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

Users:97.93.109.174 & 71.12.74.67

These Users are harassing me on my talk page and on Talk:Libertarianism and trying to get me to stop editing Libertarianism because they doen’t like anarchists and are under the mis-impression I am one-not that it should matter. Actually I haven’t edited the article much because a couple of these guys keep me too busy countering their constant WP:soapbox about why there should be no mention of anarchism, including because it allegedly hurts Ron Paul's credibility! This is a similar attack to one I reported at Wikiquette alerts recently by User:Ddd1600. Don’t know if it’s the same person but I would not be surprised if there was sockpuppetry going on. Relevant links/diffs:

• a User: Ddd1600 more recent ambiguous personal attack here
• Special:Contributions/71.12.74.67 responds with CAROL=ANARCHIST?]
• User97.93.109.174 suddenly appears with a lot of questions he demand I answer at User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_V#Libertarianism_3 and

User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_V#Libertarianism_vs_Anarchism.

• On Article talk page 97.93.109.174 then demands I stop editing the article because I allegedly am an anarchist.
• More harassment on talk page by 97.93.109.174 about me being an anarchist who shouldn't edit the article.

Needlesstosay, this makes it difficult to focus on finding some good new sources to beef up the article and answer some legitimate objections, and to end all the WP:OR editing while both left and right libertarian editors are busy ripping up the lead. Oi Oi Oi! CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As they're anonymous IPs, I've left them both basic WP:NPA warnings on their talk pages; I'm not sure if this will help or not. If it continues, a few escalating warnings followed by an ANI report will eventually solve the problem. If you would like further discussion here, please alert the users about this thread so they can reap anything produced from a discussion. Swarm^Talk 01:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, as I mentioned on my talk page...can you please specify the instance that you felt to be a personal attack? I looked at the page on attacks and none of my comments fell under any of those categories.

The problem isn't that Carolmooredc is an Anarchist. The problem is that she doesn't realize that modern Libertarianism is not the same thing as Anarchism. According to the Britannica article...Libertarianism has its roots in Anarchism...that's it. Anarchism is a minor footnote in the history of modern Libertarianism. Yet the Wikipedia article on Libertarianism leads people to believe that Anarchism and modern Libertarianism are synonymous. Ddd1600 put it well when he said that "To conceptually overlap libertarianim and anarchism is an academic act of treason." For anybody even vaguely familiar with modern Libertarianism...her edits on the Libertarianism page are nothing short of vandalism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Misconstruing people's arguments is also bad etiquette. As I have said over and over again, some libertarians are anarchists and some are not. That is supported by so many refs on the web it seems absurd people would keep WP:Soapboxing about it. But since they do, I'm working on putting in more refs making that point clear. Dealing with constant accusations and demands I stop editing the page just ticks me off and makes me reluctant to edit at all. That's why it must stop. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

i am currently reviewing your sources Carol, "I Must Speak Out: The Best of the Voluntaryist 1982-1999 By Carl Watner p 56" here is the 3rd example you have cited which actually contradicts your argument. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Libertarianism uses some form of the word Anarchism 115 times while the Britannica article only uses some form of the word 5 times. How do you explain that discrepancy? Well, the Wikipedia article is a collection of references collected by an Anarchist while the Britannica article was written by the vice president of the CATO institute...a Libertarian think tank which is the 5th most influential think tank in the world. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This silliness continues with this and this silly harassing WP:Soapbox. At what point does one do a WP:Ani?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And more of it here, with another editor protesting it. Including by User:DarkStar1st whose been off and on with this stuff. Note that I'm not the only one blocking their agenda, just the one who ticks them off the most. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I think it's time for you to take this problem to WP:ANI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't my imagination. Given similarities of "the message," there's also probably some Sock Puppetry going on too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just realized the diff was another disgusted editor quoting their comments and not them just spewing trash again. But told them how close they came to getting an ANI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

disagree Carol has a rather large presence at the libertarian article. I have ask her to temporarily refrain from editing the article for a week, which she has refused. Her insistence of adding anarchist to the libertarian article has been met with great resistance. the standard response is "soapbox". i suggest whomever says "soapbox" the most, may actually be the guilty party. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: The article has been protected and one sockpuppet has been identified. Hopefully disruptive talk page editing will end. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 2: New editors User talk:Xerographica and User talk:TJ1976 have joined with same POV and same unrelenting WP:Soapbox modus operandi as User talk:97.93.109.174 & User talk:71.12.74.67. At this point they only engage in more general attacks on "anarchists," as opposed to attacking specific individual editors. See their August 3rd edits as an example, or I can provide diffs once they get worse. Please leave this complaint open for a while more. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[[User talk:TJ1976] personal attacks

It didnt take long for this user, formerly one of the two IPs above (or perhaps one of the other two that briefly passed by Libertarianism, to engage in personal attacks against me. This diff] starts with: IF there is ever to be progress in any form made on this page, it shall only be made through the BARRING of Carol. She is not a shepherd, she is an anti-intellectual nuisance. etc and [1] If we decide on electing Carol as a dictator, by force of course, perhaps the rules might change. Otherwise, no. etc. Somebody besides me put up a warning template. I'd appreciate it. THANKS!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for dealing with that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Abusive editor

Rick Jens has been using highly abusive language directed personally. A subsection titled Taliban Mulla Editors-Nmkuttiady was added by him full of abusive language like calling me Taliban Mulla editor and comments like The petro dinar funded wahabis need some literature sense. To feed the illiterate who read the outfits daily. Many of his edits are purely driven by emotion without any proper reasoning, like this one. Can someone look at the discussion here? NMKuttiady (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I notified him for you. --Phoon (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience with this editor (here) I did not find him particularly uncivil, but he certainly did a lot of POV pushing (and accusing others of POV pushing while not admitting that he is POV pushing himself. His original story was filled with biases and factual inaccuracies, coupled with lack of experience with Wikipedia. An uninvolved editor should come and give this article a thorough POV edit, and Rick should stop trying to further his position. I would also have some copyright questions about his additions. It seems to me that Rick may not be a native English speaker, and this is hampering communication. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. But my main point is that a talk page subsection is named with a personal attack on me. It certainly doesn't meet Wikiquette . Shouldn't that be changed? NMKuttiady (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Jens found vandalizing article Talk:Popular Front of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.119.66 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been a little while, but this user has not responded to the problems posed here, despite the fact that he has been active. I will leave a note again at his talk. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This user is found vandalising articles and he use vandalizing and POV pushing words[2]. He is found most intolerant during the discussions. He has requested for protecting the article once he found his POV are not being accepted.He is not responding to the discussions now!. It looks he is playing sockpuppetry of a banned user -- Indiashines (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fiftytwo thirty for the comments. Being a novice in Wikipedia has its own problems as you mentioned. It is not my intention to develop a personal battle. I am only interested in improving the articles where I have good/ through knowledge.

Here, NMKuttiady has taken some of my comments out of context and quoted it as a personal attack against him.

In the said section I was only referring to the generic edits done by few editors including NMKuttiady. I had also given example about the style of editing . The introduction was changed to for committing blasphemy. NMKuttiady claims he has not done that. But the fact is he was editing at that time and the said edit is done by IP address which I have no means to verify where it is from.

Popular Front of India is a notorious organization. A neutral article on Popular Front of India and their activities should capture their violent nature. I humbly request that this effort should not be considered as a POV pushing. Rick jens (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick, thanks for posting your reply. when you title a subsection as Taliban Mulla editor-Nmkuttiady I don't think there's any scope for it being out of context. It's a clear personal abuse.Period.

All my edits are regularly done in my account and I don't use any sort of anonymity here. Wiki administrators can easily verify it for u upon request. I don't edit anything unless sourced properly and I've been editing the wikipedia for quite some time now. Each of my edits were properly explained in the talk page also.

You and I may have difference of opinions but as long as we stick to the proper sources, there's nothing preventing a good article here. Most of your accusations are of propaganda, publicity stunt etc while you haven't disputed the sources and none of them belong to any particular organization. If you feel the incidents that are properly sourced from standard references are publicity stunts thats your personal opinion and does not make it acceptable for inclusion in the article and not acceptable for being a criterion to decide what should be retained in the article. If your opinion is shared by any major news analyst or expert on a properly referable source, you can append the opinion to the article as an addition. Wherever the article sticks to the references cited, I've retained the content and where they've not I've removed them clearly mentioning the reason. The discussion on the article needn't be dragged on here. The only reason I brought up this here, if external members identify wikiquette violations in your language, it may be rectified in our future discussions so as to maintain a more healthy discussion on this encyclopedia. NMKuttiady (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First -- a disclaimer -- that I know little about the articles in question, but I do have a few more notes regarding POV. I recommend that all parties look at WP:NPOV and WP:COOL as valuable resources regarding editing civility when in conflict. It appears that all people are talking on the talk page, which is the first step in dispute resolution. It is not going to help facilitate discussion no matter who you are directing attacks to, or who you claim that the people involved are affiliated with, but it will facilitate discussion to just state the facts. For example on the current introduction (Popular front of India), it would not be appropriate to say that "User XXX should not edit this article because they are affiliated with YYY," but instead "The intro seems like it is ripped from the organization's website and is therefore inherently POV." (Which it does) Another example with rick's proposed intro: Not "Rick is obviously against this organization" but instead "Rick's proposal seems like it shifts, but does not fix the POV problems that this article is plagued with." The intro should probobly be none of the above starting with an objective statement, something like "The Popular front of India is a political movement to (Insert five word or less description of goal here, something like "decrease poverty" "eliminate corruption," or "Decrease government spending") in India. Then go on to describe ties to other organizations, and then a brief summary of allegations, "Extremist," "radical" and then discuss the further implications in a later section. My final suggestion would be that all references be in {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, or {{cite book}} templates so that it is easier to identify which sources are reliable. Few statements should be referenced to the group itself, with the exception of History and purpose (and those should be paraphrased, some parts look like WP:COPYVIO.) Overall -- remove personal affiliatons and accusations thereof and focus discussions objectively on the content issues. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st

User:Darkstar1st has engaged in endless soapbox-ing on Talk:Libertarianism The comments are mostly off-topic and sometimes simply false. The latest incident ([3]) is changing:

• Some writers believe most libertarians share an opposition to equality, solidarity, and social responsibility. to
• Most libertarians oppose equality, solidarity, and social responsibility.

The edit summary says "removed wordy redundant text".

This article is under strong pressure from some users who "don't like anarchism" or "want to make Ron Paul/Libertarian Party look good", and offer just these statement for demanding that references to anarchism be dropped. This has made editing the article too difficult. For some of his/her others comments check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16 (archived two days back). In particular, check [4] for a small collection of off-topic or false statements by the user.

This complain is related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Users:97.93.109.174_.26_71.12.74.67 earlier on this page. N6n (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have let him know about this mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In case the debate of relation between libertarianism and anarchism spills onto this page, let me point that the second external reference (the "in particular, check..." one) quotes an Encyclopedia making the relationship clear. (but it hasn't helped)N6n (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I probably should have two months ago. At least now the page is protected from Anon Ips with exactly the same soapbox arguments ad nauseum. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

which statement i made was false, your link is to the discussion page, but not specific? i have never used either of the quoted text you paste above. "Some writers believe" does this mean the source is dubious? if so, i am for deleting the passage entirely. the source used the word "most" Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is the statement "most libertarians oppose equality, solidarity, and social responsibility" is the opinion of the writers in that source, not a fact. Keeping "some writers believe" makes it clear it is their opinion, not a fact. A fact is a statement like "the earth's surface is 71% water". You wouldn't need to say "some scientists believe" for that statement. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification, i will add the text to the other passage from the same source. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikitiquette is for complaints about behavior. Discussion of the non-notable opinion from a non-notable source belongs on the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

understood, i will make my reply there. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Three edits by Darkstar1st after the incident I posted originally. All these statements are not supported by the source. (Discussion here--[5].)

• "All Libertarians are Liberals, politically": [6](addition), [7] and [8](reverts)
• "Most Libertarians are practicing liberalism."(sic) [9](addition)
• "Politically, Libertarianism is identical to Liberalism."[10],[11],[12],[13].(addition and reverts)

I don't think these are in good faith. Darkstar1st first quoted "political meaning is not distinguished from liberalism" and when challenged quoted the correct "political meaning is not distinguished from liberalism, generally." (This statement cannot be constructed to mean any of the three statements by Darkstar1st--as is clear from reading the source, and is discussed on Talk:Libertarianism.) N6n (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem like a Wikiquette issue, really. If you believe it's intentional disruption (which I doubt), WP:ANI is probably the way to go. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is called "forum shopping". N6n (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"the secondary political meaning is not distinquished from liberalism generally." could someone please tell me how i can word this so it can be included? the last time i copied verbatim, that was against wp:rules also. very confused. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator John Kenney

As much as I hate doing it, I must register my protest about the unprofessional and uncivilized behavior of the administrator John Kenney

List of cities proper by population is a contentious article. Many of the list entries do not comply with the definition and scope given in the intro of this list. I had tried to bring certain list items in accordance with the intro. This has been frustrated. This complaint is not about this.

I have engaged in a discussion on the talk page. Lately, John Kenney, who is not an active editor of this article, has taken part in this discussion.

In Talk:List of cities proper by population, John Kenney, who is an Administrator

• Says I am “spamming the talk page with massive walls of text every six hours or so.”
• Complains that I “constantly fill this talk page with screen after screen of rambling”
• Complains about an ”absurd quantity of posting” I engage in.
• Says that I “seem to actually have no idea what (I am) talking about”
• Says that “This article has been held hostage by” my “ignorant verbal diarrhea for way too long”

(There is more, I just gave you the worst ones so far.)

It is trying to remain civil under such a barrage of invectives, but I try. If it would be a regular user, you would not hear from me. An administrator should be held to a somewhat higher standard. An administrator should at least understand the basics of civility. Please let me know whether such a behavior is within Wikipedia policy. If it is, then I will accept it. If it is not, then I respectfully ask that the appropriate action is taken. Thank you. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is likely you know perfectly well that such behavior is not within Wikipedia policy, but there is no value from taking sides in a wikiquette issue when infrequent, robust language is used. A very quick look at the article talk page makes me think that this is a content dispute and that any WQA issue is minor, and is taking place between experienced editors who should accept that robust discussions will sometimes involve harsh assessments. If terms like "verbal diarrhea" were repeated over a number of days, there would be a WQA problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User in question has been notified.--Phoon (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If the claims posted here by BsBsBs are true then John Kenney is practising more than mere robust language. However, the post by BsBsBs is not yet complete. BsBsBs must provide us with WP:DIFFs that take us to the alleged offences by John Kenney. To find out about harvesting diffs see WP:D&L#How to harvest a diff. It is in everyone's interests for BsBsBs to provide evidence to support the claims so the allegations against John Kenney can be resolved satisfactorily, one way or the other. Dolphin (t) 23:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never done this and am unpracticed. Diffs added. It seems as if the situation escalated. See below. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think BsBsBs and I have made up our wikiquette-related differences (although not our content-related differences) since he posted this here - I apologized for my incivility, and he accepted the apology, so I hope this can be resolved without further action. john k (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to see whether BsBsBs accepts John Kenney’s explanation. John Kenney's apology is HERE. BsBsBs’s response is HERE. Dolphin (t) 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone apologizes sincerely, I'll be the first one to accept it and to make peace, as I did. However, if the apology is insincere and followed by further attacks, my acceptance of the apology is off the table. Today, John Kenney vandalized List of cities proper by population by removing the core definition for the scope of the list. This definition is a United Nations definition and was accompanied by three references. This definition had been there for many months and was never edited out. John Kenney also removed a quote from and a reference to another United Nation publication. The diff is here. The removal was accompanied by a note that says "If I remove the UN definition, does that mean this article is no longer a fraud?"

This appears to refer to falsified and unsourced data which had been introduced in List of cities proper by population. I had made various efforts to bring the data in accordance with the proper sources. These attempts were reverted. After my pleas of WP:SOURCES and WP:OR remained fruitless, I subsequently called the entries "fraudulent" on the talk page of the article. This accusation was never refuted. My main concern is that the uncivil language and the vandalism comes from an administrator. I can handle "robust language" and the occasional vandalism without complaints. I am old enough.

However, we are dealing with an administrator. An administrator should be held to somewhat higher standards. At the very least, he should know the basics of Wikipedia.

This removal of a well referenced core section of the article was not accompanied by a discussion, nor had the definition been discussed at all lately. This makes it vandalism.

As this matter has escalated, this informal forum is most likely the wrong venue to discuss this matter. I would appreciate input on how and where I can report this matter so that it receives its proper resolution. FYI, I put a vandalism tag on Kenney's talk page, mentioned the matter in Talk:List of cities proper by population, however, I did not revert the vandalism. I am concerned that this would further escalate the already untenable situation. Thank you for your assistance. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to follow the long argument on the article talk page, but I have added a comment indicating that I regard a list like this as dubious in terms of synthesis and lack of precision. Normally I would have some internal opinion on who is likely to be "right" on an issue like this, but in this case I cannot even work out what the core of the dispute is. Technically, it is not correct to call the edit you mentioned "vandalism" (see WP:VAND). I know that it is frustrating when material is substantially altered against what one regards as good arguments, but vandalism has a technical meaning on Wikipedia, and the term is not appropriate in this case. Also, the edit summary is not obviously civil or uncivil. The summary should probably not have been phrased in what may be a jocular manner given the tension on the talk page, but given that the talk page appears to characterize some positons as "fraud", the edit summary may be appropriate (I would need at least an hour to study the details to form an opinion). Re the issues: there is a WP:Content noticeboard that you could try. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion that entries in this list are dubious, derived by synthesis, and lack precision (if "precision" is a term to be used in demography.) I had noted this very fact several times. As you said, this is not a civility matter anymore. It has become a matter for another venue. I remain disturbed by the fact that there are administrators who use abusive language and practices to promote their POV. If you consult John Kenney's talk page, you will note that this would not be the first time someone had take issue with the uncivil behavior of this administrator, something which he sometimes even openly admits. Thank you for your help. -- BsBsBs (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea that BsBsBS is in a position to accuse anyone of incivility is outrageous, given that he has been spending the last several days accusing other users of fraud, vandalism, and much else besides. I may have gone over the line at points, but since the original incident and apology (which BsBsBs accepted) I don't think I have made any personal attacks on BsBsBs. I continue to think that he is wrong about this article, but I don't think I've said anything uncivil or made any personal attacks since BsBsBs accepted my apology on August 4. The worst I've done is once saying that BsBsBs was making a pedantic argument and then making a slightly cheeky edit summary when I removed the UN definition from the article. Compare that to BsBsBs, who has repeatedly been incredibly rude not just to me but to other users who have been far more patient than me in their dealings with him. This entire complaint is absurd, given this context. People living in glass houses, and so forth. john k (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

user:Blackworm

Blackworm has been threatening me to disrupt and/or delete my work at Wikipedia [14]. He accuses me of “letting emotions rather than rational argument drive [my] responses” and “disregarding his objections” [15] although I have addressed all of his objections in great detail. Furthermore, he accuses me of slander, harassment and incivility [16]. I believe that these accusations are unfounded. I think that my contributions [17] confirm that I have provided several reliable, verifiable sources for each point which I have inserted in the article and that I have given due weight to viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. I have the impression that statements like “as you seem to have realized that I was correct on the matter” [18] express a desire to win rather than improve the article. Moreover, statements like “this is a difficulty in communication we may we have be having owing to your inexperience in a forum with other educated, intelligent people,”[19] imply that my inexperience as a newcomer is to blame for this “difficulty in communication” while Blackworm is completely innocent.

I can continue to ignore what I believe to be attacks and unfounded accusations. But I cannot tolerate Blackworm’s taunts that I “can only expect my work to be wasted as it will likely be removed.”[20] just because he believes that peer-reviewed, published research and articles in major newspapers are "disputed material." If feel very apprehensive about editing as long as Blackworm creates a hostile environment where editors are attacked for adding reliable and verifiable viewpoints which help establish WP:WEIGHT and discourages people from editing by telling them that their work is wasted anyway because it will likely be removed. Perhaps this is the wrong place to express my complaints. If this is the case, I apologize. Thank you. Sandynewton (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Any material that is removed can easily be reverted by a third editor. (Be careful about doing it yourself. See WP:3RR and WP:ER.) Unfortunately, the Gender Studies WikiProject does not seem so active. I think it would be appropriate to post a notice asking for a third editor there. (You don't run afoul of WP:CANVASS by posting a notice about an article at the project that has claimed an interest in the article.) WP:CANVASS offers other appropriate ways to get editors involved. As you are aware, we've already met here. While the statement you brought up can look like a threat, Blackworm did not actually say that Blackworm would delete your work. I think Blackworm may be assuming that another editor would side with Blackworm. (I am not suggesting Blackworm's assumption is valid or invalid.) If you believe Blackworm's dispute with your edits is unfounded, then you should not be concerned about your work being "wasted." While having a situation with only two active editors on an article who have different POV can create a tense situation, it can also produce a better article. Please look at WP:OWN to see about your responsibilities as a primary editor (e.g. you need to consider Blackworm's comments). I believe the only real solution is finding additional editors who can opine on the content of the edits and the sources. Looking at Blackworm's talk page, I think he has had enough experience at WikiPedia to know WP policies well. While I could wish he took WP:BITE more to heart, I really don't think there is a WQA issue here, although I will defer to another editor. Vyeh (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer ordinary content RfCs and other accepted forms of dispute resolution.

There is no assumption that another editor will side with me; the material added does not have consensus, if no one else comments on it and a consensus is formed in favour of the material, then yes, much of it will have to be removed, per policy. It could hardly be called a "threat" as Sandynewton was already well aware that I oppose many of their edits.

I actually take WP:BITE quite to heart, but there is only a certain amount of incivility one can take (and be asked to keep taking) before firmer language needs to be used. I believe I've been extraordinarily patient in light of the huge number of edits by Sandynewton in a short period, and as evidenced by the discussion on that article's Talk page and in the first WQAs I filed regarding Sandynewton, in which I was told I did the right thing reporting these breaches here. Unfortunately, the breaches continue as evidenced on the Talk page. Blackworm (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a content dispute, with no real acts of uncivility on either side, although both sides seem sight tendencies to see uncivility where none exists. IMO this is not a Wikiquette issue, but a content dispute. A Wikipedia:Third_opinion or other input on the dispute would probably get rid of the deadlock. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"if no one else comments on it and a consensus is formed in favour of the material, then yes, much of it will have to be removed, per policy." I don't believe there is a policy favoring the status quo. I think WP:BURDEN goes to whether a source is reliable. And there is the reliable source noticeboard that is very active if there is a dispute on the reliability of a source. I assume you are not implying that you could simply remove the additional material if no one comments on it. And "huge number of edits" in a "short period" isn't a negative factor. I believe I saw a discussion here were there was opinion that it was wrong to put in a huge single edit because of the difficulty it created for other editors. I believe both you and Sandynewton are very responsible editors compared to most of the cases that arise on this noticeboard. It probably bears repeating WP:CIVIL introductory language: "editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment." Although it would be nice to find an editor who can focus on your content dispute, both of you are engaging in extensive conversations on the talk page and seeking third party opinion in this noticeboard rather than engaging in edit warring. Vyeh (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic, however, Re: "I don't believe there is a policy favoring the status quo." I was referring to WP:CONSENSUS, which states, "It begins with an editor boldly changing an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options: * accepting the change, * trying to improve the change, or * reverting the change." In light of the more than 100 edits made and the doubling of the size of the article, I don't believe that exercising a right to revert many changes that lack consensus is inappropriate. I certainly don't believe that adding more and more new edits while one's current edits are disputed and being repeatedly re-added to the article is appropriate. You haven't seen much edit-warring despite Sandynewton's instant reversions of almost every edit reverting their edits, because I haven't chosen to WP:BITE and revert everything I disagree with at once. I prefer to establish a meeting of minds concerning the application of Wikipedia policy, then we can presumably deal with repairing the article in a more speedy way. But if no meeting of minds and no consensus occurs, the challenged material added without consensus will eventually have to be removed until it does have consensus. That's simply how Wikipedia works. I invite Sandynewton or others to seek a wider community input and a more meaningful consensus. Blackworm (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I'm not sure why you are suggesting this dispute hinges on reliable sources since I never objected under that guideline. Sandynewton has cited plenty of reliable sources. My objections are based on WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't RS imply verifiability and the lack of OR? To understand a bit more about the NPOV issue, I skimmed the talk page, the current version of the article and the article on June 2 (before Sandynewton started editing the article). First, let's recognize editors are people and have POV. It is the article that has to have a NPOV. For WikiPedia purposes, the scientific studies are opinions and both peer-reviewed studies in prestigious scientific journals and newpaper articles in major newspapers are reliable sources. Both get included. If you can find another reliable source that says the scientific study is more valid/reliable than the newspaper article, then you can say that source says the study is more reliable. Or you can say A and B in such and such journal concluded X and C in such and such newspaper concluded not X. The talk discussion should focus on the content, on whether the language in the article states without a value judgment accurately what is in the source. If there is language that violates NPOV, it would be probably helpful to quote the exact sentence in WP:NPOV that is violated. And follow the talk page guidelines, especially stay on topic, stay objective and deal with facts. Given the nature of the article, everyone should accept that there will be differing viewpoints in each section. There may be disputes about whether a source is reliable (there is another noticeboard for that). Once a source is reliable, then its viewpoint must be represented accurately and neutrally. Any discussion on the weight of the source also has to have a reliable source. I did note (with approval) that there was a lot of discussion about WP policy and I hope adherence to the talk page guidelines might create a more pleasant environment for everybody. I read the top of this page. It does seem there is some impoliteness and incivility; however, it is pretty mild and most of the discussion seems to be about content. I've given my perspective and advice while trying very hard not to make any judgments or find fault. I hope this has been helpful. Vyeh (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Vyeh and OpenFuture, thank you very much for your helpful advice. I seems rather odd to me that Blackworm demands a consensus to keep sourced material which I add, yet he does not seem to require a consensus when he adds material. I have used info from three types of sources: peer-reviewed scientific journals, major newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe etc.), and published books. There are and have never been any WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV problems with the material I have added because these sources are verifiable, cannot be construed as original research and help establish WP:DUE. Before I started working on the article, other editors complained about the article's POV and many claims were sourced with "menstuff.org." However, this did not seem to concern Blackworm. When an editor expressed the opinion that the article was extremely biased [21], Blackworm dismissed this and argued instead that the word "gap" was biased, that the gender wage gap has nothing to do with discrimination, and is only seen as a problem because women are concerned while "gaps" which affect men (the "gender education gap" as Blackworm puts it) are ignored. And now Blackworm keeps attacking me and threatens to delete the material which I added although it is supported by dozens of reliable sources and helps give due weight to significant viewpoints. However, I will try to remain patient and civil in the future even if Blackworm objects to material on such grounds as his belief that the The Academy of Management Journal is "obscure" and claims which were published in peer-reviewed journals are "dubious and unprovable."[22]

As you have suggested, Vyeh, I am taking a break from the article. Thank you for your patience and advice. Sandynewton (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The wikipeida gestapo

Resolved

 – No action needed --OpenFuture (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I refuse to let this gang of ravenous and power hungry administrators silence me with there threats of blocks looming over my head I write this WQA under great duress. It all started due to an incident (see above WQA) where I had my rollback rights removed, I wholeheartedly disagreed with it so I decided to go and ask to have the rights reinstated. Big mistake.

The administrator HJ Mitchell has defaulted on his administrator duties and has turned a blind eye towards the plight of regular users. He has become unreasonable and quite mean. He has failed to uphold the polices of Wikipedia here, during my case to regain my rollback rights. I presented my reasons and he denied my request which I would've understood if he hadn't made mistakes in his assessment of my case. I attempted to explain to him the errors he made at which point he became hostile towards me. I again calmly and rationally explained to him the errors he made in his assessment at which point he became even more enraged and started one of the most hostile and inappropriate tirades I have ever seen. In this angry and unorganized rant he personally attacked me with derogatory terms, he became bossy and arrogant and made me feel uncomfortable as if he were the leader of Wikipedia and I would need to appease him if I ever wish to have my rollback rights back, and finally he restricted me from using Wikipedia polices in my defense which rendered me to his mercy. Heartbroken and afraid I carefully wrote (as not to anger him anymore) that I found his comments unacceptable and that I would be reporting him. I am truly in fear of this administrator and his tyrannical ways. I hope some sort of solution comes from this otherwise I may be forced to leave this Wikipedia due to the emotional distress caused by him. Thank you.

This is what I posted on Admin. noticeboard Incidents, the experience was horrible. However this is not the subject of this WQA. This WQA is about the brood of angry administrators that seemed to have disliked me speaking out against one of there own.

1. Part 1 - I was viciously attacked by Admin. Protonk:

As I said, this is a blunt statement, but surely not to brusque for the rough and tumble likes of User:Daven200520, who proudly displays {{User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect}} on his userpage! And even quoting the third statement ignores the first two which spelled out quite specifically what Phoon had dones and why Mitchell was unwilling to grant rollback. In fact the progression of the conversation speaks precisely to your last insinuation. It is clear that Mitchell has no problem responding to legitimate questions about his decisions. He gets touchy when the questioning exceeds the level of what he feels to be legitimate. And in this case he clearly said so and directed Phoon elsewhere, rather than responding rashly. The worst thing about the statement above is that it speaks to a sense of entitlement (just stabbing at the dark here since I can't peer into the heart of the speaker), suggesting that further requests will have to be made "nicely" etc. But that isn't connected with the lose suggestion that a statement about annoyance is equivalent to a personal attack. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It is setting no precedent because we aren't a court of law. You misused rollback in an edit war. When you asked for it back, you were told no. When you pressed for a reason, you got one explaining exactly why rollback was removed. Rather than take this onboard you sent every possible signal that you didn't understand why you lost rollback in the first place. Then you pissed an admin off and he acted like a human being. There is no cosmic punishment for your having pissed Mitchell off. Odd are you will not have to ask him personally for rollback when you want it back. This is not a case of world historical importance nor is it a particularly galling case of admin conduct (to say nothing of misconduct). Protonk (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Feeling insulted by his personal attacks I moved to place a neutral non-confrontational template message on his page.

1. Part 2 - I am now accused of bad faith and blocked by this administrator group.

• Me being told not to warn the "regulars": Here
• Then I'm suddenly blocked by Another gang member: Here. He did not have a viable reason for the block and was so quick with it without any proper warnings. He has forever tarnished my reputation on Wikipedia and has ended my dreams of becoming an investigator for the Abuse response team.

1. Part 3 - This Wqa.

• Important Documents and Pages:
• My user talk
• User talk:Toddst1-Also you can see some of there scheming here.
• User talk:Protonk- Main abuser and leader of this renegade ring of administrators
• User_talk:John- co-conspirator

---

• Users involved(In the An/I):
• My user talk
• User talk:Toddst1
• User talk:Protonk
• User_talk:John
• User talk:Courcelles
• User talk:Department of Redundancy Department
• User talk:The Utahraptor
• User talk:Crossmr
• User talk:Noloop

____________________________

Thank you.--Phoon (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is forum shopping. Also, as per the instructions on this page, you need to let everyone you listed above know of this discussion, so they have a chance to defend themselves. --Rschen7754 07:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm completely uninvolved with this, and have now looked through your case and looked at the discussions. I can see no personal attacks against you, nor even any case of incivility against you. I have also to agree that the removal of the rollback rights was correctly done, as you misused them. Calling people "The Wikipedia Gestapo" is also not helping your case, as that *is* a personal attack. You do not have a case. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No cases of incivility? You truly didn't look through my case then. A personal attack by referring to their actions as like those of the Gestapo, again I beg to differ.

I'm sorry, I did look through it, and saw no cases. And if there was cases, why did you not add them here, either as diffs or by quoting them? The links and quotes you provided contains no personal attacks or incivility. You can beg to differ on the use of "wikipedia gestapo", but it's still a personal attack. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As a named party my only comment is to say this complaint is completely without merit. Protonk (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I take that back. "Main abuser and leader of this ring of administrators" I've been promoted! Protonk (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You were the main one personally attacking me. --Phoon (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And how did my personal request to have your block lifted fall into my evil plan to lead my ring of admins? Protonk (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to speculate.--Phoon (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All evidence to the contrary. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been reading this for the last twenty minutes, although it was pretty clear from your section title that this was an epic fail. See Godwin's law, if you don't grok this. You need to, pun intended, rollback the rancor and acknowledge that you're just pissed that folks are seeing things reasonably, not your way. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Grrr Jack you beat me to the ref to Godwin's law. Well done. Jusdafax 07:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The irrelevance is staggering. --Phoon (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just saying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Rschen7754 07:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Per enlightenment. --Phoon (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Persistent personal attacks

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

On 15 July 2010, User:LouisPhilippeCharles called User:FactStraight arrogant[23] and ignorant.[24] I gave him a friendly warning.[25][26] I urged him to apologize to FactStraight, but all I see he did was assuming bad faith.[27] On 5 August, he called me a hypocrite.[28] I don't seem to be able to explain to him what personal attacks are;[29][30] could someone more pedagogic explain that to him? Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified user involved. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am highly offended! Fair enough I am aware I come across rude sometimes but you have to admit that I am the one that blame falls on if something goes wrong even if I have not done anything! I am always the one who is moaned at for writing something (i.e Mademoiselle de Montpensier) in good faith! Anything I do I have Factstraight or Surtsicna on my back finding fault with the littlest thing! I have every right to defend myself (be it not in the most polite way)! This is so unfair, as well as insulting =[ HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they have been perfectly civil with you, but you called one of them "arrogant", and another a "hypocrite". Perhaps they are getting you for the littlest thing—but attacking them won't help anything at all. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I know! I am one of those people that says things out of anger, It is not meant to be as offensive as they find it! I don't mean it really HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact is, whether you mean what you're saying or not, it is not appropriate to attack other editors like that. I know you're not someone who acts in bad faith. You have reviewer rights. You have created 150 articles. But saying that you are "one of those people that says things out of anger" is not a reason to do so. If you are having an issue with an editor, discuss it with them—they are almost always acting in good faith. I reccomend that you have a read of Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:How to be civil, and, if you mean what you say, you should apologise to both FactStraight and Surtsicna. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one here unable to explain to him that he is not entitled to call people arrogant and hypocritical.[31] Surtsicna (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, that post was not particularly helpful. The idea of this noticeboard is to inform editors that what they are doing is wrong, and persuade them to cease their innapropriate actions before it becomes a major issue. Saying that I am not helping LouisPhilippeCharles to stop attacking other editors is counter-productive, and will likely scare him away from here and he will likely continue attacking editors. Secondly, it's not appropriate to say that one can call someone a hypocrite because "everyone is entitled to their opinions", but he wrote that before the issue was raised here. I reccomend that you do not sumbit further evidence of LouisPhilippeCharles's actions before this report was filed unless they are particularly serious. If he continues to attack editors, please do post it here. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that you were not helping LouisPhilippeCharles to stop attacking other editors. I am sorry if that's what you think my post meant. I wanted to say that he did not understand your advice just like he did not understand mine. Anyway, I made a mistake posting the last message. I did not notice that he sent me that message four minutes before I filed this report. I only noticed it today. Sorry. Surtsicna (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I just hope he will apologise to you and FactStraight, and I hope he learns a valuable lesson from this. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I resent this attack word it is rather OTT I think! Being rude is one thing, attacking is another, I have been the former and I will admit that, but two wrongs do not make a right and the above proves this on both parts! I will apologise in due course HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether you are 'attacking' FactStraight and Surtsicna or not, your behaviour is disruptive to the Wikipedia community. I am glad that you plan to apologise "in due course", but please do it as soon as possible, since I will not close this discussion until you have done so. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry! I will apologise to Surtsicna, myself and him have been conversing outside of this anyway regarding various pages :) As for the other person, I will not; he has accused me of various injustices and had me blocked – so he can politely leave me be tbh HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well then. I've decided to close this Wikiquette alert, as the user has apologised to Surtsicna, and Surtsicna has accepted that apology. In closing this discussion, LouisPhilippeCharles, I would advise you once again to read through the pages I suggested if you have not yet done so, and continue to keep in mind what is unnaceptable conduct when conversing with other users on Wikipedia. Most importantly, you refuse to apologize to FactStraight. This I have no real problem with, as long as you two manage to either avoid one and other or accept each other. I would not like to see either of you here here or at AIV for the same reasons again. If you cannot work together, fine—but it would be a real shame for you two to spend your Wikipedia lives warring and feuding with each other. Equally, it would be ideal for you two to mutually accept each other, but if that is not going to happen, try to avoid hostile language towards each other, or if that doesn't work, talking to each other at all. But please, please, do not continue to make a bad relationship worse. Regards, WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 16:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by annon contributor

Recently I stumbled upon a contributer who continually calls me Bolgarian, my country Bolgaria and so on. While this may sound a little too less to be seeking assistance, there are things that kind of escalate the problem. The annon in question is 94.140.88.117 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). He seems to know his way around the place (Wikipedia, that is) since he has quite some contribs, but I noticed him spelling the name wrongly ([32]). I explained to him the situation with the name ([33]). The result was him continuing to use it in that way [34]. I got the feeling that he was doing it on purpose and that it must be derogatory in Serbian. So I asked him to stop and explained that it sounds like a personal attack (since he already knows I start to find it offensive) plus that I'll treat it like one the next time he posts the word in that way([35]). To make sure he gets the message I posted on his talkpage [36]. I don't feel like being polite anymore since he's clearly doing it on purpose and it does not help discussion (not that he wants to actually participate in any). What happened is that he continued [37], using the word in the edit summary [38] and even posting it to my talkpage [39]. I start taking it as some harassment, but do not wish to escalate it to ANI still since he's obviously toying around. It really destroys any chance of a normal discussion, though. Any assistance would be much appreciated. --Laveol ^T 20:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He is obviously baiting you, and if you want to go further with it, AN/I is the place. However, since he isn't issuing any direct personal attacks, I'm not sure anything will be done. The wisest path may be to not take the bait. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:TimidGuy

Resolved

 – I'm closing this discussion since there is currently and Arbitration enforcement request relating to TimidGuy. --Wackywace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Things in the area of Transcendental Meditation are once again getting heated. In this edit Timidguy insults my usage of source [40] which is little more than a personal attack.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about User:TimidGuy, not User:Timidguy. User:Timidguy is not registered, but if you file a report here again you must be careful about who you say has personally attacked you. Secondly, that isn't really a personal attack. Could you please explain why you found TimidGuy's remark insulting? WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are correct it is TimidGuy. Saying someone misinterprets the literature with no evidence of such is a personal attack at least in academia. It is not the first either. Will post further to ArbCom.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Incivility by WoodchuckRevenge

I have had several incidences with WoodchuckRevenge. It started with his vandalism of the American Pickers page. The following is the dialog on his user page following that incidence.

American Pickers

Please stop vandalizing this page. The two characters are not a homosexual couple and if they are they have not released any infor saying otherwise. The next time you change this I will report you to an administrator.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC). Are you Frank Fritz or something? How about getting a username. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC) How about you change your smart ass attitude that you are using around here? I don't want a username, nor do I have to get one.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Glad to see your a classy user who's only been blocked multiple times and curses on his user page. Grow up, Clown! --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC) And you call the things you do classy? I can't help what someone does on an ip address. IP's change you know. IMO you should have been blocked along time ago for uncivil activity.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC). I have reported you to Jpgordon for uncivil remarks and libelous comments on the American Pickers page.76.177.47.225 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Oh no! I'm so scared! >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The following is the dialog from Jpgordon's page:

Hi, I and others have reverted WoodchuckRevenge twice for libelous comments on the American Pickers page. He has accused the show's two cast members as being a homosexual couple. I made a comment on his page about this and warned him that I would report him. Of course, I receive a very uncivil comment back. Could somebody please cools this guy's heals.76.177.47.225 (talk) "Accuse" implies a suggestion that one is guilty of some wrongdoing. Since I think most people agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay, you might want to rethink your wording. However, you are correct that the statement does not belong in the article unless it is germane and verifiable per the notions contained in WP:BLP. x-posted to User talk:76.177.47.225. Taroaldo (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with being gay and that wasn't my intent. I love the show and they have made many hints that they are a homosexual couple. I will wait till a source presents itself before editing that page again. But if we want to talk about being uncivil. Take a look at his comments to me on User_talk:WoodchuckRevenge#American_Pickers and comments he's left on his own talk page User_talk:76.177.47.225. >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) First of all, I'd rather edit by IP than user name. I picked that IP up the day that this started. I did not make those other comments. Second, it is accuse since he is saying they are something they that have not verified as being. Frank has mentioned his girlfriend in several episodes, has been photographed hosting wet t-shirt contests, and both are life long friends since childhood. When you say that they are a homosexual couple without proof you are being accusatory. Why? Because this has everything to do with their careers. This has nothing to do with gay being a bad word as Taroaldo implies. If they lost their tv show over an implication such as this, then in the court of law you could be held liable for making this libelous statements. Third, your snarky attitude is what has started this. I simply ask you not to do this and you come back with a smart ass answer. I ask you to stop again and I get accused of this and that and another smart ass comment. The proof is on your page. I am getting closer to believing that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to hook somebody into a disagreement with you. I have notice intently how you seem to choose your words carefully, snare someone, then double back and make yourself look like gold. I am also starting to wonder if you and Taroaldo are sockpuppets.76.177.47.225 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) If you review my comment, you will note that I support your position that the material should be exlcuded. Taroaldo (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Hi. There's no reason for this conversation to be on this page. Bye. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Who is the one starting the argument? I really don't care what an "IP" thinks. Get a username and then we could tell if those were your comments or not. And if History dropped their show because they were gay, they would sue the History channel for discrimination and win big dollars. Especially if they used Wikipedia as their source. Every 2nd grader should know not to source Wiki. So please, just scram. I have a great history of edits. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My concerns are as follows:

1. I tried to resolve the issue only to be told basically to scram. 2. I tried to alert an administrator to no avail. 3. I am being told by an editor I have no valid complaint since I am using an IP address to edit. Yes, my IP has been blocked, however, I am on an open network so I have been caught in the misdeeds of others. 4. Woodchuck has demonstrated uncivil actions to others as is evident on his user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.47.225 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Are "the misdeeds of others" total garbage "edits" like this and this? So many atrocious edits - were these made by others on your open network, and not you? I don't see how you can call another user a "vandal" with your editing history. WoodchuckRevenge seems like no angel, but his history looks "slightly" better than yours. What would you like to see happen with this thread? Doc9871 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - This IP has been tossing the term "libel" around (including, "If they lost their tv show over an implication such as this, then in the court of law you could be held liable for making this libelous statements.") Also, see this edit summary[41]. Yet, perversely, the IP has no problem replacing Michelle Rhee's name with "Absolute Bitch"[42], defending his action with "That bitch is destroying lives for her own personal gain." See: Libel. This IP has clearly demonstrated that he or she is more trouble than they are worth. I think this thread should be closed as "ill-conceived", and a closer look be taken at 76.177.47.225. Jus' sayin'. Oh, and Woodchuck really should stop telling editors they "smell" in edit summaries[43][44]; not good practice. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, being that I didn't personally make those edits I don't think I can personally be held accountable. However, as far as the libel, I just made a general statement to Woodchuck concerning what he was doing. In fact I have gone so far to make a username in order to appease everyone. I just want his heels cooled. I was being nice to him until he started verbally abusing me.76.177.47.225 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't make the edits? Who did? Better yet: which edits are "yours", and which are those of "others" from this IP? Doc9871 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Being that I am on an open server, I have no clue. I can tell you the edits that I made in the last two weeks that were mine, since that is the time that I have apparently been editing from it. I made an edit on The Unit, KnightsoftheWhiteCamelia, KuKluxKlicken, whom both I found when one edited a comment I made, apparently they had utilized this same IP at during the week because my IP got blockd after I reported those two users and KuKluxKleagle on JimboWales user page, and edits I made on American Pickers, WoodchuckRevenge and Jpgordon.

I am honestly not trying to cause trouble. I have made many ip edits over the last 4 years. I just find Woodchuck's behavior a bit repulsive and he seems to be playing the field. He get's snarky with me, then makes a sweet smelling comment to established editors and admins about how he regrets his behavior and will not vandalize again, then comes right back at me with something snarky. I find that a bit ingenious.76.177.47.225 (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So, all prior edits to this were someone else? This same IP made six previous comments on Jimbo's page before then, you know. Your geolocate shows Georgetown, Kentucky. Do you edit from a school or library, perhaps? Doc9871 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am taking the geo locate info down out of privacy. As far as where I edit from, I will only say that I am using a wireless connection and others have access to it and it is not a schools or library.76.177.47.225 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Every computer has it's own IP address even if they are all used on the same wireless. >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the geolocate data. Wikimedia privacy policy warns that if you don't register an account, information may be derived from your IP regarding your location and possibly your identity. It recommends registering an account if you wish to avoid this. In case you didn't know, there's a geolocate link at the bottom of every IP editors contribs page. Any editor can find out where you are if they are curious. Yworo (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@76.177.47.225 - You shouldn't refactor another editor's comment - I'm not going to undo it, though. So only the last two weeks are you, with all prior edits being other users, correct? It's worth checking out, as the history of this IP's edits before this point are clearly terrible. I appreciate that it is very possibly not you prior to August, and if it isn't: I sincerely apologize. With 85 total edits to the account, I'm not seeing the pattern you describe concerning WoodchuckRevenge's behavior towards you, admins, etc., BTW. One recent disagreement, and no "sweet smelling" comments that I see. You need to provide some diffs to show specific examples of possible misconduct... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How can we really know what edits are "his" and what aren't? I urge this user to create a user name and then we'll know if he's legit or not. That IP has a really bad history. I've never come close to doing anything like that. But about this case. My first comment to him on my talk page was a joke and he snarls back saying "how bout you change that smart ass attitude?". Quite frankly, I could have taken him to wikiquette, but I don't tattle tail over silly stuff. However, based on his profanity there, how can we believe that he hasn't made all those vandalistic edits he claims someone else did. I believe he's hiding behind his IP. >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure of the "new username" mentioned above might help clarify things, as well as any of the IP's used over the last 4 years of "many edits". I guess it's not always required: but it's certainly "nice". 76.177.47.225? Little help? Doc9871 (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that he is the sole editor on that IP. Look at the response I got after my Frank Fritz comment. User_talk:WoodchuckRevenge#American_Pickers Still using profanity, not being civil himself. Furthermore, this editor has a hard time signing his comments. Sometimes he doesn't sign his comments at all. Notice the last comment on my talk page was unsigned. Now look at his talk page and notice the "bitch" comment is unsigned as well. I don't buy this multi-user explanation. I'm sorry, I just don't. The proof is in the pudding. The continued profanity, the continued sassiness, the continued issues being able to sign posts properly. However, if 76 creates a username and creates a good record on Wiki, then I will give him the benefit of the doubt. If he doesn't and he continues to harass me or if I see him harassing others, I will bring a case against his much worse actions. Do the right thing 76! Thanks! >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Gonads3, where did he gone wrong?

Gonads3, that's me. I'm involved in something that should never have happened. I seek advice as to how I can avoid this kind of confrontation in future. I guess I'm reporting myself for allowing this happen.

• Initial discussions started here.
• as well as here.
• and here.

It's a lengthy discussion, but it should be considered as a whole to make any sense of it.

I've tried to put my point across but failed dismally. Whenever the chance to move on arises, the same issues keep arising.

I'm troubled by the outcome, especially as my actions were, I believe, in good faith.

Any help would be greatly appreciated as I do not want to get into a dispute of this type ever again. It's too much. Thank you. gonads³ 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Goethean

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#User:Goethean, involving User:Tbsdy lives, User:FisherQueen, User:Ludwigs2, myself and others, with Goethean acknowledging the problem

From the past few days User:Goethean has been indulging in incivility, personal attacks, inappropriate tagging

• He added a BLP violation on scholar Francis Xavier Clooney by associating him with roman catholic sx abuse. When he was asked to remove it, he plainly refused accusing me of wikilawyering. This was later removed by another admin, see [45]
• He then attacks others as "patently dishonest Indian hooligans"[46]
• Calls me "...local zamindar"[47]
• Repeatedly accuses every other editor who does not agree with him of bad-faith and as some marketing from the mission, "Ramakrishna Mission marketers"[48], "pimp the Mission's latest offerings"[49] (Its important to note that the book in question was published not by the "mission" but a independent publisher, the BLP violation above was against the scholar who wrote the blurb for this book.)
• In violation of WP:HUSH in userpage : Initially he added diffs from users User:Redtigerxyz, User:Ludwigs2, User:Priyanath and myself, and writes "religious people...the most dishonest people"[50] (For those interested, Relevant discussion: Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_7#Outside_opinion) When he is alerted about this, he removes few diffs and later adds : "I reserve the right to speak the truth to liars and cheats." ( Ironically, he is yet to provide the justification for the false material he had added[51] )
• He is currently involved in edit warring over inappropriate tagging, using some imaginary rules ( WP:N applicable to WP:RS !? ) [52] [53], even when clearly told on talk :[54],[55] and in edit summaries:[56] [57], he does not respond on the talk page. He was also involved in 3RR violation for inappropriate tagging on the same article before. See : User_talk:Goethean/2009#3RR and User_talk:Goethean/2009#I_just_had_a_great_idea.21 . Its hard not to speculate that the tagging by Special:Contributions/76.202.231.204--[58] is also the same editor.

Would request the admins to look into it, Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Systematic personal attacks from User:Gun Powder Ma

User:Gun Powder Ma has been systematically engaging in personal attacks against me and other editors. Against me (this is counting only recent attacks): 1 2 3. Older examples of attacks: [1 Against other editors: 1 2 3 4 I request admin intervention for this editor to stop making personal attacks.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is only a lame attempt at retorting. Teeninvestor is currently object of a RFC/Teeninvestor in which his continuing incivility and immature use of language has been criticized by many users. Specifically, he is noted for Unfounded accusations of personal attacks.

However, he himself likes to dish out mightily: "hypocrisy" and "lying". The user's odd perception of things has been aptly summarized by Nev1 here. I am all for civility and mutual respect, so I too request admin intervention for this editor to stop making personal attacks against other users. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, because we know an off comment about hypocrisy is equal to claiming another editor is an ethnic propagandist/mental problems, right...Teeninvestor (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

While I've seen civility problems in the past with GPM (and taken administrative action as a result) these latest diffs don't seem to be too much of a cause for concern. Aside from these two editors sniping at each-other, edit warring and wiki-hounding each-other (which really needs to stop), I don't see a continuing civility problem based on these diffs. Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to resolve a dispute with said editor 1 have been completely ignored and have invited just further attacks. I for one have tried to resolve or minimize the dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: I've accepted the olive branch with open arms (1) until you started the next round of allegations (2). There are many users who think that you have been systematically edit-warring and bullying others over an array of articles. This unconstructive behaviour is actually at the core of the problems. Canvassing selectively other users is another. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the users I "canvassed" were editors who were previously involved in the discussion. And when I stated "hypocrisy", I wasn't aware that GPM was the editor involved. However, it was an off remark in an edit summary; it is not as if it was a vast series of personal attacks trying to discredit another editor. If said editor was really respecting the petition and not just trying to find a reason to break it, this would be nowhere enough to start another wave of personal attacks.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, you only notified a single user, Intranetusa, who happened to share your view, but 'forgot' to notify the other users which also took part in the discussion on Talk:Roman metallurgy: User:Peterkingiron, User:Peterlewis and User:SteveMcCluskey. Such a move may be appropiately called either dishonest or uninformed, but in either case this disregard for WP procedure, which you have shown over and over again, is problematic. PS: I notified these other users. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What a lowball attack, it's clear I notified User:Peterkingiron as shown here. 1. Caught lying, GPM? The 2 other editors made 1 comment on the talk page and I barely noticed them. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not see that, my notification which predates your immature comment above, shows this ([59]). As for your failure to notify the other two editors, it is not up to you to make a selection. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to admit your claim above that I failed to notify user:Peterkingiron is completely and utterly wrong?Teeninvestor (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, I have no problem admitting a mistake. That leaves you, however, still "completely and utterly wrong" to not notify User:Peterkingiron and User:SteveMcCluskey. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I just show you above that I did notify User:Peterkingiron? GPM, behaving wrong is one thing, lying in front of black and white evidence is another. I've shown above that I did notify User:Peterkingiron. Do you dispute that? If you do, we can take this to any uninvolved admin, I can show him the diff where I notified him, and we'll see what happens.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeez, so you notified User:Peterkingiron, but you still failed to notify User:Peterlewis and User:SteveMcCluskey... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

both of you seem like reasonable, productive editors to me. would it be possible to write this off as no fault on either side? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps avoiding each-other would be good for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have proposed to GPM to renew the olive branch petition. I hope he accepts.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Binksternet

I have been involved in an ongoing dispute over the Susan B. Anthony List page for several days now, since 27 July. User:Binksternet has engaged in edit warring but has taken some steps to resolve disputes on the talk page. However, he has been engaged in WP:HOUNDING for some time:

• Keith Fimian: I did an extensive overhaul of the page, which was riddled with POV and unsourced information. Binksternet came along on 29 July and undid several edits I made to the page. 1 2 3
• Alice Paul: User followed me to this page and edited it within hours of when I did. No undos, but it's clear he followed me to inspect my edits.
• Dede Scozzafava: User undid one of my edits within eight hours 1.
• Karen Clark Sheard: User again undid one of my edits within hours. 1

Perhaps the most damning evidence of hounding is the fact that the user had never edited those pages before, at least not in the last 500 edits of each page.

User's edits on those pages may have been merited/constructive. But it's clear that the only reason he ever would have gone to those pages is because he was tracking down my edits and inspecting them.

Lastly, I would like to apologize for an edit made under my username to user's talk page -- I did not make the edit, it was someone in my house who knows of the situation and did it under my name when I was away from the computer to be funny. I reverted the edit.

BS24 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING states that wikihounding is characterized by "joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." You yourself admit that Binksternet's edits to the articles in question have been constructive. Therefore, it is not wikihounding or harassment, nor is there anything wrong with his behavior. Your edit history is out in the open, for anyone to see and use as they see fit. If I come across an article where a user is making a lot of questionable edits, I will routinely check their edit history to see if they are making questionable edits to other articles as well. And if they are, I will go to those other articles and correct them. There is no "rule" that says you can't check someone's edit history and make constructive edits to articles you find there. Since there is no apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress, I don't see a problem here. SnottyWong ^yak 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clearheaded explanation, SnottyWong—you nailed my position exactly. When I run into an editor who has made what I consider a detrimental edit to an article on my watchlist, I will go to that editor's history and check on other work, to make sure the Wiki is getting high quality edits. I fully admit to making edits based on my viewing of other editors' histories, but I have never done so for the purpose of disruption or harassment; only for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia.

I first ran into BS24 on July 27 after noticing that a fellow Oakland, California article editor, User:Critical Chris, was getting a stream of vitriol on his talk page about his work at Keith Fimian, a politician. Chris and I have crossed swords before, and we have worked together with good results, so I wanted to go see what he was up to with Fimian; see if he was advocating a fringe position or a neutral one. I found his work there to be entirely worthy of the wiki, so I joined in the editing of that article to make certain that Fimian's public political positions were getting mentioned rather than hidden, and the same with a minor run-in he had with the law while in college. I am certain the article improved in the process.

I have examined more articles than shown in the list above, but BS24's work stands up nicely in the articles I looked at but did not join. Again, I want to emphasize that I am not trying to harass—not out to discourage BS24 from editing—there is plenty of good work that this editor does. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Consistent incivility and personal attacks by User:Unomi

For some reason, Unomi (talk · contribs) has a problem with me, and apparently feels the need to express that problem with incivility and personal attacks. I don't know if the problem extends to his interactions with other users, but his interactions with me are always disruptive. He occasionally shows up at discussions I'm involved in and makes pointed comments, although I don't think it would be fair to characterize his behavior as wikihounding at this point. I also can't say that my reactions to his incivility have always been exemplary, however for what it's worth, I can say that any perceived incivility on my part has always been in reaction to a blatant insult that I did not deserve. I think Unomi needs to learn to hold his tongue, or if that is not possible, he needs to avoid contributing to discussions in which I'm already involved. I think I need to learn to just ignore his comments, and not take the bait. We've actually had very little interaction overall, but all of the interaction has resulted in some kind of unnecessary insult. Here are some examples I've found of his comments towards me:

• Calls me an "asshat"
• Characterizes my contributions as "puerile wankery"
• Calls me a "tool"
• Says my mere presence is offensive
• Characterizes my comments as a "constant barrage of idiocy"
• Calls me "dense", characterizes my contributions as "masturbatory"

I would appreciate any comments the community has about this situation, as well as any advice on how to proceed. Thanks. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Abusive administrator Dougweller

I am Jeremy Main, former editor Jel, and a part-time researcher in history working alongside Professor Laura Smoller of Arkansas University, the world's leading expert in mediaeval cosmology, particularly focusing on the work of Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly. Cardinal d'Ailly's cosmology was a principal inspiration of Christopher Columbus, who used d'Ailly's Imago Mundi as a planning document for the Indies expeditions. He was also a chief inspiration for Pope Eugenius IV's views on the Eucharist, which were a signficant influence in his commissioning of Prince Henry the Navigator's exploration of the African coasts, and through his follower Cusanus, "Eugenius' Hercules", of Kepler and modern astronomy. As I wanted to discover more about Prince Henry's relationship with the Pope, to reconcile an ostensible contradiction with other positions the Pope took, I enquired in the area of the Portuguese School of Navigation and discovered the question of Columbus' ancestry is an open question in Portuguese academic circles. It suggests a further relationship between the Order of Christ and Columbus, coherent in the alacrity he took to d'Ailly's collected works when they were published in the 1480s. As this was somewhat ground-breaking, I looked at the Wiki page on Columbus for a quick reference check, and onwards to the Orign Theories page, in search of details of his education, which appears to have been minimal as a child, but was extensive in his later life, at least sufficiently to be able to follow the cosmological thinking which through Cusanus inspired Kepler, coming to a similar conclusion. The balance between the two memes is, or should be, that the main page should display the orthodox history, and the subordinate page should address the quandry. However, on examining the [page], I discovered a bad-tempered dispute between administrator/ajudicatorDougweller and a new editor, Colon-el-Nuevo, who was presenting a fairly central version of the Portuguese theories as his own work. I do not know his identity, but I do know that what he has been saying is representative of a school of thought in Portugal, not simply that of one man, whether or not he is at the root of the school. The root of Dougweller's position is the same which caused Larry Sanger to depart, an administrator who knows nothing about the subject attempting to overrule experts. I therefore attempted to call the disputing parties to order, even providing a discussion area where the protagonists can debate their cases without making a mess all over the discussion page, but Dougweller turned on me and has become insulting to me as well, in public to boot when I asked him to talk to me in private. He refuses to see past his disdain of Colon-el-Nuevo and to hear that others appear to share his opinions to greater or lesser extents, which after all is the object of the meme, Origin theories. I am therefore referring Dougweller's behaviour to this meme with the request that he be banned from moderating historical subjects, that an independant authority be appointed to tidy up the mess and that Colon-el-Nuevo be corrected in his thinking. I do not feel I should take that task on, because I have posted what amounts to OR in the domain as a possible reconciliation of both schools of thought, and because I am not sufficiently authoritative in the main subject to form a definitive position: I am and remain open to guidance on the question, if properly documented.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? SnottyWong ^speak 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have taken the liberty of informing User:Dougweller about your comments here, which you neglected to do (and it is required). SnottyWong ^babble 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I had already notified him that I would formalise a complaint if he did not seek an amicable resolution in my earlier posting on the Debate page. I was in the process of doing so when you went straight down my throat within three minutes of my posting the complaint. If this is the standard you use, you're inhuman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, three minutes is the time it took for SnottyWong to post "Huh" above, notify Dougweller, and post here to inform you of that. The time it took you to not post a notification on Doug's page was actually 30 minutes, not 3. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And the time it took me to review the discussion and find no personal attacks or civility issues (other than the use of "inhuman" above) was.... oops, 4 minutes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)