User talk:Coppertwig/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hostile editors and threats[edit]

There is a editing gang at the freemasonry page who is editing and reverting things they disagree with and then leaving threats on my talk page about being banned for an "edit war." I find this very distasteful - who gets to decide who is instigating a edit war? Since your an admin about this, I hope you stop this kind of thing. AnotherObserver (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Welcome to my talk page. I hope you feel free to ask me questions whenever you feel like. I need to clarify, though, that I'm not an admin. I'm an experienced user who can probably help you with a lot of things, though.
Shortly after you posted the above message, you posted this which sounds to me as if the situation is now resolved. If not, please post another message to me. Feel free to post here in this section if you like.
In general, when starting a new section on someone's talk page, it's normal practice to start it at the bottom of the page. Don't worry, I don't mind. One way to start a new section is to click "new section" at the top of the page.
Wikipedia is much more pleasant when people address each other calmly, politely and with explanations. Each of us can't do much about other users but if we make our own posts as polite and friendly as we can figure out how, I think we tend to get the best response from others that way.
The edit warring policies are described at WP:3RR and WP:Edit war. It makes very little difference how it starts. The main thing is to discuss things on the talk page and try to reach consensus, rather than repeatedly reverting.
I hope this is helpful. Coppertwig (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick thumbs up Emblem-extra-cool.svg[edit]

Just wanted to stop by to let you know that I appreciate your diligence on the CG article thus far, and that I believe with your efforts and others, the article will turn out very nicely. I hope you keep up the great work, and plan on joining you more heavily this weekend, when I have some spare time. Redthoreau (talk TR 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I also appreciate the tremendous amount of work you've been putting into the article, and hope you keep it up! I was happy to see you editing about the same time as me part of yesterday.
By the way, last weekend I was in a used bookstore, happened to see el Che's image looking at me from a display of books, and acquired Anderson's biography, doubling the number of books I own on Che Guevara.  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a great book; I suspect you won't be able to put it down. Well I am off to nap for awhile (after a long night of "editing") ... I trust that you will continue to make great modifications and improvements in my absence. Redthoreau (talk TR 11:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I see you've made lots of edits! I was thinking of posting a message to you about 10 hours ago just to say hello and that I was about to log off -- you started posting not long before I was stopping -- but I got distracted. Hope you get some good sleep. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding to answer, in turn to request to Mattisse[edit]

Hey, greetings. You wrote:

"Hi. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia practices. Many users archive their talk pages; I do, for example. Some like to keep a mostly-empty talk page and archive quickly; others let things sit around for a long time (as I do -- probably too long.) Some users don't archive at all but just delete messages. If the user archives, you can easily view the archived messages in the links to the archive pages at the top of the talk page. For users who don't archive, the messages are still viewable in the page history, although that's less convenient.

You've made a request and it's been turned down. I don't think it's reasonable to insist. The Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings guideline says "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." --Coppertwig (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)"

This is something I've never been involved with, as you surmised. I'm fairly sure I'm in line with Wiki, though, so I'll proceed: Mattisse created an article which I happened on by chance. When I checked other articles written by Mattisse, I discovered systematic mistakes.
Then I discovered that there is, in fact, a considerable amount of controversy about contributions that is not reflected in Mattisse's talk pages.
The pattern is that Mattisse deals with disputes on a one-on-one basis, and somehow (I am not a sufficiently sophisticated Wiki user to understand how this is done) manages to sweep under the carpet considerable and significant community opposition to edits. Hence, an editor who prefers comments on their edits to be difficult to access. Surely an archive period of 60 days, or even 120 days, would not strain resources.
Regards, (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
With the consensus system and the fact that we're all volunteers, we tend to do things via request, not demand. If you get a "no" to a request, you pretty much just have to accept it. If your request were backed up by a policy or guideline you might have a stronger case.
What you're asking for is very unconventional, potentially technically unworkable (as some browsers can't handle large amounts of text: a reason I probably ought to archive my talk page more often) and generally seen by Wikipedians as unnecessary, since the information is available in the archive pages. Therefore, while you can attempt gentle persuasion, I think your request is very unlikely to be accepted.
You know where to find the talk page archives, right? Numbered or dated links near the top of the talk page.
You might want to look into WP:Dispute resolution.
I'm not sure whether you're a new user or someone who has previously edited under a different IP address or account (that's not an accusation! There are accepted reasons for doing so) but if you're new-ish you might want to look at the welcome page which has links to various information to help you learn how things work around here. You're also welcome to ask me questions about how to use Wikipedia.
The consensus system takes some getting used to. Although there are some rules and some enforcement of rules, it's mostly about getting along with people. It's hard to explain. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the thoughtful words. Asking someone to be accountable for what they say, well, that's not unusual. So, I can't accept that Mattisse is removing her talk pages to an archive for an honest purpose. She's involved with divide-and-conquer, then, alternatively is shuttling criticism to another authority which she reckons will be unable to deal with the situation.
Archived talk pages cannot be modified. Mattisse has found a vulnerability in Wiki which she is exploiting.
That Mattisse is writing dozens of articles about subjects which she knows little about seems to be lost in the political shuffle. So it goes.
Thanks again for your comments. (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just asking someone to be accountable is rather vague. Usually when we do accuse people of things, we provide diffs to illustrate exactly what we're talking about.
Please note the message I've put at the top of my talk page about what types of messages are or are not welcome on this talk page.
If archived talk pages can't be modified, I think that's a feature, not a bug. In practice, I think they can be modified: they just don't tend to be, or if modified will tend to be reverted. If you want to reply to something that's in an archived page, you can post a message on the main talk page and state that it's a continuation of a previous discussion.
I believe messages are only archived (automatically) from Mattisse' talk page when the latest time stamp in the section is 14 days old. I could have that wrong.
We don't have to be previously personally familiar with a subject to write about it. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not personal knowledge. It does help to have experts in the subject involved, too. If someone gets something wrong, someone else will likely fix it. Some experts might find it easier or more inviting to fix errors in an already-existing article than to start an article from scratch.
If someone asks you not to post to their talk page, it's probably a good idea to comply with that request, possibly making an exception if you have a specific complaint that the person has violated a specific policy or guideline that you can cite and if you can provide diffs showing that they violated it -- though even then often it's best to keep away from their talk page. Trying to carry on a discussion when the other person isn't interested in participating tends to make things worse rather than better. You might want to look at the WP:Civility policy.
Thank you for trying to help make Wikipedia better. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You said "I'm fairly sure I'm in line with Wiki, though,": I'd suggest reviewing relevant WP:Policies and guidelines to make sure. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, excuse, I didn't read the header on your talk page. So I'll just round this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
With acrimony it's possible to bring Mattisse to heal. She's so far out of line that...there's not much question. I'll leave it to someone who's spoiling for a fight to alert the Wiki community that someone who is ... let's say obsessed ... is using the "letter of the law" to run roughshod over those assuming "goodwill" on the part of others. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the authority of Wiki, and the truth of what Wiki readers see needs to suffer. It's a "Wiki growth experience". Smile.
Friendly wave your direction. (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
A friendly wave to you, too. However, the above message is the type of thing I'm talking about when I say that "criticisms of users other than myself" are not welcome on this talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake City School District[edit]

Hi, you contacted me about the Salt Lake City School district page. I'm just curious as to why I can't put up this information. Somebody else has undone my work at least 3 times. Doesn't that break a rule? I listed those two Deseret News pages as sources. Nothing in my paragraph is false. It's true. Please send me a private message. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylandude89 (talkcontribs) 13:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Salt Lake City School District: Thank you for discussing this with me. Note the Biographies of living persons policy. Wikipedia requires high standards of reliability of sources in order to include defamatory material about living persons in an article. A student newspaper is not the type of source considered reliable for this purpose. See the reliable sources guideline. An account from a person involved is not the type of source Wikipedia uses. It has to have been previously published in a respectable forum, such as a newspaper with a good reputation, a book from a publisher with good editing standards, etc. The first two footnotes you give seem to be dead links or links to some kind of error message or something that I don't understand. Your citations are not properly formatted; they would have to have title, date, etc. For defamatory material about a living person, several reliable sources would be needed. Please don't re-add the material until there's a consensus that there are sufficient reliable sources. You can present sources on the talk page of the article and discuss there whether they're good enough. To see whether there's consensus you should probably wait at least several days for replies to see if anyone has any objections after you post to the talk page and before posting to the article.
I see that your edits have been reverted. I reverted once. If all of the other reverts were by the same person, they might have over 3 reverts in a 24-hour period (I haven't counted), but enforcing the BLP (biographies of living persons) policy is specifically listed as an exception at WP:3RR, so they would not be in violation of 3RR even if they had more than 3 reverts. You are in violation, however.
Per the WP:Edit war policy, editwarring is not endorsed as an editing technique. Rather than repeatedly reverting (whether it's about a living person or something else), it's better to discuss things on the article talk page and make changes after the people involved agree on what the article should say. See WP:BRD: you can be bold and edit an article, but once someone reverts your material once, you should shift to discussion, not editwarring. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good heart[edit]

GoodHeartBarnstar.png The Good Heart Barnstar
For all your efforts to help others in many different areas and particularly your dedication to helping others reach peaceful resolution to conflicts. Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Coppertwig (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved ! SFriendly.gif Redthoreau (talk TR 10:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! --Coppertwig (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]


Thank you for responding to my New Wikipedian "help me" request last month. I've just posted an announcement about my little ol' research survey on the miscellaneous village pump. If you have a few moments, would you be willing to take the survey? Please visit my User page for details. Thanks very much! AMQ815 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, thank you for the suggestions. I've made some alterations and will continue to do so as I feel my way through this. (It is the wiki way, after all.) I hope you'll find the time to answer my survey questions. AMQ815 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMQ815 (talkcontribs)

Well, they are not easy questions to answer!!! --Coppertwig (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply to Redthoreau[edit]

I realized today that I needed to reply to these messages (which are now in my talk page archives); I decided to make the reply in the following paragraph (though I hadn't decided on the precise words) before I saw the recent activity between you and Mattisse. I hope these comments help and don't make things worse!

Re this and this messages from you to Mattisse: I hope I'm not violating my own instructions for use of this talk page by saying this, but I'd like to explain: Yes, agreeing with someone can be perceived as an insult. For example, in a culture where being fat is deprecated, if someone says "I think I'm getting fat" and someone replies "I think you're right," the person would tend to feel hurt. And if someone says "I'm leaving now" and someone replies "Good idea," again that would tend to be perceived as insulting -- and I think it would tend to be perceived that way not only by the person being spoken to but also by objective observers. Please consider retracting some of your words.

That's what I had intended to say; but I'll add some comments on the recent exchange between you and Mattisse. Mattisse has stopped editing Che Guevara because of what Mattisse perceives to be personal attacks from you. Under these circumstances, it would seem to me wise for you to be very careful to use the highest standards of civility when interacting with Mattisse -- or else to avoid interacting at all.

If I understand correctly, by "MD" you mean The Motorcycle Diaries, an article related to Che Guevara. I suggest that since Mattisse has already shown extensive interest in the topic of Che Guevara, that it is not at all surprising to expect that Mattisse might decide to edit articles on that topic. No coincidence need be assumed. Also, Mattisse is apparently sorting large numbers of autobiographical articles; I've seen a few of thsee showing up at WP:BLP/N, for example. When sorting large numbers of articles, it doesn't take much coincidence to hit one of a small set of articles.

Mattisse is absolutely free to edit Che Guevara – there is no reason not to. Exactly the same applies to Motorcycle Diaries or any other article related to Che Guevara or any other article not related to Che Guevara. Mattisse is also free to express an opinion that articles are not compliant with NPOV.

You feel that Mattisse has attacked you; but please remember also that Mattisse also feels that you have attacked Mattisse.

You quoted Mattisse as saying in an edit summary, "this article is Original Research - it presents the editors view only & any reverences are not neutral - article is written only to glorify subject of article 18:05, 7 April 2008 Mattisse" Apparently when Mattisse wrote this, Mattisse didn't know you were one of the editors of the article. Note that the word "editors" has no apostrophe. Therefore, it's not possible to tell whether it's in the singular or the plural. I would presume it's intended in the plural. There's nothing there to say that the alleged glorifying was done purposely. People can easily express an individual POV (e.g. glorifying someone/something) without realizing that that's what they're doing; each person's POV tends to seem neutral to that person.

While you might perceive a personal attack there, I'm not sure that anyone else would see that edit summary as a personal attack against you. This is a typical pattern, that people tend to see attacks against themselves more often than other people see them. We need to compensate for that, in part by showing understanding towards those who perceive our own words as attacks.

In the interests of developing a NPOV encyclopedia, Mattisse must be free to express the opinion that certain articles or parts of articles do not conform to NPOV. Please don't take that personally.

Sometimes I find it hard to take when someone uses harsh words to criticize an article. I feel as if I'm being criticized. However, I realize that the user has the right to make comments about an article and to express them in the style that the user prefers, so I don't complain. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just putting this link here for convenience in case I want to refer to it later: AN/I archive Coppertwig (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post Redthoreaus's name on my page again.[edit]

Readhoreau has stated that he reserves the right to continue to hassle me every time his name is posted on my page. I am begging you to cease mentioning him on my page. You are the only person who does. This has become harassment. It if continues, I will close my page to all messages and delete without reading anything that are posted there. PLease, –Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned my name as an attack, which is why I responded Let's review:

I'm sure, to stand up to Redthoreau. No one has so far, so I don't expect any change. In fact I expect an ugly post from him to appear right under this one. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

= Mattisse accept personal responsibility for your actions and stop impugning Coppertwig, who has only dealt fairly and politely with you. I don't know how else to make this extremely clear: "If you post an accusation against me on your talk page, on another page, on a forum, anywhere I know of on the internet" ... = I WILL respond and answer my accuser. If you wish to be left alone, then desist from casting aspersions.       Redthoreau (talk TR 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, I will try to remember to do as you ask, unless I have a strong reason not to. When I said "Congratulations", I was congratulating you for getting a barnstar, a DYK and an invitation to join a wikiproject. :-) Congratulations on mostly remaining civil through the stress of the last day or so, and for posting good comments about content without commenting about editors at all at Talk:The Motorcycle Diaries#My objections to para one; however, it would be better to revert with no comment (which is also frowned on) than to refer to a longstanding editor's edit as "vandalism". Redthoreau is right that this remark about an "ugly post" was not nice. It's OK to defend yourself by saying things like "that was an attack", but please don't say uncivil things yourself. AGF: Redthoreau can be easy to get along with if you treat the user nicely. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Redthoreau, I think everything would go much more smoothly if you would start treating Mattisse with consistent civility, respect and gentleness, regardless of whether you believe it's deserved.
Even if you believe someone is acting in bad faith, there is rarely or never any reason to say so explicitly, as you did here. Try to think about how things will look to other observers who may not interpret the evidence as you do. See WP:Assume good faith#Dealing with bad faith, its subsection WP:Assume good faith#Accusing others of bad faith and GTBacchus' comments at Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith, such as this one. Also, re using "vandalism" in an edit summary, please don't try to use another person's behaviour as an excuse for your own behaviour. I would really appreciate it if you would instead constantly look for ways to de-escalate or at least not continue that sort of conflict. I'd rather spend my time reformatting footnotes than responding to these sorts of things. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR / BLP issues[edit]

Thank you for coming to my support in this 3RR issue. Your message on my talk page was the first warning I had of the report. As I noted in my comment on the report, I suspect that the report was actually made in retaliation for these warnings (which I chose not to report). You will see from my comments in those warnings that my intention has always been to assume good faith and apply consensus editing. Anyway, thank you for your interest and helpful guidance in this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. A couple more things about how 3RR works: 3 reverts in 24 hours is not a violation of 3RR (though it may be considered editwarring; it takes 4 reverts to exceed 3RR and violate the rule. Also, a series of consecutive edits by one editor is generally counted as a single edit for 3RR purposes. Taking these things into account, I don't see how Andyvphil could possibly be considered to have violated 3RR in the last day or two at Barack Obama. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. This is personal for User:Andyvphil, as I am sure you have gathered. Under normal circumstances, I would revert these edits for the reasons I (and other editors) give here, but I'm afraid to revert anything that isn't obvious vandalism, etc. I'm essentially being prevented from carrying out my normal functions as a Wikipedian by a single individual trying desperately to get me blocked because I politely warned him about possible 3RR violations of his own. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at some of the discussion on that talk page, and it seems to me that the issue is complex. Your preferred version may be better, but it isn't immediately obvious. As EdJohnston says, it would take quite a bit of study to figure out whether it would count as a BLP exemption. (I may have been too quick to jump to conclusions about BLP earlier.)
You called your warning to Andyvphil "polite". You might be able to avoid getting into these retaliatory situations in future by learning to be more polite. I doubt it was perceived by Andyvphil as polite. If I remember right, you posted two 3RR templates with largish triangles with exclamation marks on them to his talk page, when he had not violated 3RR. Note Stifle's warning to you: it's short, without icons, personally written, begins with a positive message and is worded as a gentle request; Andyvphil complained that it hardly counts as a warning. You could try to emulate Stifle's style, and consider not even doing that until the person has actually violated 3RR, i.e. done 4 reverts (separated by other users' edits) in 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.
Things you can do include: Posting to WP:BLP/N; posting to wikiprojects or WP:Requests for comment (article content) to try to get more people involved; if you feel you can't revert due to 3RR, you can put in tags such as {{fact}}, {{POV}} etc., and you can edit the words by adding words such as "allegedly"; adding words would probably not be considered a revert, and modifying might not either, although it could be argued that if you deleted a word that's a revert. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about a different 3RR case; I'm just posting it here because the section heading says "3RR". For the record, when I posted this I was aware that the argument for the 3rd revert was very weak. I figured I would present what I had anyway and let the closing admin decide whether the argument had any merit. Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Place to discuss CG article[edit]

Great work thus far and it has been a pleasure to edit with you. A suggestion I thought I would throw out in response to yesterday's message about stepping over each other at the same time. One thing that I always do before I push preview or submit ... is copy and paste the info I am working with. That way if there is an edit conflict it won't be lost and I can just re-paste it. Just a suggestion that I have found works well.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have said anything. I only got one edit conflict. I don't really need to copy-paste the material beforehand because I can just hit the back button on my browser (or, in fact, get it from the lower edit window in the edit conflict display.) I do sometimes save stuff but not usually. Anyway, in spite of edit conflicts I still find it more fun to be editing at the same time.
With the references reformatting, if someone had edited the same section I would probably have changed to my version, then re-added the other person's change. The only problem would be if two people did extensive changes at the same time. Coppertwig (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. As an aside, there seems to be gaps in the references after Kabila, Gott, and US army but I can't tell how they are there ?   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Quick ?. If there have been several edits in a row that were faulty ... how do you revert back to a specific edit, without having to revert all of the intermediate ones individually ? Thanks.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suppose you want to discard the last three edits. Click "history". Click on the date for the 4th edit in the list (i.e. the good version that you want to revert back to.) You're now viewing the good version, with a pink bar on top warning you that you're viewing an older version. Click "edit this page". It warns you that you're editing an older version. Fill in the edit summary and click "Save page". --Coppertwig (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that will help tremendously in the future ... in the case of repeat vandals.

  Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I copied your idea of having a smiley face in one's signature. Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No not at all. I view imitation as the highest form of flattery jk ;o). But joking aside ... I think the smiley actually fits your personality more than mine. To me it is a reminder to be more "civil" ... for you it is an accurate representation of your very positive personality that I benefit from.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Looks below. Just wanted to say that I am constantly impressed by your calm politeness and resoluteness for civility in a situation that I believe is most likely futile. Unfortunately it has been my experience that some people can just not be worked with collaboratively, but I admire your unrelenting commitment, and note that you are a better person than I in that regard. Keep up being who you are regardless of other editors behavior, as this editor finds it extremely refreshing.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 06:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but before posting, please carefully check whether your messages are within the spirit of the note at the top of my talk page. Coppertwig (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope you are only taking a temporary break from your great work on the article.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was just busy for a few days, that's all. Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear it ... and look forward to your return at your nearest convenience.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talkRedthoreau 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The History Channel's Documentary[edit]

Recently the History Channel (hardly a bastion of Communism) released a 1 hr 30 min documentary entitled: "THE TRUE STORY OF CHE GUEVARA", where Jon Lee Anderson also narrates parts from his book. You can watch the full film --> Here -- and I would recommend it if you have the chance.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Redthoreau. Not sure if I have the right technology to watch that. By the way, you offered to email me a JSTOR article. I can get JSTOR but not very easily – I have to go somewhere, it takes time. So it would probably be useful if you would send it to me. I think the first step is for you to enable email in your preferences so I can send you my email address. Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to email me


Thank you Coppertwig for that. I know contentious articles very often there are sides to choose and while there are positions on various arguments my side is with making the encyclopedia an excellent neutral resource. I welcome both sides of the circumcision controversy and simply feel the article is unbalanced. Note I'm not alone in this opinion just perhaps more vocal. I look forward to working with you and am sure that as long as we WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL everything will work out. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All of us are on the side of trying to have a neutral encyclopedia. It's just that different people have different ideas of what neutral looks like. Coppertwig (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

You need not mention that I have asked for a citation in an edit summary for Che Guevara. What is the purpose of that, other than regurgitate my name and perhaps your satisfaction that you have driven me away. I noticed you did not for many other citations where you added facts for notations. Plus I notice that wording I wanted (which was removed because I objected) is now back as I wrote it. Ironic. You and another have replaces much of my wording, but, of course, it is all credited to you now. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never had any intention of driving you away, and if you're staying away from the article because of things I've done, then I feel shame and regret about it, not satisfaction.
Today I was originally intending to post a question asking whether everyone was satisfied with the current wording of the "Castro's brain" sentence, in order to encourage you to get involved and to show support for your freedom to edit. However, while searching the edit history etc., I realized that the current version seems to me to perhaps satisfy the point you were raising, but that there were other issues you had raised in other edits -- such as citation-needed tags -- which had not been addressed, so I decided to mention those instead. The reasons for mentioning those things were to try to ensure that your contributions were not lost but were used to improve the article; and to try to encourage you.
If I've put some of your words in without attributing you in an edit summary, I apologize. If you tell me which words, maybe I can do something to help fix the situation; or maybe you can do something about it yourself, such as deleting and re-adding the words with an explanation in an edit summary of where they came from.
Your message above leaves me confused as to whether you would prefer that I mention your name, or that I not mention it. Coppertwig (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I checked through your edits of March 30 &ndash April 1, and it seems to me that for almost all of them, the current version of the article in some way fixes the problems you were raising. If there are some points you feel are still not addressed, I hope you will mention them again so they can be negotiated and worked out; and I hope you'll continue to contribute to the article. Coppertwig (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Just thought I'd tell you the result of a case you worked on: [1]. Good job! :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 10:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Scarian (or Pat), for letting me know, and for the compliment! (Not to mention for closing the case in the first place.) Coppertwig (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Runhardt Sander[edit]

Hi Coppertwig, I am thinking that I should put this article up for AfD. The sources just don't feel right, although I can't tell if this is intended to be promotional or negative. (Heaven forbid that means it is NPOV!) I am not a reader of German, but what I got from the AfD at de.wp, it seems they felt there were original research and notability concerns. If this fellow isn't notable in Germany, I really can't see him being notable internationally. Any thoughts? Risker (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that I just nominated it for deletion with prod a few minutes ago? I figured if anybody removed the prod notice I would put it up for AfD. If you want to take it to AfD right away that's fine too. I have some ability to read German though I'm not sure it helps me read that deletion discussion any better than you can; I had to look up "Quellen" in the dictionary anyway (apparently it means "sources"). I would have to re-read it a few times and look up some more words to really follow it, but yeah, I get the impression they're talking about relevance (notability?) and sources. And "Original Research". :-) Someone says something along the lines of fine, if there were ... sources. Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
PROD works for me, no point having a big debate if it isn't necessary. If it fails PROD then I am quite happy to see it on AfD. I did a bit of google translation on what appeared to be the key portions of the discussion, and it did seem to boil down to those two things. There are a few wikipedians around who read German quite well, I might ask one of them to give it a read if the PROD fails. Thanks for doing the nomination. Risker (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. I felt responsible because I had patrolled the article.
By the way, I think at least one person in that deletion discussion is arguing to keep the article. Coppertwig (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It is allways a problem, to show sources about living persons in the internet, because they are able, to alternate much. Therefore I've added some additional references. Now a plagiarism of this article is shown at Xiando. Heinrich8 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for adding references, but I think the references are still not very good. Wikipedia pages can't be used as references. See Reliable sources. I'm going to nominate the page for deletion by AfD. Coppertwig (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for your help and for all your hints. I've worked much hours to improve the article. Hope, that you are more satisfied. I saw, that I've worked sometimes imprecise. Sorry and thanks for all your efforts! Heinrich8 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
I've tried to add some improvements, that you have proposed me on my talk page. I've spended much hours in the night with this work. Maybe you are now willing to keep the article. In any case you have taught me much about the the need and the use of references and sources! So I have to be grateful - in any case. Heinrich8 talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Oreskes page[edit]

Hi Coppertwig,

Thanks for offering to explain how Wikipedia works. I am bewildered by the rules. Are there Wikipedian lawyers and consultants to help novices? Or books written on the subject?

Is WP:3RR the same as 3RR?

Did Tabletop protect the Oreskes page?

Why would an editor have a name like Tabletop if he also uses a real name?

Thanks for your offer of help.

Larry 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Lawrence Solomon

I'll answer some of your questions now, and might answer some more a little later.
Essentally, WP:3RR is the same as 3RR. "WP:3RR" is an abbreviation ("shortcut") you can type in as a page name in order to quickly find the page Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, which describes the three-revert rule (3RR). That page is one of Wikipedia's policies. Policies are listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. There are also guidelines and help pages.
Wikipedia is pretty much entirely run by volunteers. We're all at different stages of learning how things work, and we help out people who are newer. I don't know whether there are any books on the subject.
Wikipedia follows a consensus system. It takes time to get used to. It's not just about following rules: it's about using common sense and getting along with other people.
People are encouraged to be bold and edit even if they don't know all the rules. People are also expected to start gradually getting familiar with the rules by reading policies and guidelines from time to time; when you've been editing for a longer time, there's more of an expectation that you should know certain rules.
You can feel free to ask me questions. You can also post questions to the help desk, or you can put {{helpme}} on your talk page and put a question after it, and someone will come along to answer it. Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Tabletop has not edited the page Naomi Oreskes since March 15.
Naomi Oreskes was page-protected by Rjd0060, which you can see by looking at the page history, or by clicking on "Special pages" at the left side of the window (under the search box, under "what links here"), then clicking "Logs", and then entering the name of the page in the right-hand text entry box, which should show you this display.
Regarding why someone would use both a pseudonymous and a real-name account: see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. There are some limited situations for legitimately using more than one account. Coppertwig (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, when you post a message on a talk page such as this one, please sign it by putting four tildes (~~~~) which will transform into a signature and date when you post your message. That way there will be a link back to your talk page, making it easier for people to reply to you. I think now I've replied to all your questions above; feel free to ask more. Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Since Lawrence asked if there were books about editing Wikipedia, here is one:

John Broughton (2008). Wikipedia:The Missing Manual. O'Reilly. pp. 477 pages. ISBN 0-596-51516-2. 

See his Chapter 10 'Resolving content disputes' for discussion of the 3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, EdJohnston. Thanks for filling in that missing information! Coppertwig (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence Solomon, you might also be interested in the page protection policy. Coppertwig (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Just my two cents (since i'm the one Mr. Solomon wrote an article about, and confused with tabletop). I'm not tabletop, and never have been. You seem to have confused a single edit[2] by an uninvolved editor with me, when browsing the article history. I presume that appologies should be forwarded to User:Tabletop, since you've basically libelled that person in Canadian national media. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify: in my reply above I was trying to reply to a general question without expressing any opinion as to whether anyone in this situation was using more than one account. I apologize if I appeared to imply anything.
Now that you point it out, KimDabelsteinPetersen, it's very clear: Tabletop has made only one edit to the page ever, and it was a minor spelling correction. You later reverted to the revision by Tabletop, but that revision was really entirely written by people other than Tabletop, except for that minor spelling correction.
Lawrence Solomon, I guess you were confused by a statement which is standard in edit summaries, "Reverted to revision 198494083 by Tabletop; ..." The person mentioned is simply the last person to have edited the page, not necessarily a main author. Maybe it should say "last edited by" instead of "by", but I guess it's concise to save space. This part of the edit summary is usually automatically generated, for example if you click "undo" beside someone's edit. (And by the way, just in case you do that, if you click "undo", you're normally supposed to type in some additional information in the edit summary to explain the reason for your edit, as KimDabelsteinPetersen did in this case.) Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And, Lawrence Solomon, I think you also owe an apology to KimDabelsteinPetersen, whom you have (apparently) essentially baselessly accused of sockpuppetry in national media. Coppertwig (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Coppertwig. I checked the history and it appears to me that a change occurred after Rjd0060 protected the page. Is the correct and, if so, why would this have occurred? Larry 14:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Lawrence Solomon

Yes, William M. Connolley has edited Naomi Oreskes while it is protected. William M. Connolley is an administrator, and administrators can edit protected pages, though they should only do so under certain circumstances, such as if there is a consensus on the article's talk page in favour of such a change, or if the administrator is enforcing key policies such as the Biographies of living persons policy, etc. See the page protection policy.
William M. Connolley has also posted messages on the talk page of the Naomi Oreskes article. Note that you can find an article's talk page by going to the article and clicking the "discussion" tab at the top, or by putting "Talk:" before the article name, like this: Talk:Naomi Oreskes.
I don't understand why your signature doesn't include a link to your talk page. Are you signing using four tildes, or typing in a signature each time? Coppertwig (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am keying in my signature, preceded by four tildes. Larry 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Lawrence Solomon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Solomon (talkcontribs)

Tabletop, I have done you an immense injustice to have thought you could be KimDabelsteinPetersen. I apologize for this.Larry 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Lawrence Solomon

I think it must be that either you've used "preferences" at the top of the page to change your default signature, or else for some reason you aren't really typing four tildes. Did you change your signature? If so, what did you change it to? If not, try copying and pasting this: ~~~~ . Coppertwig (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Lawrence, in case it's not obvious, you don't type four tildes and THEN your name, you type ONLY the four tildes, then press 'Save Page.' The software knows who you are, so it adds your name automatically. Practice this on your own User_talk page if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Four tildes and then my name: Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Coppertwig
No, it still works for me even if I put my name after it. (See above.) It doesn't do that for Lawrence Solomon. I think you can put four tildes anywhere in a post (except between nowiki tags or something) and it will substitute your signature. Coppertwig (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This is my guess: Lawrence Solomon has edited his signature and changed it to "Larry". The four tildes display "Larry" and the time, and he types in the rest. If this is the case, then I suggest, Lawrence Solomon, that you uncheck the little "raw signature" box under your signature in "preferences", then click "save". Then it will display "Larry" or whatever you've put in as your signature, but it will also include links to your user page and talk page. Coppertwig (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Coppertwig. I have another question about how Wikipedia works. Do administrators get their position because they are knowledgeable in the subject that they administer? I see that William M. Connolley is a long-time global warming activist. Is this why he can over-rule an editor? Lawrence Solomon (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your signature is working properly now! Thanks for fixing that.
Administrators get their position through the requests for adminship process, where members of the community discuss whether to accept the candidate as an administrator. Each person has their own criteria for deciding whom to support, but commonly considered criteria include having contributed significantly to the encyclopedia as well as showing civility, good judgement etc.
The protection policy says "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove inappropriate material or to make changes for which there is clear consensus." Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You earlier thought that I had posted to the 3RR noticeboard. I didn't but I'm curious as to who did. Is the poster's identity public? Lawrence Solomon (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions about that. The discussion is at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Report by User: (Result: Page protected). Someone posted in this edit apparently the entire text of your National Post article to the 3RR noticeboard (and they messed up the Example section of the noticeboard in the process, which I easily fixed however.) Someone else later figured that you had not intended to post that article there, and replaced it with a link to the article on the national post website.
The person who posted the article was not logged in at the time. Therefore, their IP address (computer address) shows up, and it's That edit is the only edit that's ever been done at Wikipedia from that particular IP address, as can be seen here. I think that's all the information we have. Coppertwig (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't word that right. That's the only edit attributed to that IP address as a username, but someone on that computer could have also edited with a logged-in username.
To find out who owns that IP address, you can ask any computer geek to look it up.
By the way, I forgot to introduce myself. I got involved because I'm a helper at the 3RR noticeboard. I also help in several other areas of Wikipedia, and I'm just one of many volunteers. Coppertwig (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

This is just a quick note to say thanks for the work you've been doing around the Wiki (Spec. WP:3RRN)! WP:RfA soon, ja? ScarianCall me Pat! 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied by email. Coppertwig (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring[edit]

A new 3RR report was filed against supergreenred for reverting 4 times in 24 hours, 9 minutes. I trust that you agree this is not acceptable and will action the report if no one else does.

Many thanks, John Smith's (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - it was dealt with. John Smith's (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. I was going to mention it. Coppertwig (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


No problem, it actually puts me in a better position having been decided on its (lack of?) merits, and the onus is now on the complainant to take it further; but since it's now distinctly a cold issue, I am not worried about it. However, Admins should be able to apply policy without being stalked for it, and if it had gone against me, I seriously would have left the project. Life's too short for this sh*t. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The rules are a colander or a minefield, depending where you are. Admins often have to make tough decisions under pressure; last Sunday afternoon and evening took eight hours out of my life which I would rather have spent writing Stained glass of York Minster. As it is, I'm completely unable to write creatively at present, but nobody takes that cost to the project into account. To be pilloried for upholding policy, as a volunteer, would have been the last straw. I'm sure you understand. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure you can quote me if you think it's worthy. I generally make comparisons off the cuff without really deep thought, but if it fits, of course you can use it. The GFDL says you can. The antagonist in this has quietened down anyway. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR closure[edit]

He did it again as soon as you closed the report.Kww (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


My request not to post criticisms of other users on my talk page is not intended to apply to politely-expressed criticisms of Iantresman posted within this section of my talk page and its sub- and sub-sub-sections. Coppertwig (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I support unblocking Iantresman, on the grounds that the user has apparently done little or(23:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)) nothing wrong, unless complaining about (real or perceived or both)(23:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)) injustice against himself is considered disruptive, which it may have been, but I'm not convinced that there were adequate warnings of adequate clarity(23:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)). For example, I looked over several months of edit history of Wolf effect and did not see the alleged repeated reversions mentioned. Coppertwig (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I don't know if you are aware of the existance of these pages, they have what you are looking for:
If you *still* need concrete evidence, leave a message on my talk page and I'll dig a few blatant examples of misbehaving from the list above and present them on a nice way --Enric Naval (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information and especially for being willing to provide more information if needed. I'll look through these links soon. Coppertwig (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
P.D.: On Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, the summary of first block listed has two links with input from other admins and reasoning of the block including diffs --Enric Naval (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
To answer other questions that Jehochman doesn't want on his page: "Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman says that no checkuser was performed because Tsyko had already been blocked", but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop#Request for checkuser on User:Tsyko says a checkuser on Tsyko had already been done. Yes, Jehochman said "no evidence", but restoring one of the templates shows he no longer believes that. Also, "3:24 20 April" is after "3:57 April 19", not before. Art LaPella (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't check the dates carefully enough – sorry about that.
The link you give is to a statement by MastCell that a checkuser was performed, but I'm wondering whether that was based on a misunderstanding. MastCell says "see block log"; the block log states that Tsyko was blocked, and I wonder whether MastCell assumed that meant a checkuser had been performed, or whether MastCell had other information, perhaps by email.
I don't know what the reason was for Jehochman to begin believing that there was evidence, so I don't necessarily share the same belief at this time. Coppertwig (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
MastCell has replied in a section below on my talk page confirming that there was no misunderstanding, checkuser was run on Tsyko. Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't look at the notes until tomorrow or past tomorrow --Enric Naval (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. When you do have a chance to look at it, you might want to save time by looking at only the "Conclusions" sub-sub-section. Coppertwig (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)




Incivility against Iantresman[edit]

Incivility by Iantresman[edit]

Actions by Iantresman[edit]

Arbitration processes apparently started by Iantresman[edit]


  • "Though I'm afraid that you might not understand the gravity of ArbCom. It is a last resort. Why don't you tell me what the conflict is about before you make an arbitration request?" Dmcdevit 23:24 3 November 2005
  • "Socking while banned is reason enough to keep the ban in effect until the user identifies all the accounts they have used and vows to stop socking." 13:49 20 April 2008 Jehochman
  • [6] "I'm repeating bucketsofg's warning to you about vexatious litigation and adding that another such frivolous filing will result in you being blocked for harassment, abuse of community tools and disruption." FeloniousMonk


  • ""I'm reluctant to criticize St. George" (ScienceApologist) "until all the dragons are gone."" Art LaPella 16:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "I think one of the real questions here is: do we treat the biographies of people with non-mainstream views like other biographies of living people or use the more relaxed rules that govern the non-mainstream articles themselves? In the case of the Eric Lerner article, the latter has prevailed so far ..."
  • "ScienceApologist, Iantresman and Elerner frequently completely revert to their preferred version, even while discussions are ongoing. They revert good edits with bad in wholesale changes." Shell Kinney 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "The final reasons for the ban should be explicitly and concisely laid out by the admins making the decision." Art Carlson 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a single case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. " Bladestorm 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Tom harrison's block does not necessarily mean Ian is banned; he is only banned if no admin is willing to unblock him." Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (inclined to unblock) "In response to JoshuaZ and for the avoidance of doubt, I would be inclined to unblock Iantresman to give him a second chance to comply with editing norms." Stifle (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (willing to unblock) "As something of a clarification, I am willing to unblock this user, which technically means the community-ban principle is now no longer applicable. Having said that, such an unblock would be conditional, on the basis of, as described in my above comment, Iantresman entering into mentoring." Anthøny 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "no actual evidence was presented of malfeasance by user Iantresman at the time of his original ban." Mgmirkin 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "A persistent correspondent with the ArbCom, said editor has only procedural factors running in his favour, in my opinion" . Charles Matthews (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • [To ScienceApologist]: "It seems to me that you've been given leeway because your expertise is valued (as it should be.)" Proabivouac 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


  • "I must say, this discussion is particularly harsh on Iantresman, however it seems he can take it. ". --PhysicsDude 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "OK, I think I see where you're coming from. Are we differentiating between (1) Citations to articles that support "intrinsic redshift" (2) Citation to articles merely using the term "intrinsic redshift". ... I don't think I've tried to claim that mere mention of a term is support for a theory." Iantresman 14:28, 20 April 2006
  • "There is no doubt in my mind that FJ has some very legitimate issue with SA and Ian. There is no question there. There is some doubt as to who is more responsible for those problems but I think that it is SA and Ian's responsiblity, no matter how much they may disagree with each other and be incapable of reaching concensus, to be repectful of their fellow editors and not dominate the conversation with perpetual argument." --Nick Y. 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (Nick Y. was the mediator)


  • Iantresman admits to editing via IP during ban
  • checkuser on Tsyko

Other stuff[edit]

Conclusions IMO[edit]

  • Iantresman has been uncivil, the most recently I'm aware of at the moment being 19 July 2006 (nearly 2 years ago; nearly a year before the ban.)
  • The person who indef blocked Iantresman refused to answer why.
  • The community sanction discussion did not present any concrete evidence.
  • Since two admins have expressed willingness to unblock Iantresman, he is no longer banned but merely indef blocked.
  • Iantresman has used sockpuppets inappropriately.
  • There may be a lack of openness and remorse about the use of sockpuppets.
  • I continue to support unblocking Iantresman.


I'm not claiming there was no tendentious editing of articles. I'm saying that for me to support a continued indef block, one thing that would be needed would be for me to be able to see diffs of such tendentious editing myself: more than a single edit removing two categories from an article.
What I have seen is aggressive and overly litigious behaviour in user talk and project space. Ian has posted a series of messages to FeloniousMonk's talk page demanding an answer to a question. I assume these messages were annoying to the recipient. I would like Ian to note that on Wikipedia, things are generally done via requests, not demands, and that if someone has not answered a question after being asked once or twice, that one should presume they do not want to answer the question and that further repetitions of it are likely to be annoying. Ian has started a number of bureaucratic processes such as AN/I threads and arbitration requests. While the reasons for these processes no doubt did not seem frivolous to Ian, nevertheless for many of them most members of the community probably did not consider them good reasons to take up the community's time in that way. Ian needs to give more consideration to the value of other peoples' time when making such decisions, and to look harder for other ways of dealing with a situation, always considering doing nothing as one option. Ian has also violated 3RR twice and been blocked for it once, but that was a long time ago. (23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
For me to support an indef block, in addition to disruptive behaviour there also need to be adequate warnings. I'm not convinced that the behavioural requirements were communicated to Ian clearly and specifically enough for him to have had a reasonable chance of complying with them.
Through the current long block, Ian has received a strong message from the community about what is acceptable behaviour, and it therefore seems likely to me that he might behave better in future.
Unblocking a user who continues to be disruptive tends to be a temporary, while unblocking one who reforms may lead to long-term positive contributions; therefore the possible benefits might greatly outweigh the possible harm. "It is a norm of the community that there is always a way back" (FT2 15:56 4 May 2008) Coppertwig (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Stifle has stated at WP:AN, "Based on the above consensus not to unblock Iantresman I am not going to continue with this proposal." Stifle 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


thanks for your comment re my self-reportage of 3RR. while i try to be as honest as possible, i'm certainly no saint, and have been guilty of violating 3RR previous times, and in engaging in edit warring. but - again, thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I would not have thought to visit the discussion page without your link and comment in the edit summary line and unfortunately, Binksternet continues to violate the WP:3RR rule. (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. See the message to you in the next section, below. Coppertwig (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Message to 71.100.x.x[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, 71.100.x.x. Some of our rules take some getting used to. You may find useful information in the links from Template:Welcome-anon, which I would post to your user talk page if you had one steady user talk page. Note that article talk pages can be found by putting "Talk:" before the article name, and user talk pages can be found by putting "User talk:" before the user name. Feel free to post here on my talk page, for example if you have any questions about how to use Wikipedia.

I would appreciate it, 71.100.x.x, if you would register an account. It's very quick and easy to register on Wikipedia, and has a number of benefits. Since you're using a dynamic IP, it's difficult for anyone to send you a message. For example, Binksternet posted a message to you to inform you about the 3RR, but by that time maybe you'd shifted to a different IP address and never received the message. I don't like to take up space on article talk pages with this sort of information which is directed to an individual user and would be more appropriate on the user's talk page. Also, the list of reverts you posted at Talk:Analog hole would be more appropriate on Binksternet's user talk page or (if formatted appropriately) at WP:3RRN. The article talk page is supposed to be dedicated to discussing article content.

You seem to think that restoring deleted content is exempt from the 3RR. It is not. I suggest carefully reading the WP:3RR policy, which says "This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content,..." Putting back in a link which someone has taken out is a revert, and doing that more than 3 times in a 24-hour period violates the 3RR. I believe you've both been violating the 3RR. In general, rather than repeatedly reverting, users are encouraged to discuss content disputes on the article talk page until consensus is reached. Coppertwig (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Noramlly, when we are in a class project research mode and using each other's computers rather than using our assigned computers exclusively we do not log in so as to avoid inadvertent posting under someone elses user name.
Not to argue the basis of the 3RR with you but it was in fact originally created only for the purpose of dealing with repeated deletions of valid and acceptable content or repeated restorations of invalid and unacceptable content, versus repeated deletions of invalid and unacceptable content or restorations of valid and acceptable content. Binksternet repeated deletions of valid and acceptable "How-to" link is therefore in violation of 3RR, whereas the restorations of the original post of the valid and acceptable link are not.
BTW, have you visited Wikibooks yet and checked out any of their "How-to"s? (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me which edits, yours or Binksternet's, are more correct or in line with Wikipedia policy. Being right is usually not an exemption to 3RR. You can violate 3RR even if your edits are supported by policy, except in certain very clear exceptions e.g. WP:BLP which this is not. I advise you to self-revert your last revert back to Binksternet's version to avoid being in violation of the 3RR. Note the wording of the current policy which I've quoted above. Coppertwig (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Note reports I just submitted at WP:3RRN.
The whole point of the 3RR is that in general it isn't obvious which edits are valid and acceptable and which are not. Different people have different opinions, which is why there are edit wars. The 3RR puts a limit on those edit wars, regardless of how certain each party is that their side of the argument is the right one (and regardless of whether they actually are right). See m:The wrong version. I'm not convinced that it was originally only re invalid text etc.: perhaps you could provide links to earlier versions of the policy. Regardless, it now applies regardless of the merits of the edits, except for some very specific exemptions listed on the policy page. Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides the issue of restoring valid and acceptable content being exempt from 3RR there is the consequence of determining at what point 3RR begins. If I post valid and acceptable content and that content is deleted then the starting point is with the deletion and not the original posting of the content. This is also why the validity and the acceptability of content must be determined before 3RR can be legitimately applied. (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that Coppertwig has accurately summarized Wikipedia policy. Your view that 'restoring valid and acceptable content' is exempt from 3RR is not correct. You risk being sanctioned for 3RR if you revert based on an incorrect theory. In the case being discussed here, there is also the spam problem. Edit warring to restore what is possibly spam puts you on very shaky ground if you are counting on regular editors to back you up. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Sorry to interfere, Coppertwig, but I just happened to see your 3RR post on my watchlist. The dynamic IP may present a problem for 3RR enforcement, so it occurred to me that you might want to make a WP:RFPP. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Actually, I almost filed a RFPP, but the RFPP page says it's for editwarring of "multiple" editors, and this is (apparently) only two, so I decided to go with 3RR. The 3RR closers are quite capable of using page protection as a remedy. Coppertwig (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No doubt you're correct. It was just a thought. Jakew (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations you've (also) made the News.[edit]

Here: Hide your name on Wiked-pedia.

A follow up to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wow! My name's in the newspaper! I'm famous! Thanks for letting me know! (Well, I've had my mundonym in the newspaper a few times, but I think this is my first time under my real Wikipedian nomer.) Maybe I'll rush out and buy the Financial Post – except I think I have some diffs I need to study. I wonder if I'm the "patient Wikipedian" he mentioned? (Possibly he means EdJohnston, who is one of the most patient Wikipedians I know.) And you've even got a link to my talk page, with my twig image and all, from their blog. Cool. Maybe some readers will leave me a message just to say hello. (Click the "new section" tab at the top.) Coppertwig (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope you didn't mind about the link, but as i said in the comment i find it important that tabletop gets "off the hook", since he/she has absolutely no involvement in this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't mind at all; I like it. I'm just irritated that I haven't gotten any fan mail yet. LOL (Didn't really expect any – though I thought just maybe somebody following the link might post something.) I doubt many people reading that article would know Tabletop or pay any attention to who Tabletop is. I still think you deserve an apology, though. Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tsyko (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hi - to answer your post on User talk:Jehochman, there's no misunderstanding about Tsyko (talk · contribs). I emailed Raul654 and asked him to compare the account to Iantresman (talk · contribs) after my on-wiki request in the ArbCom workshop sat unanswered for a few days and Tsyko/Martinphi continued to be disruptive. Raul654 ran the check, found the two accounts were linked by checkuser data, and emailed me to this effect. I then blocked Tsyko (talk · contribs). If you like, you can ask Raul654 about it, or another checkuser can verify in the logs that the check was run. If the IP data isn't stale, they could also confirm Raul654's findings. But yes, a checkuser was done, and it confirmed what was already fairly obvious socking by Iantresman (talk · contribs) using the Tsyko account to pursue his old grudge and disrupt an ArbCom case. When checkusers are run in response to off-wiki requests or on the initiative of a checkuser themselves, there's generally nothing at WP:RFCU. MastCell Talk 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond, MastCell. There's no need for an independent check: I trust your word. I just wondered whether there was a misunderstanding. By the way, according to the block log it was Raul654 who blocked Tsyko, not you, but I suppose that's not important. Coppertwig (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. Good point. MastCell Talk 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you!Kitty53 (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


I am considering unblocking this user for a mentorship. I will be noting the matter at WP:ANI or elsewhere. He suggested that you might be suitable to act as a mentor for him. What do you think? Stifle (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated Response from User:Acps110[edit]

Hi, how's it going? --Coppertwig (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you! :-( I wasn't on Wikipedia for a while, but now I'm back. Thanks for checking in. I've made quite a few edits in the Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation and I appreciate your help a while back.

Acps110 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's lecture[edit]

Coppertwig, I just realised that my recent reply to you could be taken as an attempt to lecture you. It wasn't intended that way. I've been thinking quite a lot lately about our core policies, why they're important, and how well-designed and coherent they are. As such, I was kind of 'primed' to make a speech, and that's why I wrote such a lot! I hope I didn't offend you or seem to patronise you, but I just wanted to let you know the background just in case. Jakew (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, my friend, it's very thoughtful of you to give me this message. Well, I read this before your other message, so we'll never know how I would have reacted, but as it is, there's no problem at all!
I'm not sure whether there's a misunderstanding. When I mentioned IAR I was actually thinking of a very specific part of WP:WIARM: the second half of "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times." In other words, I was invoking IAR to ask you to justify your use of a rule, not to justify breaking a rule. Perhaps that's a rather subtle distinction.
I support the core policies. There's always a question of where to draw the line: how much re-casting of information is WP:SYN and how much is merely appropriate encyclopedia-writing work?
Re how well-designed and coherent they are: What a coincidence! Today I wrote this. Coppertwig (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You've raised some very interesting points. I must admit that I usually ignore WP:IAR, because I've yet to find a case when the consequences of following the core policies are worse than the consequences of ignoring them. SYN is always a tricky problem, because in a way everything we do is synthesis, but I tend to ask myself if the result is simple narrative or whether there's a resulting claim (implied or explicit). If there's a claim that hasn't already been made in reliable sources, then alarm bells start to ring. I think the consequences of making a novel claim with even the slightest chance that it's incorrect are far worse than making no claim at all. On the other hand, if the claim might have merit, then the author should be encouraged to enter it into the literature by the appropriate channels.
Re your sandbox, that's very interesting. We're obviously thinking along similar lines. I think it's fascinating when one starts to not only understand but actually grok the policies. Incidentally, I hope you don't mind, but I fixed a typo. Jakew (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I've ever invoked IAR to break a rule (I don't remember). On one page I reluctantly went along with others who wanted to do so. For me, IAR is more of a way of refraining from criticizing others. (Except here, where I've invoked it to ask you to justify your reasoning. I may have picked up some anti-wikilawyering sentiment during my interactions with Mikkalai.)
You're right about the cost of a false claim being far higher than the cost of not saying anything. We want to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible, both for its reputation and so that people don't make wrong decisions based on bad information. The reputation is important so that people can use it; it's no use it being correct if people don't know it's correct and therefore ignore it. One wrong article can cause people to ignore all other articles even if all others are correct. Hmm. I wonder if I could estimate at what probability of incorrectness the cutoff would lie. Possibly it's proportional to the reciprocal of the total number of articles. I guess it would depend on the utility of the information provided – and the particular cost of incorrectness of that particular information. Some wrong information about a fictional character won't matter so much. With a health article such as Circumcision it's much more serious, both in terms of direct consequences and of Wikipedia's reputation.
Thanks for finding that typo. I guess I've been using the word "exemption" a lot at the 3RR noticeboard, and it's got me confused about how to spell words beginning with "exc". I've been hesitating and retyping words I used to spell with no problem. Now that I'm more aware of that I'll probably have no trouble spelling them. Coppertwig (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've always thought that controversial articles (esp. those prone to POV-pushing) are particularly sensitive, and consequently need the most careful application of policy simply in order to retain sanity, but you're right, we also need to think about the sensitivity of the subject matter. It's a difficult problem, and of course we can't just decide what's correct and what isn't, even though it may be tempting to do so (which is probably for the best, given Wikipedia's editing model). I think it's a case of trusting that we can take the existing literature and our policies and create something good, and I think most of the time this works amazingly well. I think it's vaguely like writing a systematic review or meta-analysis, where you define a search strategy and method of statistical analysis in advance, and then for the most part trust that these processes will allow you to generate a reliable overview, and that by sticking to them you can minimise the impact of your own biases.
Incidentally, I can't reliably spell 'date' at the moment. My fingers seem to insist on typing 'data'. :) Jakew (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
My fingers will type letters whose sounds don't echo in my head. For example, I used to end the filenames of my numerous Perl programs with ".perl". I then had a few files ending in ".per" for some other purpose, and I would think "per", there was absolutely no thought of any "l" sound in my head, and my fingers would type "perl". Kindof interesting how the mind works. If I'm talking, an extra sound won't come out unless I've thought it first, I think. So the control of the fingers typing seems to be different somehow from the control of the mouth when speaking. At least, that's my impression. It would take a clever experiment to prove it. Coppertwig (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Mark Power[edit]

Twig, you were probably in a rush and distracted and undoubtedly meant well when you wrote this, but alas its addressee is a vandal for whom this is just another IP for use in an infantile diversion: see the history page of Mark Power.

If you wouldn't mind, I'd be grateful if you'd put Power's article on your watchlist if it isn't there already) and keep an eye on it. Many thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ho. I was doing Recent Changes patrol. I don't examine the articles and their histories in detail; I figure others are experts on the article, and I'm only looking for obvious vandalism. I figure there's very little harm if I occasionally post a Welcome message on the page of a vandal by mistake, but much good if I post it on the page of someone who might use the information in it, for example to know how to find the help desk. However, since you've brought this to my attention, I apologize for that particular post. I've placed Mark Powers on my watchlist and started to familiarize myself with what's going on there. You might want to consider listing the article at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Coppertwig (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, Ill be sure to read it--Yankees10 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Eurasia discussion[edit]

Hi! Jake and I have submitted (at his instigation) the issue of the "Eurasia" sentence in the prevalence draft to WP:NOR/N to seek further opinions. Being new to all this, I am trying to get a sense of what this means and I wondered if you had any thoughts on the matter. See discussion on my talk page. Cheers Johncoz (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Blueboar is an experienced user who has participated in development of the policies and I have considerable respect for the user's opinion in a matter such as this. Coppertwig (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oreskes comment[edit]

Hi. Re your comment [9] at RFA. The second diff [10] is easy: he answers are no and no. The first I would answer as "because someone with the ability to edit protected pages decided it would be a good idea to do so". But I applaud your patience in dealing with LS William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and perhaps those would also have been good answers; however, I did manage to come up with answers I was pleased with [11] [12], although it took some thinking and diplomacy. Coppertwig (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Advanced template coding question[edit]

Would you be kind enough to look at this[13] and tell me how hard this would be to create or if it even can be created? Thank you. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Are you going on the 5th? Rudget (Help?) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The 6th or 7th. Coppertwig (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, let's go with the 7th, given my slightly rescheduled wikibreak plus other considerations. Coppertwig (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles[edit]

Hi Coppertwig. Rather than replying to the remarks you addressed to me on the British Isles talk page within that forum and having them buried in the bedlam of that page, I'll reply here. The problem on that article is simple. There are references that state a simple thing, and there are editors who refuse to accept it. No matter what discussion comes up they refuse to accept verifiable sources. Matt Lewis, who was the 3RR offender, has already stated that even if there were 100 verifiable sources which said that British Isles was offensive to many Irish, he would not accept it. How is the seacch for consensus supposed to proceed in that context?? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Just caught this as a 'grabbed page' on some kind of spam site via Google, bizarrely (and annoyingly). Why do you always exaggerate so much? 100 verifiable sources?? When did I say that? My argument is that there are not 100 references - or anything at all like it - just a limited and motley amount that have to be compared with the constant usage of the term. You constantly exaggerate everything beyond it's truth, and I keep finding that you are putting my name down in admin's talk pages – and despite that I have spent so much of my time with you arguing my case point after point, you persist in painting me as a 'troll'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What exactly does he not accept? Does he believe that it's not true that there are many Irish to whom the term is offensive, or does he accept that as a fact but refuse to have it stated in the article?
Not all verifiable statements belong in articles. Material also has to satisfy NOR, NPOV etc. What arguments does he give to support his position? What are the reasons you feel it's important to include that statement in the article? IMO Wikipedians are not required to believe any particular statement no matter how many references support it, but they may have to accept having it included in an article. Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion, without knowing much about the issue: Frequent usage of the term is good grounds for Wikipedia to also use the term, but is not grounds for Wikipedia to either state that the term is not offensive to Irish, nor to refrain from stating that it is offensive. Several references stating that it is offensive is probably enough to state in the article that some sources state that it is offensive (worded properly to avoid weasel words). To conclude that it's not offensive just because it's frequently used would be original research, and illogical, because it could be being used by people to whom it is not offensive, or who believe that it is not offensive; that doesn't prove it isn't offensive to others. Coppertwig (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh? That's one off the pottiest comments i've read on WP! Who has said "It is not offensive to Irish"? You need to follow the discussion.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood the comment by Wotapalaver above, "there are editors who refuse to accept it". I'm sorry that I might not have time to follow the discussion on the article talk page but I'll usually reply to messages posted here on my talk page. Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been a while but I was just reviewing my own contribution history to see if I'd left anything open. The BI page finally settled with a version of text (including "many") proposed by dave souza. Consensus, at the moment, is that "many" is well sourced with serious scholarly sources. User MattLewis has apparently resigned from WP after having been blocked one time too many for his taste. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to give me an update! I'm glad it's been resolved. Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lewis wished to say he had only been blocked once, is contesting it, and is not the kind of editor Wotapalaver claims that he is. Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: re your post at ANI[edit]

Do you know that you are the first person to say anything that actually dealt with my concerns? Thank you for that.

...there are many problems that people just have to work out by figuring out how to get along with others.

I got the same response from an administrator (I presume) when I asked here that something be done about an editor vandalizing the article The Green Hornet who had placed a false "final vandalism" warning (there had been no preliminary warnings) on my talk page and forged an administrator's signature to it here. Obviously, somebody who would pull such an outrageous stunt on me is not someone who wants "to get along with others." But as you can see here, the initial response was to view the situation as "a content dispute" (incredibly, no action was taken against the vandal until an admin got personally caught on the receiving end of "his" vandalizing edits and sarcastic & abusive edit summaries). While the situation I posted about yesterday is merely blatant as opposed to this earlier one's flagrant status, it is still clear that "getting along with" editors who willfully refused to enter in good faith a discussion that they had called for (I repeat, their initial so-called response to my defense of my two edits that they had deleted as "speculation" was absolutely nothing but repeating that assertion, subsequently followed by an ostensible criticism of them that had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the actual content of my edits, and eventually claiming a consensus that did not exist) is not a viable option. Edokter and Ckatz should at the very least lose their positions as administrators for their behavior on that thread.

About your concern over my posting's length, past history shows that anything I do not make expressly and explicitly clear in my posts is (seemingly) not understood and/or ignored, so the details were requisite. Ted Watson (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the length: it's the way it's organized. I'm not the greatest at that, myself, but it's better to start with the punchline, and precede each clump of evidence with a brief statement of the conclusion you want the reader to draw; to make it easy for the reader to take in the information. When you're deeply involved in the situation it's hard to do that, because it's hard for you to imagine someone who has little interest in or ability to remember events which for you have intense significance. Admins tend to be busy and want to get the essential information quickly.
There are all kinds of people on Wikipedia. You can feel outraged; you can feel outraged that others don't share your feeling of outrage; you can continue to feel that way and continue to be surprised every time others don't respond the way you hope. Maybe you can even influence people to change for the better by expressing that outrage. However, most people find it's more helpful to accept the reality.
I'm not claiming that everyone is trying to "get along with others". I'm just saying that we have to manage somehow with the mix of people we have. Blocking tends to be used only in extreme cases and usually only temporarily, so we have to use other methods -- methods available to everyone, not only to admins.
People very often claim "consensus". The word has come to almost lose its meaning from overuse. I would prefer that people use it more narrowly and carefully, but the reality is that people use it a lot and that there is no enforcement system for biassed use of the term -- and it would be difficult or impossible to set one up without giving too much weight to the individual biasses of whoever administers such a system. A proposal to desysop someone simply because they claim "consensus" is just not going to get anywhere.
Here's one way of looking at things: Everything on Wikipedia is a content dispute. The various things people do such as personal attacks, claiming "consensus", vandalising, framing others, etc. etc. are simply (wrongful) techniques for trying to win the content dispute. One reason admins are reluctant to intervene except in the most extreme cases is that intervention will favour one side or the other of the content dispute, possibly introducing bias into the encyclopedia.
If someone is vandalising, you can warn them and you can report them at WP:AIV after a final warning. However, opinions might differ as to what counts as vandalism.
Your sentence "While the situation ... not a viable option" is rather long and difficult to follow. If you'd like me to comment on that situation, I invite you to restate that matter more clearly and straightforwardly without hiding it in subordinate clauses or parentheses.
Personally, I find that most of the time, people are very civil and well-behaved on Wikipedia. It depends on what areas of the wiki you participate in; things are worse on some controversial articles.
I've tried to edit this post to demonstrate some of the organization skills I'm encouraging you to use. I haven't managed to shorten it much, but I put the main points in bold to demonstrate a technique I use sometimes to help people who want to skim a post quickly without reading the whole thing. If you assume a reader will only remember a few words of what you write, you can choose which words they'll remember. I think people can get the gist of my message by reading only the words in bold type and nothing else. Possibly, then, I could have drastically shortened this post. Coppertwig (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your sentence 'While the situation ... not a viable option' is rather long and difficult to follow.
Just skip the parenthetical aside next time and it should be crystal clear. If it still isn't, let me know. I put that in because past history indicated that without the explanation of what I meant by "willfully refused to enter in good faith...," the phrase itself would be jumped on as "uncivil" and my actual point ignored. That has been the problem witrh this, that the basic act of reporting misconduct on someone's part has been declared to be in violation of "civility" and "no personal attacks" regs in and of itself.
I have comprehensibility problems with a couple of your statements:
  1. Most people find it's more helpful to accept the reality. I've read the entire paragraph in which this appears, and I have no idea just what "reality" you are suggesting be accepted.
  1. Your discussion of content disputes ends with, One reasons most admins are reluctant to intervene except in the most extreme cases is that intervention will favour one side or the other of the content dispute, possibly introducing bias into the encyclopedia. Two problems here. First, if the dispute isn't resolved on its own merits, rather than by one side pulling rank over, or figuratively shouting down, the other and getting their version left up, then there is certainly bias introduced into the encyclopedia. Second, how is an admin intervening into a dispute on his own initiative any more (or less) likely to do that than answering a "third opinion" request is? Not at all, I should think.
Oh, yes, they did lie, not merely exaggerate. Ted Watson (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Re "willfully": You've described a poor-quality discussion, reminiscent of many Wikipedian discussions, but have not convinced me there was any lack of good faith. GTBacchus is often pointing out that assuming good faith is easy when there's no evidence of bad faith; that the difficult thing the AGF guideline calls on us to do is to assume good faith even in the face of evidence of bad faith.
"more helpful to accept the reality": I mean for example not being surprised by the thing you said "incredibly" about.
If getting along with certain editors is not a viable option, what options do you have? This is one of the difficult realities we must each as an individual struggle with at Wikipedia.
If bad techniques such as shouting down are used, I think it's somewhat more likely that bias will be introduced into the encyclopedia than if civil techniques only are used; but it seems by no means certain to me that bias would be introduced in such a case. Blocking someone on one side of a dispute, however, seems to me very likely to lead to bias.
Perhaps you have a good point about the "third opinion" request. However, "third opinion" requests can be answered by anyone; blocking can be done by only a smallish subset of people, and it would tend to lead to more bias in the encyclopedia overall if content disputes were ultimately settled by only that smallish group. It might not be evident over the course of a single dispute, but multiple similar disputes would have more of a tendency to be decided in favour of the same "side", and bias could creep in – especially since admins are often expected to support each others' decisions.
Anyway, regardless of whether my theories to explain it are correct, the fact is IME that for a broad range of problems, asking admins to help does not lead to any admin action. Repeatedly asking for help that's not going to be given could be considered disruptive.
Re "they did lie": please review my requests at the top of this page re the types of messages that are not welcome here. Coppertwig (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

...the difficult thing the AGF calls on us to do is to assume good faith in the face of evidence of bad faith. As many times as I've said on various talk pages that this is something I can not do, nobody has ever responded that the regs require it. Not once. Indeed, no one has ever acknowledged that sentiment from me before. This implied (to me, at least) that they had no way to counter it, but also did not want to admit that I had a good point. Have the regs just been changed to include that? If so, as this is a completely imbecilic attitude (to borrow from Thomas Jefferson, it is whether I say so or not; I might as well say so), they should be changed back. Actually, it should be removed in any event. I don't know what your "IME" means. Finally, concerning your closing small-font comment, then you shouldn't have brought this discussion here in the first place, as that is what it is about. There are other things I wanted to say, but I'm getting rushed off this computer (I don't own it). Ted Watson (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to be more helpful. I've had similar experiences and frustrations that you've had: wanting help when there is no mechanism at Wikipedia to give the kind of help I wanted, etc. All I can do is suggest the things that have worked for me, i.e. expressing requests succinctly, and finding ways to get along with people. In many cases, just being very civil works fairly well. Different strategies may be needed for different situations (though being civil is always an ingredient of my techniques, unless I lose my temper). If you have a particular problem, you can ask me what I would do. If someone has lied, that doesn't appear to me to be a problem that needs to be solved, but a regrettable incident in the past: the past can't be changed.
The guideline is at WP:AGF; you can read it and form your own interpretation. I was giving my interpretation of GTBacchus' interpretation of the guideline. I've just added a couple of quotes of GTBacchus to this section of my userpage. Oh, I thought this part had been removed from the guideline: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Either I was mistaken, or it's been put back in.
Sorry for the TLA (three-letter acronym)!! "IME" means "in my experience". (cf. IMO, "in my opinion"; cf apparently comes from the Latin "confer" meaning "compare".)
I replied here because I find it usually works well to reply on the same page as the post I'm responding to, but you're free to reply on your talk page if you prefer. I see no advantage in my replying there, since you might reply here anyway. Coppertwig (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but my IAP was down all day Monday. And I'll remember IME, thank you. Otherwise, I just found out that you are not an administrator and I have therefore been wasting my time here. I'll go see what, if any, response there has been from administration on the incident page. Ted Watson (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I have entered an objection to your proposal of co-mentoring Iantresman, based on my experience with you in the past. I will not say more for fear of receiving more harassment from the editor you promoted at my expense. However, I thought I should notify you of my very strong objection that you be involved in the co-mentoring of any problematic editor. It is my belief that you are too easily swayed by the most dominate editor and fail to protect those less aggressive who are not POV pushers and who are less willing to use aggressive methods to win and therefore need some help. I have not been editing since my unpleasant experience with you. I would say more but will not out of fear. I do not want others like me to fall victim. –Mattisse (Talk) 08:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a statement of support for Coppertwig, and believe the above complaint to be without merit.   Smile icon.png Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I believe that wanting to be liked at all costs is not a good attributes for someone who aspires to mediate and in other ways to help Wikipedia run more smoothly. The result is the sacrifice of too many good, conscious editors at the expense of the aggressive and amoral. I perceive this quality of wanting to be liked as a dominant factor in your interactions with others. I believe this quality attracts abusive editors to you to partake of the services you offer them. –Mattisse (Talk) 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I apologize again for overreacting to a post of yours on my talk page, for not using a gentle enough tone when stating that I might revert some edits, and for not replying promptly to some incivilities against you that were posted to my talk page. I do not condone any harassment and had no intention of promoting one editor at the expense of another. I hope that you will return to editing Che Guevara, and I repeat my suggestion that we go to mediation. Coppertwig (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, re your use of terms such as "harassment", "dominant", "aggressive", "POV pushers", "amoral": please note the request at the top of this talk page re criticism of users other than myself. Coppertwig (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Is honesty going to be forbidden on your page if you become an admin also? I suppose I am not allowed to asked you to remind your friend that it is out of place for him to threaten me on my user page for voicing public comments about my opinions. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you have threatened to block me previously and in other ways been one sided in your protection of those that flatter you. It will be a little hard to communicate with an administrator, should you become one, who allows stalking by his favorites on his own pages and others and slandering remarks directed specifically at me on his pages, while pretending to be a neutral administrator, and while allowing only non informative, "sanitized" comments by me on your same pages. I mentioned no names so there is no need for warnings. Only the guilty know. I believe you are once again threatening me, much as your protegee just did a few minutes ago on my user page. This type of behavior on your part reinforces my distrust of your neutrality and reinforces my questions about your judgment such as your offer in the User:Iantresman case. You seem to think such behavior would instill trust in me as you suprisingly urge me to resume editing Che Guevara again after what has happened through you selective protection of editors on that page and the driving off of me. You continue to allow the article to deteriorate even now, as editors add, with your permission, edits obvious not following even basis MoS rules. You have made your choices, but you certainly cannot ever expect me to trust you again. If your behavior has been of the best of intentions, which I concede it may be, all the scarier for the rest of us. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of having done "selective protection of editors". It might be helpful if you would provide diffs and explain what you mean. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to review all edits to Che Guevara; editors don't need permission from me to edit it. When you see MoS violations I hope you will fix them or tell someone about them so they can be fixed. Coppertwig (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You set yourself up as a self-appointed monitor and mediator of Che Guevara and took sides. You have allowed all my past edits to be reverted plus threatened to revert my edits yourself. The diffs you provide above regarding your own behavior toward me are reason enough for me not to risk involvement even in fixing MoS breaches in Che Guevara.
In the first diff you give me a "formal warning" that you may have to take steps to block me for comments made on your page by me that were in no way blockable offenses but merely statements of fact. In the second diff, you state that you may revert edits of mine, although you acknowledge you do not know the subject matter, if in you estimation the edit summary is not sufficient explanation for the edit. This was at a time when another editor was making blatantly uncivil edit summaries directed at me in editing the article with no action on your part toward that editor. That editor was stalking me and making uncivil comments about me on your user page, while you used my name continually, giving that editor additional places to stalk me and make uncivil comments. My complains about the behavior of this editor, made on your talk page, were met with rules from you that such complaints were not allowed. Meanwhile, the other editor continued to abuse me on your talk page. I begged for you to stop referring to me and to leave me alone—this was long after I had stopped editing the article.
I in no way indicated that I was willing to accept you as a self-appointed mentor between me and the abusive editor whose ownership of the article you protected and whose behavior drove off all editors with a history of working on the article and the knowledge to bring it back to FAC standards. I pleaded with you to stop spreading my name around acting in your superior capacity as mentor and monitor. The hundreds and hundreds of edits made by the editor you protected, as well as your own, resulted in a further degradation of the article. It would be impossible, as you well know, for me to work on the article.
The editor you are protecting has just left a threatening message on my talk page, which certainly does not promote an atmosphere for the free exchange of ideas. It appears I am being warned by that editor for posts I have made in public forums, an expression of my point of view that was in no way against any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. If it were, others posting on those pages could have objected there, as would have been appropriate. There is no need for a threatening post on my user page.
I do not think you have provided an atmosphere where I would feel to make any kind of change to Che Guevara. In addition, there is that threatening warning on my user page from the editor who has made hundreds and hundreds of edits to the article in a few months with blessings from you. I believe he is the same editor that attacked me for working on biographies in general. (This is one of the few times you gently rebuked him and attempted to explain to him that he might be wrong in so attacking me.) I believe, despite his uncivil behavior, you never threatened to block or revert that editor. –Mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Mattisse. Thank you for your comment about my talk page request. That's a good idea: if I become an admin I will certainly consider possibly changing the message, especially if it's inconvenient for some users. I'm not sure I had understood before your dilemma: that you had reason not to use your own talk page either for certain messages. That is a problem. One possible solution would be for you to give me a message consisting only of quotes or diffs, with no comment except something like "I would like help with this situation", which is not a criticism. However, you might not always find that satisfactory. Another solution might be for you to comment at the place where the problem occurred, but that might not always be appropriate or feasible. Tiptoety gave you another suggestion: to take it to WP:WQA. Still another suggestion would be to find another user similar to myself who is willing to offer to help you but who does not have such a request at the top of their talk page.
I don't have much control over whether the edits you did many days ago are reverted because the volume of edits was too high for me to figure out who put which words into the article originally. If you want certain material to remain in or be restored to the article, mentioning it on the article talk page would likely help.
I already apologized for the first diff. Re the second diff: your statement "although you acknowledge you do not know the subject matter" is incorrect; I did not make such a statement, and in fact I have some knowledge of the subject matter. My statement about reverting was intended simply to temper and clarify my statement about neutrality. It referred to reverting of editors in general, not of you specifically; I think the words "if someone reverts something" make that clear. Note also that I was talking only of re-reverting, not of reverting edits that added new material. Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This indicates a low level of knowledge from my point of view, but perhaps we have very different standards when it comes to knowledge on the subject. [14]Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In any event, you need not bother to reply or justify anything as I have given up on the matter and have no expectations from you. We each have very different ideas of what is right. If I though you represented Wikipedia, I would not bother with the place anymore. Indeed, I have vastly reduced my editing due to my experience with you. Sorry, but that is the way I feel now. Please do not respond. I fully expect some retribution from your friend for this statement and I am tired of it. No truth here. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


You made a comment here I disagree. I would like advise on the best way to resolve the content disputes that have been going on before I ever heard of Wikipedia. If this was Citizendium, do you think any of the editors at Chiropractic would be blocked. If so, which ones? I personally think it is impossible to resolve this cotent dispute until admins get involved. Take a look at the article history over the last month. Do you think there are any POV pushers at chiropractic. Do you think there are any editors who want a promo ad instead of NPOV. Is there any way to resolve this kind of dispute without admin action. Read the talk page. It looks like a war zone. In short, what is the best way for Wikipedians to achieve NPOV. Thanks. QuackGuru 01:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, QuackGuru; it's nice to hear from you again. I participated at Chiropractic for a while and found the interactions to be mostly reasonable and reasonably civil; productive collaboration and discussion seemed to be occurring among the various editors, and I was treated quite civilly. However, there was a large volume of talk page discussion and unfortunately I didn't have time to continue keeping up with the discussions, though I've continually wished I had time to get back into it. Perhaps since you've brought this up, I might make an extra effort to find the time to get involved in the discussions at that article again. Perhaps the problems you've been seeing didn't happen during the time I was there or happened in threads I didn't have time to get involved in. Coppertwig (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of problems and there is way too many things to list. There needs to be better ways for editors to have a peaceful editing environment. QuackGuru 03:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for encouraging me to have a look at Chiropractic. I've just spent hours scanning the page history and talk page archives back to April 8, and I'm going to try to keep up with the discussion regularly for a while. Here are my impressions from what I saw. This is just my opinion; others might have different impressions.
  • There are too many edit wars, often reverting whole sections in and out, and the page has had to be protected multiple times. People are not always respecting the template at the top of the talk page which says "Please ... discuss substantial changes here before making them."
  • People are almost always supplying meaningful edit summaries, which is good. I would prefer to see in edit summaries, besides an explanation of the reason for the edit, also a description of the edit: for example "rv: restoring SOP section ..." and the rest of the edit summary could explain why, rather than only explaining why and requiring the reader to click on the diff link to find out what the edit did.
  • There are clearly strong feelings involved.
  • For the most part, people are maintaining a good level of civility.
  • I see a lot of productive discussion, with people listening to each other and directly addressing points raised by each other, and often making progress.
  • Some discussions involve repeating the same arguments and not making progress.
  • Unfortunately, some space has been taken up on the article talk page to comment (sometimes extensively) on user behaviour. Those wishing to comment on user behaviour can see WP:Dispute resolution for appropriate venues.
As far as what to do about the problems: Clearly all are already making an effort to try to be civil. I think all editors can continue to work together to try to promote a better atmosphere of civil, collaborative editing.
There are many techniques that editors can use for this. Admin tools are a blunt instrument which hopefully will not be needed and which can't force people to be collaborative, anyway. Techniques such as setting an example of good behaviour for others to follow, and developing a positive atmosphere via friendly gestures can help. The situation could be a lot worse. Every small step in the right direction is helpful. Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the article before I made substantial NPOV improvements.[15] Do you think I should of waited to get permission for all my changes or do you think I was right to edit first. On May 14 is when the NPOVing began. Was bold editing the right move. Why was there blanket reverting of my edit on May 14. Why would anyone reject such edits of genius. Small improvements at a time would take too long to improve the article. I made huge steps. Why take a small step when a huge step is more productive. For example, I wrote the entire cost-benefit section and cut and pasted it from my sandbox into the article. I thought it was better to edit the article rather than have ad nauseum discussions. In short, was I right. QuackGuru 02:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
QG wrote: "Why take a small step when a huge step is more productive." Because it is uncollaborative, disruptive, and often includes edits that are controversial and violate ongoing consensus discussions that haven't yet arrived at a consensus. In short your method is very disruptive and disrespectful. Bold, solo editing of controversial articles leads to disruption and edit wars. Follow the good advice to "Please ... discuss substantial changes here before making them." -- Fyslee / talk 06:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Fyslee should follow his own advise above and not make uncollaborative controversial changes in mainspace against WP:MEDRS guidlines. I commented on chiro talk but Fyslee decided to comment here instead while no responding to my comment on the talk page. The word consensus is being misused. Fyless disagreed with the ref improvements. I did not gain consensus for the ref improvement but made them anyhow. What is the point with trying to gain consensus first when my comments are being ignored and editors are wikilawyering the talk page. When editors are not editing in good faith is it best to edit first or wait to gain consensus. If I waited to get consensus first it would of taken about a year. QuackGuru 07:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your messages, QuackGuru and Fyslee. Fyslee, please not the request at the top of my talk page re what types of messages are welcome here.
QuackGuru, I believe the general feeling at Wikipedia is that it's better to have an article imperfect for a while than to have edit wars. Therefore, I urge you to follow the request in the template at the top of the talk page. I don't think it would have taken a year to get consensus. If it would have taken a year, you still had another alternative: you could have discussed all your edits on the talk page first and implemented them after a few days of discussion if there was not very strong opposition to them, rather than (as it was alleged you did – I didn't check) including some substantive changes which had not been mentioned on the talk page. I don't endorse or recommend putting in non-minor edits on such a page without (at least rough) consensus first, preferably real consensus. It's also preferable to make your changes in several edits: e.g. one edit for a large section which has been discussed on the talk page, a separate edit for changes you're initiating to references, etc. That way it's easier for others to see what you're doing, discuss the separate types of edits and revert some but not all the changes. A huge number of separate edits isn't good either. You could, for example, lump a bunch of fixes to grammar into one edit, and have a separate edit that changes the meaning of some things significantly. On such a busy page where many people will be reviewing the page history, it's worthwhile to take some effort to make the page history as conveniently readable as possible.
Would you give me more information about how the word consensus is being misused? (Note: I find it's very common for exaggerated claims about consensus to be made in Wikipedian discussions.)
Which of your comments are being ignored? It's a very busy talk page, so it may be hard to get attention. I may be able to give you suggestions about how to phrase your comments to be more likely to have attention paid to them. One thing I try to do is to keep my total number of comments small, and only say the things I think are most important, and try to phrase them concisely, perhaps with the first few words acting as a summary of the comment to help people skimming the talk page. Showing that one is paying attention to others' comments also tends (per human nature) to increase the chance that those people will pay attention to one's own comments. If others are not following good procedures, one thing I do is try even harder than usual to follow good procedures myself; in part so that others can't use small things I've done as excuses to justify their own behaviour. Coppertwig (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
For example, take a look at the conversation about the Manga report. The 1993 report is obsolete per WP:MEDRS. The original report is unreliable per WP:RS. I was unable to get clear agreement about removing the Manga report. Still editors are arguing about. I made important changes per NPOV. Rationale arguments are being ignored. Some of the responses are nonsensical and specfically ignore Wikipedia guidelines. Some editors fail to get the point per WP:IDHT. It seems some editors are wikilawyering and or stonewalling in an attempt to block NPOV improvements to the article. QuackGuru 15:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable consensus-building[edit]

Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.

Based on good faith editing there is broad consensus for my edits. I am polite and the WP:TEND editors were being disruptive. Consensus is based on good faith collaboration and NOT wikilawyering and ignoring rationale comments. QuackGuru 15:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If your edits are good and gain consensus, there shouldn't be any problem. Post them on the talk page, wait a couple of days for discussion, then put them into the article. If they have consensus they won't get reverted. Even if one or two people disagree with them, they probably won't get reverted if the couple of days of discussion show strong support for them. But if you post them without discussion first, people who oppose them will revert them and there will be edit wars. Even some people who would support them after a day or two to think them over might revert them if they're posted without discussion first. There's no hurry. Waiting a couple of days won't hurt much, and it will save time in the long run. Revert wars take up peoples' time which could have been used for productive discussion and productive editing.
I hope you'll be careful. It seems to me that there's a strong consensus among all (as far as I noticed) the editors besides yourself that substantial edits should be discussed before editing, as it says in the template at the top. Going against that strong a request could be used against you later.
Besides, I prefer it, too: it's easier to follow what's going on if the edits are laid out on the talk page. And I think edit wars, especially ones that revert whole sections in and out, make Wikipedia look unprofessional. Discussing first can avoid those. 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Recently about three editors were making substantial rewrites[16][17] to a section without discussion or consensus and the article is protected again. The edits also contained copyrighted text. It seems to me that there's a consensus to ignore consensus. QuackGuru 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There are more examples. This edit was a revert made against consensus. There are more. The info is describing mixers and not straights. It failed verification and the marginal source is a survey. QuackGuru 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV parole template[edit]

Rävsax, Nordisk familjebok.png This article and its editors are subject to editing from a NPOV by decree of the Wikipedia Community (see relevant discussion). Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working on this article if that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to editng from a neutral point of view (NPOV), including expected standards of good faith editing, and collaboration. An example of an NPOV violation is a deletion of highly relevant well sourced text.

Sometimes certain highly controversial articles should be under NPOV parole. Any editor making an NPOV violation edit can be identified and steps to can easily be taken to deal with the problem editors. Face-grin.svg QuackGuru 15:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean: the situation at Chiropractic is close to being a situation where I would agree that such a parole might be a good idea. I see how it would fit in. But at this time I'm not convinced it's necessary or desirable. I see a strong downside and not enough necessity to convince me that that the benefits would outweigh the costs (costs which extend to more than just this one article, as I see it.)
I generally oppose that type of parole – unless maybe it's absolutely necessary. The trouble is, it's subjective. What seems NPOV to one person may not to another. It's much easier to get agreement among people with different POV's about the wording of a NPOV article than it would be about an article that says things like "God exists" or "God does not exist", but there is still some disagreement. I believe Wikipedia's interests are better served by having these disagreements worked out among editors rather than giving admins extra powers that require subjective judgment about article content.
I would not be opposed to a parole on an article that requires 1RR, because that's quite objective.
If there are problems with editors skewing the POV of an article, one solution is to consult a noticeboard or policy talk page or do an RfC. Another solution is to calmly and diplomaticallly explain the NPOV policy to the editors. Coppertwig (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a RFC on the talk page and editors wanted to reject the broader external input. NPOV is not that subjective when an editor adds hoax information (failed verification). QuackGuru 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The question asked on the RfC was too vague, that's the problem. An RfC can't fix a whole lot of words in stone forever after. Failed verification is not necessarily a hoax: it could be an honest mistake or a highly subjective interpretation of the source which the editor doesn't realize is so subjective. Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
When an editor doesn't realize it is so subjective and has made a mistake after it was explained to him or her we have a serious problem. QuackGuru 00:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, you mentioned the RFC was too vague. There is another proposal on chiropractic talk to improve the Education, licensing, and regulation section. There are five different variations. I would like broader external community input. Perhaps a new RFC would help resolve this content dispute. There is a discussion to replace the current version with one of the proposed drafts. QuackGuru 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Honesty is a requirement of all processes of Wikipedia, including content discussion, the dispute process and all other functions of the community. Editors are reminded that while you may expect an assumption of good faith, this is based on the counter-assumption of honesty in your actions.

If there was some type of honest enforcement when discussing the improvements at chiro talk things would be different. There should be better ways for editors to discuss things rather than reading wikilawyering nonsense. QuackGuru 15:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're getting at here. The discussion at Talk:Chiropractic appears to me to be discussion among people who sincerely believe their positions about how to interpret NPOV and what the article should say. Coppertwig (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What should be done if an editor really believe their positions are NPOV but their positions is against NPOV policy. QuackGuru 04:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Usually the editor realizes that the others are not going to be convinced and allows the other version to stand. Possibly Wikipedia policy can be interpreted to mean that discussion should continue on the matter indefinitely. One way to resolve the issue is to go to an appropriate noticeboard; for NPOV there's the WP:NPOVN. Once a decision has been made based on the responses from the noticeboard, then I think the person who disagrees should accept that position even if they don't agree with it, and move on to work on something else. Before asking at the noticeboard, it's probably best to have the editors involved agree on the wording of the question to be asked. Coppertwig (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives too much prominence to WP:TEND editors[edit]

Sanger maintained that there are serious problems with the project. There was, he wrote, a lack of public perception of credibility, and the project put "difficult people, trolls, and their enablers" into too much prominence; these problems,[1] he maintained, were a feature of the project's "anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise."[2]

Maybe Sanger is right. I made substantive improvements based on NPOV. We should not give too much prominenece to editors who don't wish to collaborate in good faith (WP:IDHT). Consensus is based on doing what is best for the project and not I don't like the quality NPOV improvements (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). QuackGuru 15:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I really think all the editors are editing in good faith and that they believe they're supporting the NPOV policy. I don't see anyone saying "I don't like the quality NPOV improvements"; rather, they disagree about what content is NPOV and what content is of good quality. This sort of disagreement among people of different POV's is quite common. Coppertwig (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[18][19][20] QuackGuru 00:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You think all the editors are editing in good faith and that they believe they're supporting the NPOV policy? What if an editor tries to edit from a neutral view point but is unable to and makes repeated NPOV violations. Then what? QuackGuru 04:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I would suggest somehow demonstrating that there is consensus among others that the person's edits are often not NPOV, and asking the person to present their material on the talk page first rather than editing directly. Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
(Responding to Coppertwig, above.) I think the first part of what you say nails the essence of WP:AGF. I think a majority view is often assumed to be an "expert" view, but that isn't a consensus in the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV. Coppertwig's work to make sure that minority points of view are expressed, in a way that adheres to policy, is exemplary. And sorry Coppertwig, if my compliments are gushing or otherwise embarrassing in any way. I just see a dangerous tendency for moderate editors who recognize a majority view to be too silent and lenient on those who would push for undue weight in favour of the majority view; while often getting frustrated with the ensuing discussion and aggressively attacking those opposing those editors, who may be seen as easy prey in such a climate. Consensus, as Coppertwig seems to say, is the ultimate arbiter, not, in theory, the result of a war of numbers where editors are attacked and eliminated by labels such as "troll" and "POV-pusher." Blackworm (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Blackworm. You are very kind.
Here's a quote:
'"I consider unjust and ungodly the maxim that, in matters of government, a majority of the people have the right to impose their will".
'De Tocqueville is saying that democracy cannot be limited to the rule of the majority, because it also includes the rights of minorities, and of the smallest minorities, and of the smallest minority of all, the individual, the flesh and blood citizen.'[21]
Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

different rules for different users[edit]

Some editors say to get consensus first on talk but some of them who are saying get consensus first are adding controversial material without any discussion or consensus. Some are even ignoring consensus. QuackGuru 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


An editor was told a while ago not to add copyrighted text to the chiropractic article. Now, not only did the same editor repeatedly added copyrighted text to the chiropractic article, after it was reverted more editors reverted back in the copyrighted text. QuackGuru 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Next Wikipedia, take a right". Wikipedia, Citizendium, and the politics of knowledge: An interview with Larry Sanger. Dossier Open Source. Retrieved 2008-05-26. 
  2. ^ Sanger, Larry (December 31, 2004). "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism". Kuro5hin. Retrieved 2008-05-26. 

Is Lerner a reliable source?[edit]

I prefer the Arabian Nights tidbit remain in the article. QuackGuru 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages, QuackGuru. I restored the Arabian Nights clause. I hope to find time later to reply to the rest of your messages above. I have to do some RL stuff now. Coppertwig (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC) ... am thinking about, but still don't have time for a proper reply. Later. Coppertwig (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)