-shopping at its worst. Noting what I have seen above:Gimme an H...gimme a Y....gimme a P...gimme a O...gimme a C...gimme an R...you get the point. Violating WP:OWN really accentuates your disregard for collegiality and your tendentiousness. I'm not a civil person myself, so I'm not going to delve into your rudeness, but coming on to this board to whine is rich.Bakaman 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive, bad-faith edits by Gene Nygaard

    Resolved
     – Disruptive editor indef blocked via ANI intervention. --Bfigura (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Help. I need assistance with editor User:Gene_Nygaard. He disagrees on factual disputes on the Kilogram article that are totally beyond any debate in science. His arguments have been debated to infinity and back and he ignores reason. For instance, he continued to argue that “weight” does not mean “force due to gravity”. When he was told the following:

    Encyclopedia Britannica very simply defines “weight” as “[the] gravitational force of attraction on an object, caused by the presence of a massive second object, such as the Earth or Moon.” Wikipedia’s Weight article defines weight as follows: In the physical sciences, weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object. World Book (print edition) says this under Weight: Weight is the gravitational force put forth on an object by the planet on which the object is located. Further, the Kilogram article adheres perfectly to Encyclopedia Britannica’s discussion of the distinction between “weight” and “mass”. The article also gives proper and fair treatment to the fact that the term “weight” in common vernacular can occasionally mean “mass.”

    …He responded with “There's no reason for us to stoop to Encyclopedia Britannica.” He also said “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” and then linked “reliable source” to Wikipedia’s own Wikipedia:Reliable sources. His point was that the link in the Kilogram article that linked to weight wasn’t suitable. He didn’t agree with either Wikipedia’s definition nor Encyclopedia Britannica’s. With regard to World Book, he responded only with “Now World Book too?”

    One of the editors who disagreed with him is a professor of astrophysics. This would normally carry extra weight but Gene Nygaard argued with him too and had his question properly answered (again). When his arguments didn’t get any traction on the kilogram article, he went to the Mass article and engaged in the same sort of edits there. The editors there had to deal with him (account here). After other editors weighed in with edits in an attempt to appease Gene Nygaard, he did this to the article. Another editor User:Enuja, who does her best to seek consensus and accommodate others, told him that "Disputed" and "Misleading" tags were not suitable (account here).

    Please help. Greg L (my talk) 18:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had a similar experience with this editor at Talk:Enzyme_kinetics#Molarity_is_obsolete, he changed the article to replace a set of units with an incorrect set of units diff then edit-warred to retain the error diff. On the talk page he stubbornly maintained that his preference for units were used in biochemistry, and quoted obscure journals on inorganic and organic chemistry to try to support his argument. It was only when faced with overwhelming evidence of multiple citations from biochemistry journals that he accepted the actual usage. This is verging on disruptive editing. Tim Vickers 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to stem from a content dispute. Has an RFC/U been considered? --Bfigura (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bfigura, please briefly explain the distinction between this forum and the one you are suggesting. The spark that lit the fuse on all of this was originally an argument over the definition of “weight” and the proper, encyclopedic treatment of the topic. The real issue, IMO, has become one of not accepting the consensus of others after hours of tirelessly explaining to him what the facts are, only to ultimately have him do stuff like this…
    While the weight of objects (their gravitational force) is often given in kilograms,[dubious – discuss] the kilogram is, in the strict scientific sense,[vague] a unit of mass.
    …and this:

    The unit of force: kilogram-force Template:TotallyDisputed-section

    When an object’s weight (its gravitational force) is expressed in kilograms…

    …again, this is all after lengthy and tedious debate had transpired far beyond what any administrator would put up with (due to lack of acceptance of reality) and his arguments didn’t get traction with any other editors. In short, the issue is one of being disruptive. Tim Vickers’ problem with this Gene (see above) seems to be the same basic issue: ignoring clear facts he simply choses to ignore and incessantly doing the same edits anyway. I don’t know how many other editors weighed in on Tim Vickers’ article, but Gene totally ignored others editors too on Talk:Kilogram (not just me) and does what he wants anyway the moment anyone stops responding to his circuitous and ever-expanding arguments or it has become clear he won’t get his way.
    Do you see this as being the central issue, and if so, are you saying the RFC/U would be a more suitable forum? Greg L (my talk) 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I'm not entirely sure. If you want to form consensus on an issue (ie content), you should use a request for comments (or RFC). But if you want to establish consensus on an editor's behavior, then you want an RFC/U. Basically, you list the places where you think the editor has gone against policy, or been disruptive, and invite comments (which includes responses from the editor in question). The idea is to try and establish if a certain behavior is or isn't acceptable by the community.
    As far as the above, those tags would seem needlessly disruptive, although I'm hesitant to say that with any certainty since I'm not entirely familiar with the dispute. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will go to RFC/U. Thanks. Greg L (my talk) 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop me a line when you list it, and I'll be glad to give my outside view. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bfigura, after looking at the RFC/U process, it looks like a daunting process that is too great of a hurdle. I think if we can just address the suitability of the “dispute” tags that should suffice for the problem at hand and will serve as a lesson-learned. User:Slashme has done lengthy and excellent edits (recent history) trying to reach a compromise. Some of Slashme’s edits were painful for me to see because Slashme’s treatment of the issue was to delete entire paragraphs I had written (like this one). But I accepted them and understood they were a reasonable compromise. I actually expected that all that would satisfy Gene too. Nope. User:Enuja has patiently explained why the article doesn’t merit them (here). I’ve given him ample warning of his disruptive edits (here). Now he’s got the “disputed” tags in the article again. Please help. Greg L (my talk) 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I deleted the STUCK tag at the top thinking it might somehow interfere with your ability to note that this is back to being active. Sorry for being presumptive. Greg L (my talk) 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite ok. I shouldn't have stuck them in yet :). I'll go poke my head into the article though. --Bfigura (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bfigura, I don’t know what the proper remedy would be, even if you do find that the tags are unwarranted. But if you conclude that the article should be restored to some other state, this was the state I last had it in. And this is the state the last known other contributor had it at. That contributor User:Timb66, whose real name is Tim Bedding, is a professor of astrophysics at the School of Physics, University of Sydney. I can’t make a case that Professor Bedding is unbiased regarding Gene’s behavior, since he wrote “I agree with the comments by Greg L” (Talk:Mass#Disruptive edits) after I laid out a clear case regarding the scientific nature of “weight” and how Gene’s behavior was disruptive. Note however, that Professor Bedding made his edit to the Kilogram article after he posted that comment. Accordingly, he wasn’t a party to any disputes on Kilogram before reading that one was raging on Talk:Mass. Only then did he take an interest in the Kilogram article. I think it is fair to assume that Professor Bedding found nothing else he felt was worthy of correcting and find it noteworthy that his edit was only to change an occurrence of “and” to “or” (edit difference here).

      After studying the Wikipedia policy some more, I believe the proper charge in this forum would be that his incessant arguing on the discussion pages after finding that his arguments don’t get traction with other editors, and his resorting to the use of {{disputed}} and {{misleading}} tags, are all aspects of tendentious editing. Greg L (my talk) 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update regarding expert help: Bfigura, during the writing of the Kilogram article, I exchanged over forty e-mails with a physicist at the NIST who works on the kilogram in order to check facts, clarify issues and obtain additional information. That NIST physicist directed me to various papers published in Metrologia and Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards (some of which I used as citations in the article). As a favor, he has previously reviewed specific portions of the Kilogram article for accuracy. I asked him if he would review the entire last, non-Gene, historical version (this one by Professor Bedding), and to comment on its accuracy. I also asked him to compare it to the current version and take note to the sections that Gene tagged. On Friday he agreed to do so and said it will take a few days. Given that this dispute originated over technical issues, I hoped you would appreciate the outside help as it might make your job a little easier. Regards, Greg L (my talk) 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gene_Nygaard has a long history of problems in this area. See his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gene_Nygaard block log. He was informed of this Wikiquette alert on 25 Oct on his talk page. Yet he has not participated and continues in this behavior, even calling one user and "ass" and referring to at least one other's lack of intelligence; see User_talk:ArielGold#Improper_use_of_conversion_templates.2C_and_problems_with_what_they_do, [1], and [2]. Based on this, I am blocking him for 72 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is hard to imagine anything more likely to sabotage what is intended to be an informal first step in a dispute resolution process, anything more likely to exacerbate this dispute, more likely to fan the flames and to create more hard feelings and anything more counterproductive to the spirit of cooperative editing, than what you have done here, User:Rlevse.
    Your actions, Rlevse, (and perhaps equally important or more so, the actions you have failed to take) fly directly in the face of the spirit of this entire process.
    But your actions are not merely contrary to the spirit of this entire process. It is much more than that.
    In fact, they are contrary to very black-letter rules of this process, as set out in a big honking box at the top of this very page:

    "This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.

    ...

    "Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts."

    a "non-binding noticeboard"; and in the opening paragraph:

    "Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors. This page is not part of the formal dispute resolution process, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate."

    and further down the page:

    "Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures."

    and you can't get much clearer than without resorting to formal procedures.
    The ball had already been picked up by one of the regulars here Bfigura, who had already said that he was going to look into it. Rlevse grabbed the ball right out of his hands, with no discussion whatsoever. (The fact that Bfigura some time afterwards tried to pick it up again, but fumbled the ball himself, is irrelevant, though at that time it might have been appropriate for him to call for some backup help. But that hadn't happened until after Rlevse's disruption here).
    If my participation on this page were important, and there is no evidence whatsoever that you, Rlevse, know beans about how this is supposed to work, then you should have invited me to come here and comment on it. An out-of-the-blue, totally undiscussed block, for not doing something which I am not in any way obliged to do, is not by any stretch of the imagination an appropriate response. To instead prevent any comment from me is about the most illogical, irresponsible action anyone could possibly imagine.
    The only possible explanation for it is that it was somehow deliberately intended to give Greg L the advantage of unfettered, one-sided discussion.
    That this process's integrity was in fact the primary target of your (User:Rlevsa's) attack is also evident from your posting of your notice about blocking me here a few minutes before you even posted a notice to me about it on my talk page, as well as from the fact that you had not done the same at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade, nor had you done so at User talk:ArielGold. It is further evidenced by your placement of your notice on my talk page under the existing User talk:Gene Nygaard#Wikiquette alert header halfway up my page, not in a new notice at the bottom (and you didn't add the subheader, I did that later). There's no disguising of the fact that the additional charges laid were intended as nothing other than red herrings.
    Especially when
    1. There is absolutely nothing on this page instructing me to offer a response.
    2. What is here, in fact, actively discourages such discussion, by saying "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page" and "Do not continue your discussion in detail here".
    I am at a total loss as to why you might have done this, Rlevse; however, once again, no possible explanation offers itself other than the clear implication that this was, for whatever reason and motivation you had, deliberately designed to give User:Greg L an upper hand in this dispute.
    Purpose, and future, of this process
    I've never seen it used anywhere, either successfully or unsuccessfully, that I can recall. Does it ever work? Is it even used to any significant extent? (Rlevse doesn't know, either, I'll bet.)
    I don't know if there is anybody who even cares about this Wikiquette alerts process any more. Hello! Anybody home here?
    If there is no one here willing to stand up to a rogue administrator, one who has never once in the 2½ year history of this process ever made any positive contribution to making it work, never once participated in it, who comes barreling in out of nowhere and intentionally disrupts it, then maybe it is time face facts and to admit the obvious. If it doesn't work, whether it was just a bad idea in the first place or has out lived its purpose or has just withered away from a failure to advertise it and a lack of participation or whatever, just throw in the towel, and officially declare it dead. Is there anybody left who even cares enough to go through the steps to officially place this page up for deletion? Gene Nygaard 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This alerts page is not the place to see help attacking or otherwise censuring a "rogue administrator." --Cheeser1 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That administrator blocked me specifically for not replying on this page. I have now done so. So why aren't you taking him to task for telling me that I was supposed to be here? Maybe what you need is better instructions as to exactly what is and what is not expected on this project page, because User:Rlevse obviously does not know that, and now you are telling me that I do not either. Gene Nygaard 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, while you do have explicit instructions to "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page", you have let User:Greg L fill the page with hugely excessive discussions, so you also need better policing of the policies you do have. Gene Nygaard 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bfigura, I’m still waiting on the opinion from the kilogram expert at the NIST. I must say, that after writing that previous sentence, I am struck by the preposterous number of hoops we other editors have had to jump through in order to accommodate Gene Nygaard’s outrageous behavior. Anyway, besides the kilogram expert at the NIST, I also asked Professor Bedding to carefully review the historical version before Gene Nygaard’s last wave of edits and dispute tags (version, here). I asked him to comment on the accuracy of the version and to give particular attention to those sections in the current version that Nygaard tagged with DISPUTE, DISPUTE! I asked him to comment as to whether he found the historical version accurate, balanced, and informative. I received his opinion several days ago but it took until today to receive his permission to quote him. He wrote “feel free to quote my reply in full.” His comments on the original version are quoted in their entirety as follows:


    From: [e-mail address redacted]
    Subject: Re: Kilogram
    Date: October 27, 2007 1:41:36 PM PDT
    To: [e-mail address redacted]

    Hi Greg,

    I am sympathetic to your problem. I am not an expert in the definition of
    the kg, but I do know basic physics and I know how things should be
    explained. I have looked through the current article and don't see
    anything that is worthy of a dispute tag.

    Thanks for the effort that you have put into Wiki editing. I don't have
    the time for such diligence and am grateful for your efforts.

    Best wishes,

    Tim
    Bfigura, I think it is safe to assume that since Professor Bedding teaches astrophysics at a university, that he 1) is being slightly humble in stating he knows “basic physics,” and 2) I believe it to be obvious on the face of it that when he wrote “I know how things should be explained,” we can assume he is very familiar with textbooks and the proper encyclopedic treatment of subjects.

    I’ll let you know when I hear from the kilogram expert at the NIST. Greg L (my talk) 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your actions (I think, work prevents me from doing a complete review), in as much as I don't think there's a need for a dispute tag here. I'm not sure there's a need to contact experts (any such material couldn't be included as it'd be original research), although I do recognize it as a good faith effort to settle a dispute. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very well. I see from Gene Nygaard’s talk page, where he is arguing against being blocked, that he claims my contacting the NIST amounts to “original research”. Of course, this is patently baseless and false. As I clearly stated in my above writings, those communications were to “check facts, clarify issues and obtain additional information.” And by “additional information” (as I also wrote above), I was referring to obtaining numerous scientific papers published in Metrologia and Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards—not baby food from Popular Mechanics. Of course, I cited these papers throughout the references section in the Kilogram article.

      It was this very same NIST employee who also e-mailed me a free picture of the NIST’s electronic kilogram after the one used in the NIST’s own press release was yanked from Wikipedia because it was copyrighted. I uploaded it to Wikipedia and used it in the article. Does this picture also constitute “original research” since it came through me via private communications with my contact at the NIST? Obviously not. Wikipedia and its readers are the beneficiaries.

      Any quick reading of the Original research page reveals a clear and unambiguous policy: that “material must be verifiable and backed by reliable sources.” It isn’t “original research” to contact the experts at the NIST and get directed to the original scientific papers and to cite them throughout the article, nor is it original research to ask the NIST expert to review some of what I wrote to make sure I gave the subject proper treatment; it’s called “researching the subject thoroughly, making sure I understood it accurately, and citing the writings extensively while contributing to a Wikipedia article.” Wikipedia and its readers are, again, the beneficiaries.

      Nygaard’s transparent attempt at taking my effort in doing my homework to track down all the original scientific papers—something that probably fewer than one in a thousand Wikipedia contributors make the effort to do—and trying to turn it around to his own advantage is nothing more than a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Greg L (my talk) 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think my comment may have come accross wrong. I applaud all the work you're doing. I was merely saying that we can't cite communications with experts in the article itself. Material obtained from them (images, references, etc) is perfectly fine. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understood that. Sorry, I wasn't railing against you. I precisely understood your point and why you wrote it. I perceived (perhaps erroneously) that your feeling the necessity to write it suggested that Nygaard’s arguments on his talk page (while trying to get unblocked) might be gaining traction with others. So I thought it best to preempt that trend. He may eventually try to argue his case here. His arguments absolutely never end, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. As of two days ago, he was still arguing about the definition of mass and weight. Note how endless his arguments are with the editors over on Talk:Mass. Scroll down and note that, throughout the length of it, both the other editors don’t agree with him. Note too, the appeal at the very end to somehow put the issue out of its misery. Greg L (my talk) 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. At this point, it seems that his behavior seems to be verging on tendencious editing that is starting to outweigh his positive contributions here. --Bfigura (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Concluding this
    • Bfigura, I received the response from the NIST contact. Not surprisingly, there were zero problems with “weight” being “force due to gravity.” Unfortunately, I can not quote him nor even name him without getting his first getting NIST Public Affairs involved so I don’t know if the wait for his input was worth it. I think we just have to go with the arguments provided above. The only person who feels the disputed and citation needed tags are warranted is Gene Nygaard. Can we fix this? Also, I expect the removal of the tags will not change Gene Nygaard’s opinion on the issue of “mass vs. weight”; how can we avoid disruptive editing on Kilogram in his usual forms just because the tags are removed? Any remedies you think will work would be much appreciated. Greg L (my talk) 07:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To get some idea of how much needless effort would be invested in trying to make good-faith answers to Nygaard’s objections, please see Sorting it out on Talk:Kilogram. There, I provided detailed responses to the two easiest-to-answer issues he raised. A proper treatment of all Nygaard’s objections would simply be too tedious and, in the end, would result in circuitous arguments that go nowhere, as others have discovered on Talk:Mass. Greg L (my talk) 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the best solution would be to make the changes, indicate why on the talk page, and try and build consensus That seems to be done already. I'd just remove the tags. If Gene continues to revert against consensus, I'd start an WP:RFC/U. If he's violating the 3-revert rule, you could report him per WP:3RR. Other than that though, I'm not sure what the best solution is. --Bfigura (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should reconsider your advice, and rethink what you role is supposed to be here. Have you done anything consistent with a "first step" in dispute resolution here?
    Please also address the issue of why, despite the explicit instruction "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page", you have let User:Greg L ramble on unfettered here, will you? Gene Nygaard 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Greg L's comments, though extensive, (much like yours!) are still valid. Jame§ugrono 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At risk of making this post prematurely, it appears to me that this issue ( {{disputed}} tags, as well as tendentious, disruptive, and POINT editing) is resolved. Thanks to you, Bfigura, and all the admins. I am sincerely grateful for all your attentions to this matter. Greg L (my talk) 17:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI people here on the Wikiquette alerts board are not (necessarily) administrators. --Cheeser1 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Although being confused for an admin is sort of a compliment :) I'm going to mark this whole thing as resolved. --Bfigura (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I thought “…Bfigura, and all the admins…” wouldn’t be interpreted as “…Bfigura, and all the other admins…” but I was wrong. Indeed, I understand Bfigura, that you are not an admin. I am also quite keen as to how well you are doing at your “internship” here. I don’t know enough about the process of nominating someone for admin-hood to feel confident in taking the initiative to do so. But please let me know when (that’s “when,” not “if”) someone else nominates you; I would be pleased to second the motion. Greg L (my talk) 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated insults over a few months

    User:Shabiha has insulted me over content disputes on multiple articles for almost two months, despite repeated warnings. This has gone on across the Deobandi, Barelwi, and Mawlid talk pages and also the talk pages of multiple users, and usually consists of calling me a Wahhabi, which I already explained to him/her is a derogatory term, in addition to other things. This has also been through multiple IP addresses signing comments as Shabiha during discussions on talk pages. This is what I dug up of personal attacks from just about two minutes of searching:

    And from my previous warnings to this person:

    I thought my second warning in particular got the point across, but apparently not. I found this while going to the talk page of a Wiki buddy:

    I tried my best to warn this person to keep discussions civil and about the subject matter, and not myself. I really, really tried. They obviously don't take this very seriously, and I resorted to WP:ANI, and they directed me to here, as I wasn't aware of this noticeboard at the time. Any help would be much appreciated, because the person almost seems to disregard any comments I make as "wahabi propaganda" making discussion of articles very difficult. MezzoMezzo 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leranedo

    I am forced to re-state my original post here, as Leranedo does not thread his responses although he has been pointed to WP:TALK several times:

    Now it is under it. See: Easy solutions. No need to bicker. Leranedo 07:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. So what do I do? Everything was replied to on the talk page already and I thought it finished already? Leranedo 06:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Replying again... Leranedo 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leranedo (talk · contribs)'s talk page is a collection of WP:FAC participants imploring him to remain civil, explain his commentary on FAC pages, justify his NPOV claims, explain his copyedits, follow the instructions regarding Supporting and Opposing, and follow talk page conventions. (Tvoz, Karanacs, Awadewit, Arcayne, Malleus, SandyGeorgia; samples only, there are more.) Several editors have reached out and tried to reason with him (myself included, he has exhausted my patience, Tony1 (talk · contribs) reached out and Epbr123 (talk · contribs) gave him a Reviewer's award); several have issued warnings (myself included, worded as politely as possible).[6][7][8] His talk page is hard to read because he unthreads posts, chops up posts, and starts new headings. (SG)

    Well, these were all replied to already, unless I missed a person's comment. I never check my watchlist so any comment or changes directed towards me would not have been received.

    What more do you want from me? Are you trying to exhausted my patience? This is like a rerun of life. I'm not interested in that. My interest is stated explicitly on the user page. Leranedo 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And by the way, my talk page is perfectly fine. Starting new headings helps me reply as they become smaller. How is that a problem? Plus I had already addressed that and received no responds, but I didn't need for everything was peaceful. Leranedo 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FAC is not like an article or talk page where edits are buried in history; comments at FAC remain on permanent record in {{articlehistory}}. (SG)

    Then anyone can see my honest comments. I have nothing to hide. Leranedo 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He doesn't appear to be heeding anyone's commentary, no matter how helpfully phrased and in spite of numerous editors having approached him. (SG)

    Did I not say "I will try to moderate my sharp and incisive remarks" or something along those lines. And many similar replies. Check the talk page, though not all replies are there, so look around. Leranedo 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Civility
    • All addressed a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggg time ago. Are we still with that? Leranedo 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For full picture, one would need to see the current status. I think I edited some of these, for better or worse, and there were replies afterwards. Leranedo 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finished. Leranedo 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FAC impacted
    • An example can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan (although hard to follow, Leranedo has deleted comments, moved comments, and has unsigned comments there). (SG)
    • This was deleted and moved, and I had already explained why I did it: The editor of the article did not like off-topic talks.
    • I sign almost all the time, sometimes I forgot. Not a remarkable deal for contention.
    • Finished. Leranedo 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muliple requests on his talk page to please respect instructions at WP:FAC regarding declaring Support or Oppose for candidates there, as his commentary is hard to understand. (He declares articles "Passed" or "Rejected" which is misleading, and opposes on the basis of NPOV without giving examples of why he considers articles POV.) (SG)
    • You are misleading. It use to be No and Yes, changed along the way as the asking of people. Now, it's Reject & Oppose and Pass & support, respectively. Leranedo 07:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    .

    • Multiple requests on his talk page and at FAC to explain his declarations of NPOV at FAC. (SG)
    • All answered to, and I did provide points, and will do so on any other opposes. Leranedo 07:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF

    His first posts as a newly registered user were to FAC statistics pages. (SG)

    Oh yes, I remember that so very faintly. I thought it had to do with a infobox that was blocking the statistics so that I could not see. I moved it so it was above the data so the viewer may see both, but apparently, you, if I recall correctly, moved it back to block the view giving some kind of excuse, that we should leave it to be blocked until the infobox was formatted correctly. It appeared, though I do not know, that you work at wikipedia if you were stalking the "FAC statistics page" for no reason I could see. I was there because I wanted know but I couldn't because someone placed it in a way to prevent knowing. Leranedo 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Part I: I had edited extensively many articles varying in their respective topics, always anonymously for I saw no reason to create an account. I explored

    Part II: So then,

    Part III: Now,

    Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leranedo, this page is already a good example of the problems communicating with you. WP:TALK conventions have been explained to you several times, but you still won't thread your replies, so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what. This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK. These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses. I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig. I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Leranedo, this page is already a good example of the problems communicating with you. WP:TALK conventions have been explained to you several times, but you still won't thread your replies, (SG)
    I have no idea what you mean by "thread your replies." As I stated, I already went over that and it's not against this format of replying, which is also stated on the talk page, and it received no response. But now I'm confused. Leranedo 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With the amount of text altering and re-arranging, indenting and re-indenting, moving and labeling that I've seen you do in one week, I have a hard time understanding what is confusing you. You thread things on your talk page exactly as you want to, indenting and changing, so I don't know why you are confused. Since you clearly know how to thread replies on other pages, and stated that you've read WP:TALK several times, it's hard to understand where the confusion is. It's simple: do not touch words you didn't type. Put your responses below them, indented for clarity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what. This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK. These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses. I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig. I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lerandeo, this is about the fourth request (counting the ones on your talk page). Do not alter other people's posts.[9] This means do not change anything on this page unless it is something you typed yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Give me a second. I don't know what you're referring to. Leranedo 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But the (SG) is so there isn't any confusion. What's wrong with that??? I already explained in the edit summary.... How's that not a good reason?? What more do you what.... Leranedo 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my fifth request:[10] if you alter my posts again, I will ask that you be blocked. I do not see what you do not understand: it has been explained repeatedly. Do not touch text that you did not type. It's very simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was replying!! I will not anymore. Too much trouble. Leranedo 07:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leranedo, multiple people have asked you to follow the FAC format for giving your opinion on articles, either Support or Oppose.[11][12][13][14] but you continue to use your own version,[15] rather than the guideline. As you've replied to most of these comments, it appears that you understand the problem but are deliberately violating the guidelines, with no explanation as to why. Karanacs 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have left a civility warning for Leranedo on his (my apologies if that should be her) talk page; Sandy has covered that, so I won't go back into the details—just mentioning for disclosure. What is perhaps the most troubling to me, is that Leranedo can be dismissive and will not engage in conversation. Often, when an editor stops by to try to help him adjust to Wikipedia culture, he will attempt to shut down the conversation, sometimes directing editors to the top of his user page, which says he is "averse to talking". For example, this reply to Arcayne, as well as his implication that we are wasting his time here. Discussion and consensus are cornerstones of Wikipedia, and I encourage Leranedo to fully embrace that. Pagrashtak 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am glad Sandy has brought these matters to attention. In addition to all of the above, I have seen user Leranedo comment on scores of FACs in a day. A good review of one candidate article takes sometimes 3-4 hours so it is plain to see he does not give the hard-working editors of these candidates the courtesy of even reading them. He cannot even follow simple instructions of stating either oppose or support, and he comments based on his own opinions and not guidelines of what a featured article should consist of. And giving him a review award is completely comical and beyond my comprehension. IMO he is disruptive of the entire FAC process. ♫ Cricket02 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am glad, too; I thought maybe I was just being thin-skinned about his (her?) behavior, which I found to be unnecessarily dismissive and rude. I cam into into contact with him via the Nancy Reagan FAC because I found his usage of Reject (in bold) and oppose (in plain text) to be misleading. As it's presence at the bottom of the page led me - who doesn't have a lot of FAC experience - to initially think that the FAC had not been successful, and had been rejected for Featured Article status. After closer inspection, I realized this wasn't the case, and asked the editor about it. He claimed that its not a problem, that he had been doing it for a long time without complaint,etc. - neither of which I found to be compelling arguments for providing misleading votes. He then moved the entire conversation to my User Talk page, which i didn't immediately have an issue with, as I didn;t think the page needed to be cluttered up with All The Drama™. In retrospect, i would have moved the conversation solely to his page and provided a short note in the FAC noting that the conversation about the incorrect and inappropriate usage by Leranedo could be discussed there. RL and other considerations crowded me enogu that i didn't do so, and wasn't more forceful in asking him to cease and desist with his usage of Reject an Pass.
    After reading through his User talk, and the FACs of three other articles hes contributed to, I am struck by two things almost immediately: first, Leranedo is quite intelligent in his commentary when he provides it - and certainly smart enough to know that his alternative choices for voting are going to negatively influence other to vote. The second thing I've noticed about his edits is that he is exceptionally rude and dismissive, both in edit summary and in his actual posts. I have been contributing here long enough and have been dealing with difficult editors long enough to know the difference between a user who is just a sad little monkey using Wikipedia to find a place to vent their frustration and push everyone around with their 'great big brain', and someone who wants to change Wikipedia for the better but has little or no control over their level of sarcasm. Usually I can tell right off the bat which one is which, but I cannot tell this about Leranedo. In either case, his behavior is distracting, disruptive and corrosive to editorial cooperation and harmony. I wish I knew the magic bullet to set him a-right, as I think he has a lot to contribute to the community. However, i am unsure what to say to help this user find his politeness and conformity, and I see a sticky end if he refuses to even try to find it himself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent discussion on my talk page

    The entire discussion is 4 pages in word by now, so please refer to this section of my user page for the [complete version]

    In short this is what happend(From my point of view, of course):

    During my regular vandalism patrol i spotted an edit that,in my eyes, was vandalism. The edit consisted the word "Scumbag" next to the name of an person. Also, the word "Too" was spelled as "Tioo" and the comment was made on a user page, leading me to think this was user page vandalism. I reverted the edit, and placed a level 3 vandalism warning on the users page. About 30 minutes later the exact same edit was made again, and i again reverted it and placed a level 4 warning on the users page(Uknown to me to be precise, as i forgot it was me who warned him before).

    The response i got to this was the fist post in the long discussion on my user page. I deemed the response rather, if not very rude, and responded with a "more annoyed then polite" response to the users inquiry. Minutes later the owner of the user page comes around, and claimed (Again rather rude, in my opinion) that i made a wrong accusation here. I also made a response to this user, which was certainly more friendly then the previous one. When actually reading it thouroughly i decided to leave a little notice stating that i thought it was getting rather personal.

    The responses after that can be described as a "Name and Blame" from the editors side, and a "Defend and counter" from my side. Claims from their side began to include that i threated a respected editor with blocking, something that was appaling, and that the origional commenter obviously had the right to feel insulted. The counters from my side mainly were that it wasn't intentional, and that (in more polite words) there shouldnt be such a fuss about it.

    The next comment was actually the most(And anout the only) useful one, and came from a colleague reverter, Philip Trueman. Philip took a very neutral stance and indeed noted that i made a misjudgement here, but also offered advice that could prevent this from happening in the future. For me this was actually a big cheer up, which caused my next comment to be a lot more like my usual "Happy Dappy" style of commenting. The last two responces are actually the ones that caused me to post here:

    *There's no need to cut slack. He made a mistake. When I pointed it out, all he had to do was check it and say "oops, sorry" instead of reverting me again and issuing a second template. This debate is really pointless, and a real waste of time. Sure, busy vandal-fighters will make 1-2% mistakes, whatever. All they need to do is be humble enough to acknowledge it when it happens, and move on. It's the self-righteous twiddle and the "no one understands us vandalfighters, we're the front line" crap that gets me. Most of us old hands, myself included, were fighting vandals before you knew what wikipedia was. Move on.--Docg 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Responce transcluded from users take page, where it was removed in [This ] revision) I have not got the time or patience for this nonsense. While working on a serious project to reduce libels on this encyclopedia, on a user's talk page, I happened to express my subjective opinion that a neo-nazi was a scumbag. Well yes, I think neo-nazis are scumbags. I think Le Pen is an idiot. I think Nick Griffin is positively evil - a prat, a dangerous lunatic. Are you going to call that vandalism. Now go away, play with your scripts, follow your logic with your brain in neutral, and stop wasting my time.--Docg 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC) '[reply]

    Since this involves 4 editors, i have a few questions, mainly to question my own behavior and handling in this:

     (Yes, i understand that my vand3 warning at once was not the best move, and was actually not justified)
    - Were the two "attacking" editors comments ok, a little rough, or just plain rude?
    - Did the origional editor really have the right to react like this, especially at the last two comments?
    - Was my first comment along with the vand3 to strong, and was it perhaps the reason this ignited into a flame war?
    - In my opinion i stayed rather polite. But thats just me judging myself. Whats your thought, did i stay polite, or were my responses also flames?

    Thanks in advance for your assistance!
    --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole thread would have stopped right there if you had admitted that you did make a mistake. I like how you were able to stay polite (and use smilies haha), but it really was a misunderstanding that everyone could have avoided. In a similar circumstance I think you would have responded as Doc did. ALTON .ıl 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a neutral editor, but I'll give my 2 cents for the next time: when you use Lupin's RC Tool, reverting from it is okay, but then always double check your revert before issuing the warning. If you're not 100% sure, don't template (especially when a quick glance at the user talk shows that this is not some child vandal). Yes this is sometimes a loss of time, but it's a small price to pay compared with all the time you "lost" here arguing. Keep in mind that for a newbie, a non warranted template can be very bitey, and we don't want to drive contributors away, do we? (By the way, NPA is for attacks against editors, not people outside WP). -- lucasbfr talk 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank you both for your advice regarding this matter. Its indeed true that i should have been more careful when posting the templates. The warning level was way to high for a "First vandalism", which is something i still cant explain. I still believe that Doc should have posted a more polite first responce, but then again: My responce to his post was also not exactly the most polite post ever. I think that if we both kept it a little more professional this would have been very easy to avoid/solve, but alas, we didn't. Guess this is just a nice example to remember for the future :) --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthon Eff: Name calling and general bad faith

    Anthon Eff seems to resort to name calling, general bad faith, and violations of WP:Wikiquette when he gets into disagreements with other editors.

    I have been involved in a content dispute in the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics articles over the prize in economics not being a Nobel Prize. Even though the Nobel Foundation [16] and the Secretary of the Economics Prize Committee (the committee that selects the laureates for the economics prize) [17] have stated that the prize in economics is not a Noble Prize, there are editors who still believe it is. Disputes involving Anthon Eff related to this topic are:

    1. (2007-10-03) accusation of an "ill-concealed political agenda": Anthon Eff claimed that "some editors on one side of a debate have an ill-concealed political agenda", directed towards Tkynerd who also concluded that the economics prize is not a Nobel Prize. [18]
    2. (2007-10-12) accusation of having a sockpuppet: Anthon Eff accused Lensor of being my sockpuppet, since we held the same opinions and brought up similar arguments. [19]
    3. (2007-10-29) accusation of being a communist: Anthon Eff has claimed that those who change the articles to reflect that the prize in economics is not a Nobel Prize are on a "campaign to make the English WP conform to the position of the Swedish Communist Party." [20] Lensor approached Anthon Eff on his talk page about being called a communist and how it violated WP:NPA, and Anthon Eff clarified that he specifically meant me.
    4. (2007-11-03) removal of cited text: Anthon Eff removed a large portion of cited text stating "There was no consensus for the change in introduction, despite extensive talk page discussion".[21] However, there is also no consensus for keeping the text as is.

    Anthon Eff has also been in a content dispute with Nastykermit about slanderous text in the biography of a living person, Johan Galtung. Nastykermit has removed the slanderous text while Anthon Eff has restored it.

    1. (2007-11-02) "angry boy alone in his room in Norway": In one edit summary, Anthon Eff stated some snide comments in Danish [22], which another editor translated [23] as "Reinstating text extinguished by an angry boy alone in his room in Norway". The comment was directed at Nastykermit.
    2. (2007-11-04) accusation of stalking: I noticed the Johan Galtung thread in the BLP noticeboard and checked on the dispute. After posting my comment to the noticeboard, Anthon Eff claimed that I was stalking him [24]

    I don't know what can be done about this editor's behavior. Suggestions? –panda 05:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He has also been canvassing for support for his views[25]. // Liftarn

    I have left a note asking him to be civil. I will point out that changes require consensus, while "keeping the text as is" does not. However, this does not excuse incivility. --Cheeser1 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting the notice. I also noticed more bad faith towards the editors who are simply trying to keep the facts straight in the Nobel Prize in Economics article from his canvassing note:
    (2007-11-07) accusation that "the apparent aim of making the prize look illegitimate" and "it is clear that they dislike mainstream economics".
    Only one editor (SlaineMacRoth) has written a criticism about mainstream economics in the article and that editor isn't even involved in this issue with the first paragraph. Also the Nobel Prize in Economics article has always contained that it "is awarded each year for outstanding contributions in the field of economics. The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics". So I have no idea where those accusations came from. –panda 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Progressive Judaism dispute and possible POV fork

    There is an ongoing dispute over whether to use "Progressive" or "Reform" Judaism terminology. Three active editors are advocating for Progressive Judaism. (Egfrank, Jheald, A Sniper) They are knowledgeable and well-intentioned. They have raised their concerns in several settings, including WP:JUDAISM and WP:CSB. However, they have recently started adding to the Progressive Judaism article with content that, I believe, properly belongs in Reform Judaism. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, I've tried to explain (at Talk:Progressive Judaism) that it is important to avoid a POV fork and not duplicate content and coverage on this topic. However, I need some outside assistance in either explaining the POV fork issue with them, explaining to me that I'm wrong, and/or ensuring that they discontinue the effort to gain their objective via (arguably disruptive) editing. Most recently, Jheald just created a new POV fork by outright copying material from Reform Judaism into German Reform movement (Judaism). Plus, now the moved materials is deleted from Reform Judaism. I did an AfD and will revert, but this is time consuming. I'm sure they mean well, but it's very disruptive that they don't believe me about POV content forks. HG | Talk 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Posted some concise evidence at the AfD on the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The "outright copying" HG refers to is not a POV fork. It's a straightforward start at moving to "summary style" for article Reform Judaism. There are some very valid reasons for "summary style" there:
    • The article was considerably over-length, so summary style is recommended.
    • Summary style allows the Reform Judaism article move much more quickly to where things are at today, as WP articles on religious movements should do, rather than many many screens of history first.
    • Having a separate article on German Reform movement (Judaism) is a good idea in its own right, as there are a lot of articles on e.g. German reformers which can now link to the appropriate subject matter directly.
    • This is entirely orthogonal to any question of whether to call anything "Progressive" or "Reform". Creating German Reform movement (Judaism) makes sense in its own right. Jheald 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I second User:HG's request [for some external input -JH]. HG clearly means well, but HG's current behavior is coming across as disruptive to a clean-up process that had the agreement of 3 editors who carefully research and cite sources and have a good feel for the scope of the material and what is needed to manage it effectively (see [[26]]). In addition to the AFD, User:HG has
    We need help so that edits can proceed without disruption. Egfrank 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the second. I now want to add that the "Progressive" editors also removed from Reform Judaism and created Reform Judaism (United States) without discussing this, for instance, on WP:Judaism where such major moves are reviewed. HG | Talk 20:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    HG - take a look at the WP:CSB page - I think you even agreed to it over there - though to be honest right now I'm too tired to check... But really - don't you think it is a good thing that Reform Judaism (North America) has some breathing room to grow? Egfrank 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The creation of these articles is legitimate at this time when there are active editors who wish to expand and research the articles. There is no need to raise the decibels here. Let everyone get on with editing and writing. Thanks, IZAK 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough, though perhaps this might be a good locale to discuss issues of cooperation and relationships, while we pursue content dispute on the relevant article (or project) talk pages. HG | Talk 01:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    POV pushing and meatpuppeteering

    Several users: ForeignerFromTheEast, Laveol, GriefForTheSouth, Lantonov and Jingiby are jointly involved in a systematic pro-Bulgarian pov pushing, specificaly in the articles related to Republic of Macedonia or Ethnic Macedonians. Also, in numerous cases, they provide (or advocate) highly questionable sources like private Bulgarian nationalist websites, such as in Krste Misirkov, or private blogs, as in ITRO, or in many cases- no sources at all. Some "sources": private website, again, personal blog, geocities page, some strange word document etc. One of the most blatant cases, is what can be seen at the National Liberation War of Macedonia which almost turned into their political pamphlet. Some of the statements that they've added there can be considered as espousing neonazi ideas ("the German and the Bulgarian WWII armies were greeted by the population in the occupied areas" and such), and a blatantly biased book published by the Axis Bulgarian military in 1941 is used as a "source" there. They have also turned the corresponding talk page into a mockery of the subject the article deals with. Another important case is what is happening with Kiro Gligorov. They insist on keeping some highly controversial Bulgarian nationalist sources in a living persons biography. I've also noted tendentious behaviour in Tose Proeski and on its talk page. In certain cases there is also a mild level of personal attack or cynicism. Another problem is Makedonsko Devoiche, a song article created a while ago which they have rewriten to suit their agenda. I contested their unsourced statements, and in return, ForeignerFromTheEast having no valid counter-arguments decided to nominate it for deletion. However, before i showed up to contest the article and while it represented a Bulgarian POV, he didnt have a problem with its existence. Same scenarios have already happened in the past. Also, numerous times some of these editors revert some valid edits, and sometimes their edit summaries are fake (for example rv vandalizm when there is no real vandalizm, probably to mislead an eventual recent changes patroler). Once I was reverted for "forking" in Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo although I provided sources and explanation to justify the renaming (redir) of the page. Also, some of them frequently move their usernames to new ones: ForeignerFromTheEast has been formerly named Mr. Neutron, while GriefForTheSouth has been formerly Jackanapes, Wickedpedian and Vulgarian. I contacted one the editors on these issues already. Dzole 10:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Lactose_intolerance

    Specifically, here. User:Tallard started out running against guidelines and editing and using strikethrough on my comments, and then has continued to claim what he did was right and now claiming that my comment should be deleted. After being warned about WP:CIVIL and this specific section things are only getting worse. I don't want this issue to continue and want to step out, but I'd also like it to be clear to him that this is unacceptable behaviour so that he doesn't continue with someone else. Therefore I'd appreciate if someone outside of the situation would take a look and weigh in impartially. --Kickstart70-T-C 13:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left him a note. --Cheeser1 16:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd. He removed my note from his talk page but then added it back by undoing his own edit. I don't know what to make of that. --Cheeser1 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's deleted it again, without comment. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sudden Disruptive behavior

    User:IvoShandor has taken to bothering recently. Yesterday, he tried to come down on my signature, which is not a big problem.

    Today, he became disruptive: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured list & [27]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like IvoShandor is leaving the project. I've seen some of his work and he's been a good contributor in the past, but some of his edits the past few days appear to have seriously violated WP:CIVIL. I hope he's just taking a wikibreak and will come back rested and in a better mood, but that type of behavior isn't acceptable.Karanacs 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked over it, and it seems like he might have something bothering him lately. He has been a really good contributor. Drop him a note on his talk page, saying you care about him as a person. Tell him something like "I understand you don't like my signature, but I would rather keep it. If consensus truly want's it gone I will remove it. Aside from that fact, it seems something has been bothering you lately. YOu need someone to talk to at anytime, let me know, just remember your not alone." Something to show him he has his brothers/sisters here at wikipedia to talk to, should the need arise. Perhaps as karanacs said, a wikibreak or something similar. PS, I am not watching this page (on my watch list), if you need something urgent, put it on my talk page, as I likely won't run across this specific page again for a long time (if at all).--businessman332211 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LtWinters

    Resolved
     – The user appears to have been blocked indefinitely, no need to have this hereJame§ugrono 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This user who no longer edits Wiki continuously adds personal attacks against Wiki editors in general and the Wiki project into his user page and user talk page. I have removed them several times and given WP:NPA warnings as well as citing WP:USER but he logs back into his account solely to revert back to the personal attacks. See the attacks at: [28] and [29] --Strothra 00:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user appears to have been blocked indefinitely. Jame§ugrono 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Corticopia

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

    This user is abusive, adopts a confrontational stance at all times, and makes the experience of editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for others. This is a long-running low-level irritation at the Cyprus page, and I would ask interested editors to refer directly to both the talk page and to the edit summaries on the article history: similar issues can be seen at Geography of Mexico, Metropolis, North America, and so on. It is not a question of accuracy, but of incivility (and, on a side note, an insistence on incorrectly marking changes as "minor"). I and others have repeatedly requested that the user abide by the usual WP:CIVIL guidelines, but he refuses to do so. I note from his contributions history that he is engaged in similar low-level unpleasantness on several other geographical articles, involving many other editors: this reassures me that, while my own behaviour is certainly not perfect, I am not alone in finding Corticopia a disruptive and aggressive presence. An experienced administrator's intervention would be useful here. Thanks, Vizjim 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I totally agree, since he created that account he's being contributing mostly to Mexico-related topics, for reason that couldn't explain in one paragraph but if you check his record you'll see what I mean, I myself have had countless confrontations with him, usually reverting my changes with the excuse of NPOV, and it's not just me, users Jcmenal and AlexCovarrubias (who's been absent for a while) have had the exact same problem, Alex even suspected he was a sock of a previous user that was banned, he even has some evidence but for some reason nothing happened, I would really like the intervention of an administrator here, he uses profanity[30] and uncivil manners [31] and it should not be toletared in Wikipedia, there has been too many warnings for him. Supaman89 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be at either WP:AIV or WP:AN/I, this user has been blocked far too many times for this to be simply a matter of incivility - there are plain, obvious, disruptive edits.Jame§ugrono 05:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Fridae'sDoom

    Resolved
     – Per my comment below Jame§ugrono 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When doing my new page patrol I checked one article out and found that this new user had posted this in a article he/she had created. I then moved it off of the article to the talk page, I think the user should be given some type of warning, but I don't know which one to give him/her VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't need to be here. A simple message on the user's talk page, outlining where and why they made a mistake should suffice. In the event of ongoing vandalism, give them sufficient warning and then refer to WP:AIV. Jame§ugrono 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Insults on Elihu Root article discussion page

    Mateo SA has been insulting another user on the discussion page of the Elihu Root article, thereby violating several Wikipedia behavioral standards. Mpublius 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=171144077"