Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.220.204.70 (talk) at 15:20, 17 July 2011. 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

    QuackGuru

    QuackGuru has left several posts ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) on my talk page related to an extended dispute on Talk:Pseudoscience involving a large number of editors. I pointed out that the issue was not personal but involved the whole editing community for that article and I clearly requested that QG stop posting on my talk page.[6][7][8] I am quite responsive in the article talk page and I see no need for QG's personalization of the disagreements by posting the same arguments on my talk page. Today another long posting appeared.[9] I find QG's talk-page style to be dogged, repetitive, not-hearing, and tenditious. It's difficult enough in article space. I have been hiding QG's posts to my talk page but I'd rather not get them at all. Are there remedies that will keep QG's posts off my talk page? Jojalozzo 03:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jojalozzo, do you agree you will stop violating core Wikipedia policies? What is the abbrevation dnft stand for? Why did write in part: If not, let's stop cooking this trollish feast.? QuackGuru (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that QuackGuru does not actually communicate but only leaves variants of the same announcement on your talk page (basically saying that he is right and you are wrong and your responses worthless), I think you can simply follow the same approach that I did here. Presumably (I haven't checked), after that he went around telling people behind my back that I was wrong and he was right and I wasn't responding at all, but at least he left my talk page alone. Hans Adler 07:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim is supported by the source. I recently explained this in detail on the talk page. Do you agree you won't replace sourced text with OR again or delete sourced text from a mainstream peer-reviewed source. See WP:WEIGHT. Your previous approach was not productive. You failed to explain why you are against including the mainstream source. QuackGuru (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither this nor my talk page are the proper place to conduct a specific discussion about editing Pseudoscience. Here we are discussing how to help you recognize boundaries and to limit discussion to locations where the editors involved can participate. Jojalozzo 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum verbosium, begging the question and straw man. Also: When did you decide that trying to cause nervous breakdowns in serious Wikipedia editors is more fun than beating your wife?
    You should have been banned per WP:COMPETENCE years ago. I am pretty sure if you hadn't simply stayed out of the recent Arbcom case which you caused and in which you were named, without any excuse or explanation whatsoever, you would be banned by now. Hans Adler 15:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to said ArbCom case please? DigitalC (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling. QuackGuru's current baseless complaints are the continuation of events in February/March that only he is still interested in. At the time, Ludwigs2 took him to ANI because of the disruption, but Sandstein decided to shoot the messenger, leading to the Arbcom case. QuackGuru was named as one of four officially involved editors, but played dead. The evidence page was blanked. For an overview of QuackGuru's disruptive activities over the years (not exclusively WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE issues but also more active disruption), see here. Hans Adler 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links. DigitalC (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Hans Adler. Take QG to ArbCom again please. Why they didn't deal with him when they had the chance I don't know, but they need to do so- unless he can be community banned. BE——Critical__Talk 02:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done, see WP:AE DigitalC (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am. (at least I'm uninvolved) BE——Critical__Talk 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, you are involved (in the content dispute) and have refused to collabrate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Kiefer.Wolfowitz

    I am having a disagreement with this editor over dramatic, large scale removal and replacement of cited and referenced content in the Socialist Party of America article. However, I feel that I cannot even begin to reach a reasonable accommodation or even discussion with this editor because the incivility of this editor has been so extreme. My first encounter with this editor was an alert accusing me of disruptive editing for changes to the Socialist Party of America I made 5 years ago and warning of a block for my "disruptive editing". [10] After placing an "NPOV" tag on the replacement section of the article, this users language has become more heated, and he is now calling my earlier edits "plagiarism". [11] This editors strong language around this topic and wholesale dismissal of entire sources can also be seen here: [12] [13].

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

    WP:BOOMERANG? Kiefer has some proof of plagiarism here. In addition he has been very civil, so I don't even understand where your statement of incivility comes from. I checked the edit summaries and there are no problems there. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be careful with that tool, Ryan. It is the nature of brief histories that substantial overlap must occur. The talk page of the article contains the selected and tell-tail matchings that I found, which were in the cited but improperly paraphrased "history".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    ARE YOU KIDDING! First, the "plagiarized" lines shown ARE NOT EVEN MY EDITS. Second, your match detection software is showing things like use of the same personal names as "plagiarism". By that standard, *any* summary of a prior source is "plagiarism". Peter G Werner (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I actually found the link on Kiefer's talk page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks Ryan, but it is at least plausible that my edits crossed a line of incivility.
    EC
    Werner did violate WP:copyright policy by plagiarizing the following pamphlet, which is not a reliable source to begin with.
    The tool http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ matches the following strings, the important ones being already listed on the talk page of the article by me:
    Automated comparison
    Then he added multiple references to DraperDrucker's book, without page references, to support claims based entirely on the SPUSA history, as noted on the page. (He also added 2 1/2 items that I could find supported by Drucker, which I have listed with page numbers on the talk page of the article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    There were BLP violations about the persons in the organization, who are still alive also.
    Finally, Werner tagged the SPUSA article as violating WP:NPOV, without stating any specific problems. Even when prompted to list problems, he made attacks on my good faith and alleged political motivations.
    I asked Fetchcomms earlier to check whether I was out of line, btw, since I've seen him fix copyright violations quickly. He'll be travelling for some weeks, however. I noted that there may be a difference between the indignation endorsed by Aristotelian and Christian ethics and the standards of WP: I invited Fetchcomms to block me if I was overzealous in describing the plagiarism.
    On the other hand, you can see instances where I commend Werner for other good editing and note that this seems to have been an isolated case ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC), so that my criticisms were specifically about 4 behaviors and not personal attacks, clearly, imho 21:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
    Regardless, we'll have to take this up more in a few days.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show me where it's a WP Manual of Style requirement to show page numbers. And that removal of entire content is warranted for lack of page references. The level of changes you demand based on mere nitpicks is incredible. You have basically removed all mention of the disagreements between different factions over the Vietnam War. That's a key piece of history you've thrown out. And all because you're miffed about Hal Draper's take on SPA history, a partisan argument I'm not even privy to, but something you've attacked my motivations for using as a source nevertheless. In any event, WP:NPOV would commend that neither the SPUSA or Draper version of events is favored over the other, but both reported in a neutral manner. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Read "Drucker" rather than "Draper", last night's mistake by both of us.
    The SPUSA document is not a reliable source, per WP:RS, WP:Primary, etc: It is also wrong on the facts. Just read Harrington's memoirs and biography (and Harrington was leader of the minority), or the New York Times, or Drucker (who is a Trotskyssant socialist, so has no axe to grind, certainly not one favoring the most centrist organization, SDUSA). The "Debs caucus" was very small (2/33 NEC votes in '72), apparently, and so it is ignored in most accounts, even by those mentioning McReynolds. (Only Busky's book seems to discuss it, and Busky discloses that he was a SPUSA officer since 1978; maybe SPUSA national officer Eric Chester's book discusses it.)
    For comparison: User:TheFourDeuces just removed my addition of material from Solidarity (U.S.) from American left, because it lacked secondary reliable references—while I devoted a good hour on Google Scholar and Google Books looking for references—and finding only references that cannot in good conscience be used, because ALL of the authors are members or very close associates of Solidarity. I fear that the Debs Caucus and SPUSA are in the same boat.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Update: I added a very short description of Solidarity, based on a publicly available footnote in Nelson L.'s book on the CIO in WWII (2nd ed.) I wouldn't use an account by him, or Buhle, etc., for more, because they seem to be associated with Against the Current more than WP:Secondary likes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use secondary sources published by the academic press regardless of the views of the writers because the nature of the publishing process requires accuracy. We use them as sources of facts not opinions. As you found however, few sources are available on-line. However, the article American Left was well-sourced, using academic publications with news sources only used for current events, so adding unsourced material clearly was noticeable. TFD (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TFD, I had hoped that my having (by 10 a.m.) referenced Lichtenstein for a brief Solidarity description clearly had been noticeable too! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a policy requirement to show page numbers where material may be challenged, not just a guideline. WP:VERIFY says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there's some difficulty in establishing the accuracy of the accusations that form a significant part of this WQ alert, I've asked for feedback here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed material that was based on a SPUSA pamphlet, most of which was nonsense, certainly violated numerous WP policies.
    Nonetheless, I preserved the beating heart cadaver with life support: I provided the page numbers to exactly 3 assertions, exactly those that could be said to be based on Drucker's book; I suggested "IMHO" that one could be added (judgement call), one was okay but uninformative (and therefore could be replaced with an expanded description of the conflict rather than an uninformative statement of conflict), and that one was more relevant to biographies of Shachtman/Harrington rather to an article on the SPUSA. Werner has not commented on these suggestions.
    Werner still hasn't dealt with the issues raised on the article page, but has renewed personal attacks and AGF violations. I wrote a self-criticism and a defense of Werner on my talk page, suggesting that Ryan relax and consider things from Werner's side: Werner would do better to cut and paste that material, free under the WP license, in his complaint, imho!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I redacted my comments on the article's talk page (which had not been replied to there) to improve compliance with WP:AGF and WP:Civility.
    On second thought, I think that Werner naively thought that SPUSA, with its tolerant and idealistic history, could be trusted to produce a pamphlet that (at least) got the facts right, and (in a moment of extremely poor judgment) overlooked the alarming turns of phrase (especially "Stalinist democratic centralism" or calling Harrington Shachtman's lieutenant). I also believe that Werner cited Drucker intentionally (apart from 2 1/2 cases) as a reliable reference for further reading (rather than intentionally as pseudoscholarship duplicitously adding weight to the SPUSA falsehoods), although this was a serious error because those WP:BLP-violating sections were obviously contentious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Out of courtesy, one should avoid templating established editors, merely explain to them what policy we believe they have violated. In any case, one should not template someone for an edit made five years ago. One should also assume good faith that another editor may be adding information he believes to be accurate even if it may be worded in a non-neutral way. Just explain what your position is and await the response. A lot of articles about the Left in the U.S. were written years ago and are poorly sourced or may not otherwise measure up to standards that would be acceptable today. We should work cooperatively to improve that. Also, there are procedures for resolving content disputes, but one should try to resolve them with other editors of the article first. TFD (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. In retrospect, I was probably reacting to the "democratic centralism" slander as well as a concern that nobody had caught the undue weight/NPOV/Reliable/BLP/Secondary problems with these articles in 5 years, despite them being edited by officers and activists in the SPUSA and similarly sophisticated and intelligent editors outside the SPUSA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:65.93.15.213

    20 July 2011

    19 July 2011

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

    This sounds like simple vandalism. Surprisingly, there are no warnings on the user's talk page. Looking into this further I can see logic behind the contributions (e.g. stars in astrology have been and still are used by some to time agricultural activities). Perhaps you could post a message on their talk page asking for clarification.Jojalozzo 14:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for trying to clarify. I was not sure myself. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes the additions appear very far fetched to me. But I see the templates have been removed already, so maybe it is considered vandalism. I also raised the question on the WikiProjects Council because this is something I have never seen before, and they may want to look into it. Why are articles of minor importance suddenly being added to 3-4 different WikiProjects? It's puzzling. I searched the guidelines for maybe 1 hour and found nothing about this kind of practice. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Overtagging is disruptive. That guide calls it "spamming" when minor articles are added to projects. When the motivation is a good faith desire to get attention for an article that needs work it's not comparable to adding links to an external web site. However if the article is for a commercial enterprise (which is not the case here) then the spamming label fits. Jojalozzo 15:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not overtagging, since the study of the cycles of the stars in ancient times is the basis on which astronomy grew from. And the cycles were studied to determine the correct time to plant. So, it would fall under history of science, astronomy and farming.65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but consider that it is a very minor article with very few other articles linking in to it. I am sure the stars were also used for navigation in ancient times (and still), so should we then also add it to the Projects that deals with navigation? The Project Ships and Project Transport among others? Birds also navigate by the stars, so let's add Project Birds..
    Where will it stop?
    The imperfect rule of thumb is to go to the main article(s) related to the WikiProject and check what LinksHere. If an article is not linking to it then it is probably not under the scope of the Project. Of course that can change if an article gets more developped. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This specific article covers the relationship between the stars and the equinox and solstices, which I would think, is where astronomy and astrology meet. And it deals with it in a historical context. I do see the point you're getting at. And that's why I only added these particular tags, instead of all possible WPPs. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:Chesdovi

    • Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has depleted my patience with this edit, where he calls me "anti-Palestinian". Likewise some time ago in this edit he said I have a "Zionist POV". In addition he is childishly mimicking my edits in discussion, like in this edit. In general his tone in discussion is derogatory. We disagree, and disagree strongly, on certain points, but he has no right to accuse me of having certain sentiments. I'd like an uninvolved admin to admonish him for his violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Please note the many blocks and topic-ban on his talkpage, indicative that this editor is problematic. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser (talk · contribs), I'm not sure but shouldn't you be pursuing this at AE? It sounds pretty clearly like an I/P-related dispute if you're being called anti-Palestinian and Zionist on account of your edits.—Biosketch (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally wouldn't want to do so, because that would look as though I am gaming the system to gain the upper hand in the issue the discussion is about, since it would be likely to lead to his being blocked. Not that I would consider that a bad thing in itself. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then as a note to Chesdovi (talk · contribs), calling another editor "anti-Palestine," regardless of the circumstances, could very well be considered a violation of your most recent topic ban. You had best retract any comments made in that spirit.—Biosketch (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of bias

    I am being accused of "sickening bias and double standards" by Whatzinaname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on an increasing basis, notably here at Talk:Jenson Button#ridiculous POV pushing. This editor's problem is not that I added biased statements, but that I did not remove supposedly biased statements written by others. Elsewhere, there is this kind of thing [14], accusations of bad faith and bias against foreigners [15] and similar accusations a while ago at his IP talk page (he does not always log in) here: User talk:66.190.31.229#Vettel. On more than one occasion he has used his IP to help his named account in an edit war [16], [17]. Do I have to defend myself against this kind of abuse, or can somebody do something about it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I don't "edit war" with my IP. I forget to log in sometimes. And sometimes I just don't want to bother to log in. Secondly, YOU are the one biased against foreigners with your easily demonstrable bias against non-british drivers, not me. You are merely upset I completely destroyed your claims of being ubiased in the jenson button wiki talk page, and are trying to save face with these absurd claims.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The accusations of bad faith and bias are thus reproduced here, first hand by this editor. He has yet to produce a single piece of biased information that I have added to any article. If it's so easily demonstrable, then he should produce something here which I have added, that is biased - NOT somebody else's work which I have left in place. This accusation of bias against foreigners is deeply offensive. I edit articles on Formula One drivers of all nationalities and utterly refute all accusations of racial or xenophobic bias, and I request that this be retracted as completely unfounded. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit history shows a distinct double standard for british formula one drivers and non-british ones. It's a simple fact I've detailed several times now. Whether ir's "xenophobic" or not is non of my concern. I intend to crush it whenever I see it. Wikipedia should be an unbiased source of information, period. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it shows such a thing, prove it. You haven't, and can't, because it does not exist. This is unacceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    you edit war for the inclusion of NPOV edits here for Jenson Button http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenson_Button&diff=prev&oldid=438725819 , then you have no problem with similar edits when it involves sebastian vettel http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Monaco_Grand_Prix&diff=prev&oldid=431640701 . This isn't an isolate incident either, but a pattern of behavior. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an editor exhibits a pattern of biased behavior, the correct thing to do is to address this in the form of dispute resolution preferably showing through cogent arguments that the editors edits are not in line with NPOV - not by engaging in accusations or personal attacks. Whatziname has not demonstrated any bias here but has engaged in quite a few borderline personal attacks, ad hominem arguments and accusations of bad faith. This reflects badly on you and frankly does not make anyone look more kindly on your case. You have to stop that and instead discuss strategies for improving to articles rationally and with arguments based in sources. That is the only way to move forward. Any further repetition of accusations against other editors that are not backed by solid evidence will make it likely that some kind of sanction will have to be carried out against you (whatzinaname) regardless of the merits of your arguments. I urge you to step back and adopt a more collaborative and less conflictive editing behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    i find it interesting you mention things like bad faith and borderline personal attacks, ad hominems, etc. when Bretonbanquet does the exact same thing. Whatzinaname (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Whatzinaname - those diffs are so weak, I'm surprised you brought them here. The first diff shows me reverting your addition of unsourced information - you used an existing reference to appear to be backing up your addition. Two other editors also reverted you when you kept re-adding it. The second diff appears to show no bias whatsoever, either in my edit, or in the existing text. Thanks to Maunus for his comments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    According to you it's wrong to state the 100% FACT that jenson button was advantaged by the safety cars, at the same time it's perfectly ok to claim that vetel was "majorly advantaged by a late race safety car(technically a red flag)" which is 100% SPECULATION. The only difference being the drivers nationality. If that doesn't prove a biased editorial outlook, then nothing doesWhatzinaname (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The racing incidents and their effects are your opinion, as I and several others have said before. Back them up with sources. The statement that Vettel was "majorly advantaged" was written by somebody else, not me. You appear to be attacking me for what someone else has written. Again, you repeat your baseless accusation of bias on the grounds of nationality. How many more times are you going to be allowed to do that? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You directly edited the biased sentence for gramma. How can you edit something for grammar without reading it? You read it, you knew about it, and you had no problem with it, not even asking for a cite. You jumped headlong into an edit war between me and some anon IP editors who wanted to delete my write up of tghe race and replace it with their own. Their write up had nothing to do with the reference supplied, You tried to hide behind your jumping into the edit war claiming the material was sourced. The "sourcing" wasn't an issue, which you well knew. It was a blatant attempt to remove a fair, unbiased NPOV description of what happened in the race, and replace it with a grossly biased one. You simply saw your chance to edit war with me and jumped on it with the anon IP editors because you are annoyed I won't cave in to you on the vettel wiki page.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So my crime is leaving someone else's bias in the article? Is that the best you can do? "You read it, you knew about it..." You are taking an assumption of bad faith to outrageous levels, and I'm amazed that you're still doing it, here of all places. You've just accused me again of "gross bias", again of premeditated bad faith, now also of looking for opportunities to harrass you along with some IP editors. Still with no evidence. Anything else? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are able to edit a sentence for grammar without even reading the sentence? Impressive. I'm sure that would stand up in a court of law. I'm not playing any wiki games with you or anyone else.I've got better things to do. I will not allow grossly biased wikipedia articles/edits to exist when I come across them. The end. Whatzinaname (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted at ANI with a link to this discussion. This has gone far enough. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ending this

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

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

    Did I do anything wrong... nothing I know of. Editor 222.127.231.29 seems to have a particular problem with me. Maybe under a previous IP? I don't know. I reverted blanking he did to the Talk:Burma page and put the appropriate general note on his talk page[18]. He erased it. He has also soapboxed the Burma talk page. I deal with this stuff all the time so no big deal but now he is constantly slipping in personal notes on others peoples talk pages, [19], and after asking him to be civil he posted the following, [20]. I could have removed that last post on talk:Burma but thought it would simply inflame the situation more, so I'm bringing it here first. He's only popped up recently looking at his few posts so I'm thinking maybe a past banned user I have reported in the recent past? Anyway he is now starting to carry things a bit far for my liking and I was hoping that someone would tell him so and keep this a pleasant place to edit. Obviously he will not listen to me. This editor has also vandalized the following page [21]. I do not edit that particular article but I include it for perspective. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:NickCT

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

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

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

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

    I've also has some minor problems with NickCT. I had not planned on escalating it anywhere, and am only doing it because I saw this on his talk page, and it seems like it is a consistent problem. NickCT asked me if I'd ever edited under another account. Fair enough. But then when I told him in unequivocal terms "No. Never", he responded by in effect calling me a liar. That's hardly a civil way of behaving towards other editors. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to Biosketch's comments - Bio, you've posted this kind of bullet point list of how you think others have been offensive twice in the past several days. I think most people reading through the lists will recognize the alledged "violations" is the kind of thin gruel that would only upset the most die hard adherents of WP:NPA. The kind of "drop-of-the-hat" complaints about personal attacks you're lodging have the distinct odor of wikilawyering. The WP Israel-Palestine POV wars do not need any more wikilawyers. What it needs is some wikilove. Please stop the lawyering. Additionally, your removal of my comments (i.e. point 3) is pretty likely in violation of WP's talk page guidelines. In future, you ought to request editors redact or remove their comments before taking it on yourself to do so. re Your "record as an editor" being "flawless" - Note that I have edited under a single account since I got here several years ago. You on the other hand "appeared" on Feb 1, 2011 making suspiciously experienced looking edits. New account? If so, why? Previous account not so flawless?
    On another note Bio, thanks for post here and not ANI. This is definately a better place to go for discussions of behavior of this nature.
    Responding to Bob drobbs' comments - Bob in this comment to your talk page, I actually said " I'm not calling you a liar. All I'm saying is that the editing pattern looks extremely suspisous". I recognize it's not fun when people question whether you're a sock (I've been there before), but unfortunately socking happens, and I think anyone who reviews the SPI in this case will recognize that I'm not throwing these accusations around for the fun of it. As I've also said to you before "If I did get this wrong and the odd editing pattern is just a coincidence, I'm sure you'll WP:AGF and recognize that I'm not doing this to try and persecute innocent people". Frankly, I think I've handled this SPI about as politely as can be expected. NickCT (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior isn't a cool thing to say, and it would be nice if you redact it.
    • Regarding the sock thing, yes, you're repeatedly questioning drobbs veracity. Once the question was asked and answer you should just take it to WP:SPI if you think the editor might be a sock. Gerardw (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NickCT (talk · contribs), your comment isn't a response to mine. It's a reply maybe, but not a response. You still have failed to produce any evidence whatsoever in support of your accusation that I am a "committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." Moreover, instead of working towards a resolution of this matter, you've now compounded it by baselessly suggesting I may be a sockpuppet. There is a time and place for you to explore that possibility – but this is not it.—Biosketch (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    re You still have failed to produce any evidence - Wow. Bold face type. Your complaint seems so much more legitimate now. As I'd previously mentioned here, all the "evidence" needed is a quick review of your contrib history. Are you upset that my comment is inaccurate or just that I didn't provide evidence to support it?
    re suggesting I may be a sockpuppet - Wrong. Suggested you might have a previous account. Important difference.
    re time and place for you to explore that possibility - Hey, you raised the point by citing your "flawless" record. NickCT (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but linking to a contributor's edit history isn't admissible evidence of anything. Solid evidence means diffs that compellingly establish a pattern. The fact therefore remains that you continue to abide by a serious accusation made against me with no evidence at all to back it up.
    And your last remark doesn't make any sense, frankly. I mentioned that my record was flawless because even if you tried, you would not be able to make a case against me that I edit in violation of WP:NPOV. I am a regular contributor in an area where "committed POV-warriors," to paraphrase your expression, seldom survive for longer than a handful of edits. Yet never has a case been brought against me for violating NPOV since I started contributing to this Project. I don't mean to wave my reputation in anyone's face, but I do value it and do not appreciate when it is dishonestly misrepresented, as you have been doing.—Biosketch (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiousity, do you think using language like "Yet never has a case been brought against me for violating NPOV since I started contributing to this Project." makes you clever b/c it so craftily avoids admitting that you've had cases brought against you for lots of other stuff while holding previous accounts? If you do think language like that makes you clever, believe me when I say it does not. Talk about dishonesty....
    Look, frankly, I don't think you're really up to a constructive conversation here. Best would probably be to quit sniping and let third parties weigh in. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Obhave: personal attacks

    Obhave has been warned twice about personal attacks [22] and has continued to attack editors:

    • [23] accusations of frivolous warnings, accusation of personal/ulterior motives, failure to AGF
    • [24] calling editors "unscrupulous", accusations of sockpuppetry
    • [25] assorted accusations and personal attacks
    • [26] accusation of lying, accusation of meatpuppetry. Note: they were already warning about accusing editors of lying.

    Even though this is a new editor, due to the 2 previous warnings, they have had ample time to read WP:NPA. Additionally they completely ignored the warning about accusing editors of lying. It seems readily apparrent that they have no intention of even making the slightest effort to AGF and refrain from personal attacks. Now that I have written this report, the seriousness of the offences and the brazenness of the perpetrator really stand out and I wonder if WP:ANI is a better venue. – Lionel (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • After seeing some requests to respond to a content RfC question, I've been quietly looking from time to time at Militant atheism, and I think that Lionelt is correct that Obhave needs to do a lot better in terms of civility. At this point, I'd rather see Obhave get some serious advice and be given the opportunity to improve, rather than to go to AN/I in search of a block, which I think is still a little premature, but won't remain so for long. I would also observe, however, that the page has become very much of a POV battleground, with multiple editors engaging in tl;dr back-and-forths about who should not have reverted whom, and too little serious attention to reporting objectively what the sources say. I think that it would be helpful to have more eyes on that page, especially from editors who do not have a dog in the content fight. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already spoken with Obhave on the matter. It's being looked after. m.o.p 20:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EastBelfastBoy

    Uncivil and unconstructive edits/edit summaries such as [27][28][29], at times bordering on WP:OWN. Favours repeated reversions over discussion. I considered wikiquette was the best place to take this, as although I have issued the user with a final warning recently I do not see the latest offences (at Ceallach Spellman) as warranting a block. U-Mos (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Me and U-Mos have now come to an agreement on Ceallach Spellman however an agreement has not yet been made on the Waterloo Road section Future Episodes. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dave1185

    Could someone please tell this guy to leave me alone? He's gone a bit mental after I changed the word "explained" to "said" [30]. Turns out he really likes the word "explained" and accused me of vandalism for making the change, and then, bizarrely, of original research. Now he is repeatedly posting obnoxious templates to my talk page.

    If this is the normal way new editors get treated, this place is an utter disgrace. I do hope it turns out that this "Dave1185" is more obnoxious than most. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Start by tempering your language. When someone asks you to stop calling people pricks this is not the right response. Having reviewed the edit I think you have a case for "said" or "stated" but we really need the original source to get the exact words. There was nothing to stop you respecting WP:BRD and raising the proposed change on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 12:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So the fact that I got really pissed off at the ridiculously rude behaviour somehow justifies the ridiculously rude behaviour, does it?
    And we do not need the original source "to get the exact words". Copying and pasting does not make a good encyclopaedia. Changing "explained" to "said" is utterly uncontroversial and I can't believe the Kafka-esque absurdity that's followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:CIVIL; loosing your temper and swearing just weakens your position, especially name calling against other editors.. Otherwise wikipedia depends on reliable sources so what they say is relevant if there is any question as to the words you use. Now I suggest you strike all the swearing, and make your case on the talk page of the article concerned. I'll put the article under watch so that at least one other set of eyes is looking at it. Bringing the case here without exploring that option is I think a mistake. --Snowded TALK 13:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Dear 2.220.201.70--If you have a diff of someone else's "ridiculously rude behavior" then please post it here so we can see the full story but so far the only diff I see is one which illustrates your rude behavior. In any case, rude behavior and foul language directed at another editor is never justifiable in any situation.(see WP:NPA) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, at least I have it amply confirmed that if a new editor makes a constructive change, they can expect a pile-on from all sides, accusations of vandalism, plenty of admonishments to learn all the acronyms that everyone else does, and general disbelief that anyone could possibly be rude to an anonymous editor. And it's good to know for sure that outrageous lies from people with usernames are permitted and indeed encouraged, and that it's fine to accuse someone of vandalism and original research for changing "explained" to "said", and that no-one will dream of reining in that kind of behaviour. I had no idea the atmosphere would be so petty, cliquey and vindictive here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.204.70 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use indentation. In fact you have been treated the same way as any editor who pours out a torrent of abuse. Better in some ways, many an editor has received a block for less. You need to calm down, use reasonable language and make your case like anyone else. --Snowded TALK 14:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRD applies, but the use of {{welcome-anon-vandal}} and original research templates isn't justified here; neither are the [31][32] personal attacks by the anonymous user. As for the cause of the dispute, I prefer "explained" to "said" - it isn't about whether the explanation is believed, it's the motivation for Lee to say what he said. Peter E. James (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be a relevant matter: Has User:Tasc0 ever had any sockpuppets? --Σ talkcontribs 02:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An SPI has been created, to be safe. --Σ talkcontribs 03:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How completely insane. Let me remind you - I changed "explained" to "said". I got accused of vandalism, by someone who must obviously not know what vandalism is. The same person said that using the word "said" amounted to original research. His two dishonest claims were evidently made because he didn't like the word "said", for no reason that I can even begin to imagine. Does he get criticised for lying? Does he get reprimanded for accusing new editors of vandalism? Does he get a talking to for having no idea of the meaning of "original research"? No. I get criticised for getting angry, because apparently my anger justifies the lies that provoked it. And not content with bringing the farce this far, you decide I must be someone else who you also didn't like?

    I seriously can't believe what a poisonous atmosphere you've created here. You've got this policy, apparently, about not biting new editors. You should scrap that policy because it obviously means nothing to any of you.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=439958637"