Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive36

Locke Cole

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – A checkuser is not a personal attack. The evidence speaks for itself. This is not a civility / personal attack issue. Take it up elsewhere if you believe the checkuser was "faulty." --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor Locke Cole is personally attacking me and another editor on Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats as being sock puppets. The case is made more difficult by a faulty result of "likely" from a checkuser case Locke Cole initiated against me after I reverted inappropriate edits he made to HD DVD. I have asked him to stop attacking me in this way at least twice and placed a formal warning on his talk page. As of now, he is continuing to make this false claim against me and another editor rather than addressing the substance of my comments. As I composed this, he placed this on my talk page denying his conduct. Proctor spock (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Suspected sock puppets/Ray andrew as well as Requests for checkuser/Case/Ray andrew. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stating the results of a checkuser is not a personal attack. There is nothing wrong with Locke Cole's behavior, unless you have more evidence to report besides this sort of thing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, from the Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats page, there are a number of places where he accuses me and Ray andrew of being sock puppets. While he can say truthfully what the result of a checkuser case is ("Likely"), he cannot use that result to support a further conclusion of sockpuppetry. That is, a "Likely" outcome in a checkuser case is not logically equivalent to sock puppetry. So, it is his opinion that sock puppetry is taking place and the accusation he makes of it is both slanderous and incivil. We have both asked him to stop with the personal attacks and he has not. Proctor spock (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, in one of your content disputes you are 100% wrong (see: the policy on self-published sources which outlines exactly why a Warner Bros. press release is not a reliable source when compared to secondary sources - if secondary sources assess Warner Bros. as essentially Blu-Ray exclusive, then that's what they are, even if the press release technically states that they won't officially 100% make the switch until whenever). It also appears that you and an a very small number (possibly just you and one other editor who might be you also) are making these sorts of (incorrect in that case) changes to the article, sometimes with a much larger opposition. A "likely" on a checkuser is not just a "maybe" or "like, whatever." The fact is, you can't use your numerical weight anymore. The two of you editing to, say, end-run around 3RR (hypothetical example) or to carry twice as much weight in a straw-poll or other consensus-measuring discussion (not so hypothetical) - these are no longer viable for you and this other user (assuming it isn't also you). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Othmanskn

Apart from violating WP:NPOV, WP:REF and WP:RS, User:Othmanskn has calling at least two other users "idiots" (diff) for highlighting his/her disregarding for Wikipedia guidelines and policies, thus, violating yet another policies WP:CIVIL. He also accuses other of vandalism [1] because of the dispute. __earth ^(Talk) 01:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a warning. S/he probably just needs to cool his/her jets. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs for assertions about behavior?

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This may not even be a complaint at all, but if it is, I will refer the complaining editor back to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, where editors' behavior is discussed. I would find it hard to justify using WP:NPA to keep people from discussing editors' behavior there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We deal with editors who's behavior ranges from outstanding to borderline anti-social, this means that it's sometimes necessary to call out bad behavior. Certainly the truth as best as we can remember, whether good or bad, should be told. However given that people make mistakes, is it considered "bad" Wikiquette to cite examples of what we mean when describing bad behavior?

For example here Jehochman says I have a long history of trolling and goading. Were our roles reversed and I was making a similar comment, I'd actually cite diff(s) so he understood exactly what I meant. (Bearing in mind that I'm not asking to actually discuss what he said about my behavior, only if it would have been better/worse from a Wikiquette standpoint to cite examples.) Anynobody 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you explain, is this an etiquette complaint? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is forum shopping. My comment was made at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and was based on the findings of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS as well as the comments Anynobody (talk · contribs) had made at the relevant AE thread.[2] I suggest that the matter be dealt with where it started, rather than igniting disputes across Wikipedia in multiple fora. Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, now I see. This is either forum shopping, or something that belongs on the talk page of this alerts board (if it were an honest "so is this incivility?" question). Regardless, in an ongoing arbitration enforcement discussion, past behavior is obviously relevant. If this is a complaint, it is frivolous, and if it is a question, then the answer is "no." There is clearly nothing wrong with discussing the behavior of other editors at an arbitration enforcement discussion, citing examples or not. And Anynobody, this is completely inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to delay an actual reply on the Wikiquette board, but I was blocked for discussing an editors past on the arbcom enforcement board. This isn't a complaint, I tried to make that clear by explaining that I wasn't even sure if there is a precedent for this kind of thing and trying to explain to [User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] that it mentions but is not about him. (Giving hypothetical situations can add confusion because it may not adequately describe the actual situation in question. As I said, I would have cited examples and it sounds like doing so would not be bed Wikiquette. (I do regret this but please understand it can be quite frustrating to be accused of such things without something to back it up.) Anynobody 03:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect I wish I had paid closer attention to where I was posting as indeed this would've been better posted on the talk page. Anynobody 03:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil Raden

Resolved

 – I've warned the user, the article content seems to be safe for now, I've recommended a strong policy of ignoring the incivility, and I'll watch the article and keep an eye on it. If this continues, there's a clear case for an RFC/U or other type of intervention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been tolerating persistent personal attacks from this user for a long time now.

Some brief context: Neil Raden is the husband of T. S. Wiley, creator of the Wiley Protocol. I run a website that is critical of the Wiley Protocol and a number of the people behind it. Needless to say, we do not have a friendly relationship, and indeed Neil Raden has previously been blocked for making legal threats against me as well as Wikipedia.

Both of us are obviously COI but we have for many months agreed to limit ourselves to the talk pages. You don't have to search them or Neil Raden's history very hard to find disparaging comments about me. I've been putting up with it and letting many of them go unanswered. But...

On December 23, Neil Raden left a “Happy Holidays” note on my talk page wishing that I be maimed (via an old Irish curse). [3]

On January 5, he left more personal attacks and accusations on my talk page which, in this case, I regard as not only categorically false but defamatory (specifically the accusation of interference with a study). [4]

I deleted these comments but he reposted them on his talk page, adding further personal attacks. [5]

Enough is enough.

I want two things: 1) I want these personal attacks to cease, and 2) I want his latest comments on his talk page removed. But I'm not comfortable removing them myself, at least not without outside advice.

Thank you. Debv (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the user's talk page, but this seems to me pretty egregious. I might suggest filing an request for comment on the user's behavior. Editing solely to affect articles with a COI and making lots of angry personal attacks and being hostile generally - this is a serious problem. That being said, the best thing to do with someone like that (if they aren't affecting the article's content) is to ignore them. I would suggest taking some time avoiding contact with this person. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort and advice. I doubt this will resolve it, but it's a first step at least. Thanks. Debv (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have had an extensive discussion with this user that lead to a flat-out denial of wrong-doing, justification of any alleged wrong-doing based on off-Wikipedia goings-on, and accusations hurled at me, all because User:WLU and I asked her him to keep her his behavior in check. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Him. Debv (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. It's been a long day. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm grateful.

I'd been advised repeatedly not to respond to these incidents, to just report them. I was dubious, but, in no small part thanks to you, I'm glad that I finally did follow that advice. It's renewed my confidence in the system here. Debv (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:monosig

I believe that recent posts by Monosig warrants consideration of a Wikiquette alert message/warning.

Apart from apparently violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT) this user has violated wp:civil based on their recent posts as found in the discussion/talk page for Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow as well as on the talk page for User:Oakshade

The causes for action for a Wikiquette alert include the original vandalism, as well follow on talk page posts that contain personal attacks, impolite/uncivil tone and wording and (from my perspective) factually inaccurate statements and accusations.

I ask that the volunteers who review such concerns take appropriate corrective action - at this point my preference would simply be to remove the statments judged by others to be potentially to be offensive and/or those viewed as personal attacks.

--James.lebinski (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning. FYI, you don't need the == parts of a title when creating a "new section" if you type the title into the "subject/headline" box. Also, you don't need to copy/paste your complaint onto the user's talkpage - they should be addressing the complaint here, not there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,

I'm still trying to figure out how to do all the magic links etc. I removed the pasted text from the user's talk page. I don't see the second set of "=="'s - did you fix that for me?.

--James.lebinski (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed the header for you. Please let us konw if problems continue. For other respondents, I will note that Monosig has already been the subject of some administrative attention in this matter [6]. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

patience gone

user user:Escientist relentlessly impugns my character, rather than addressing the specific editorial and policy issues i've pointed out are the basis of my edits and reversions of his contributions. i've tried to AGF, i've tried being polite (and i believe i have yet to be impolite, though i may be terse due to the attacks), but the attacks continue to escalate. some examples:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Future_energy_development sections 31 and 32
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wtshymanski section 22
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_development sections 34 and 35

and the following, though awfully long, gives the earliest examples of these attacks, which began almost immediately after user Escientist opened his account. apparently, if you revert unsourced commentary, you are being paid be exxon to revert him.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Escientist&oldid=181564865

Anastrophe (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left the appropriate warnings on the user's talk page. Please keep us updated, if these problems continue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to address a couple of points here. I'm personally rather offended by Escientist's behavior - it's one thing to be a subject expert, which is useful but can also be a tricky position to be in due to WP:COI. It's quite another to present original research and then be so high-and-mighty about one's knowledge. I found Escientist's comments toward you to be very belittling and attacking, in the form of "I know what I'm talking about and you obviously don't, or you've got a conflict of interest", and that sort of attitude is very unhelpful.

Anastrophe, I think you did a good job in the article talk page(s) in trying to reason with Escientist, but I also believe you may have gone a little overboard or too far out of your way to continue the discussions with him in the User Talk space. People like this thrive on the attention - when they believe they know everything and everyone who disagrees with them is some form of enemy, there's really almost no reasoning with them. Allowing yourself to get mad and continue arguing with him, civil as you've been about it, will only make things worse. At this point, I think you should agree to disagree with him, continue working toward consensus in the article namespace, and work with us here on breaches of civility policy and other user conduct policies. (It is not completely against the rules to talk negatively about other users, even if what the person says is untrue. Don't go too far out of your way to defend yourself - if you're unbiased and someone's accusing you of being biased, the truth will show in the quality of your edits.)

If Escientist does do something more egregious, such as call you out for COI in the article talk itself, you can feel free to report the incident at the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents or file a Request for Comment against him. Also check out other forms of dispute resolution.

If Escientist wishes to participate in this discussion, I'll be happy to provide guidance to him as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If these problems continue without improvement, this is definitely something that needs to be bumped up the ladder. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

i appreciate the comments. for my part, i think i'm going to take a mini-wikibreak, per the title i gave this section. as it stands, i have work to do that my wiki-addiction is interfering with, so it's for the best anyway. Anastrophe (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

Work in progress; comments welcome

This user makes it difficult for me to edit productively on Wikipedia. He has long had an issue with me, and generally makes baseless accusations that I'm somehow trying to push creationist POVs into articles related to Evolution. I've tried for a long time to simply avoid him, but that doesn't seem possible.

Most recently, he reverted some of my edits to the Evolution lead that were related to a long discussion with several editors on Talk:Evolution. Note his inflammatory edit comment. I undid his reversion (once only), referring him civilly to the talk page discussion, and complained politely on his talk page. He promptly removed my message on his talk page (with some name-calling in the edit comment), re-reverted my Evolution edits, posted (ironically) a 3RR warning on my talk page, and left a rude comment on Talk:Evolution (something about me and another supposed Creationist masturbating each other). This is at least abusive, and could probably be classified as disruptive editing.

For a look at his history of harassing me, and another example of his abuse of Wikipedia's systems, see the frivolous user RFC he filed against me, and note its deconstruction by the well-known administrator User:SandyGeorgia.

I really need help dealing with User:Orangemarlin in order for me to continue spending my time trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Please let me know whether or not this is the right forum for trying to resolve things. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this complain is a retribution for said RfC, which was endorsed by several well-known administrators. I do not believe that SandyGeorgia is an admin. Gnixon is well-know for utilizing these administrative areas to battle his content disputes rather than gain consensus. There was no consensus to a long-standing FA. Gnixon should be blocked from editing for this type of attacks on my person.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was apparently wrong about her being an admin. Whoever looks into this should please be sure to follow the links instead of relying on my and OM's vastly different descriptions. Gnixon (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack again, by implying no good faith that my "vastly different description" is somehow wrong. I am always being attacked personally by Gnixon. I have tried numerous times to work with him, but finally after so many personal attacks by him, I had to file an RfC, which was endorsed by several respected editors. I'm not sure why Gnixon insists on these personal attacks, but I would hope he'd stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider with a strong pro-science (and actually anti-religion) bias I am surprised to find myself on Gnixon's side after reading through some of the material. I think Gnixon's characterisation of this RfC (started by Orangemarlin) as "frivolous" is correct. SandyGeorgia's response is well worth reading, regardless of whether she is an admin or not. I think it is fair to say that many of the 74 diffs provided by Orangemarlin have "vastly different descriptions" from what they actually say, and therefore Gnixon has every right in the world to warn people not to rely on them unchecked. It is absurd to call this a "personal attack". It seems that Orangemarlin has lost all contact with reality in his assessment of Gnixon's behaviour and actions, to the point where he interprets even the notification about this discussion as an attack. I hope that Orangemarlin comes to his senses before this is escalated further and he has to be punished. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, at least at first glance, with Hans's assessment of Gnixon's behavior. He is pushing POV, and it's pretty clear because he's using (among other things) a well-known and strongly-discouraged tactic. Whenever a biologist comments on evolution, and says something that discredits creationism, Gnixon seems to want to qualify it with something like "Dr. Sally Scientist, professor of evolutionary biology and well-known/outspoken atheist said blah blah blah." Maybe it has to do with the fact that he dismisses some published, reputable academic sources because he considers some biologists to be "bone-heads" (a consideration that could be just as easily used to discredit his side of the debate). That's totally unacceptable and does exactly the opposite of what NPOV requires. Gnixon is complaining about OrangeMarlin re-reverting him. Which means Gnixon must have reverted a revert - another big no-no, flying in the face of consensus-building (and meriting a 3RR warning). And OrangeMarlin can remove whatever comments he wants from his talk page.

Now, is OrangeMarlin making rude comments, probably out of frustration? Yes. Editors do this alot. And that should be dealt with, in this case it may be serious. But I don't think SandyGeorgia's examination of the RfC/U was a resolution to this problem, and it does not let Gnixon off the hook - there is a content dispute, and regardless of how much of the administrative hoop-jumping these two have been doing to report each other and whatever, the underlying issue involves edits like this or this are blatant POV problems - other edits are more mild, but still do things like chalk up scientifically accepted theories to the author of the reference, instead of presenting them as supported by a consensus in the scientific community. Looking through the history of Physics for example shows giant strings of edits by Gnixon, and right in the middle of them he sneaks in deleting the entire history section. Why?? He is constantly reverting the revert, demanding that his changes be accepted (instead of the status quo version), and directing others to the talk page as if his version should stand until a consensus is established (instead of the existing status quo consensus-built version).

Now, over all, as far as the WQA is concerned, I think this is honestly just another forum they've found to complain about each others' behavior. I recommend mediation, if not arbitration, because the underlying content dispute doesn't seem to ever end and it's resulted in long chains of complaints, reports, etc. I don't know what will happen if/when it's kicked up the ladder though. OrangeMarlin's incivility is not appropriate, but it is no excuse for or endorsement of Gnixon's contributions, and it looks to me like that's what this whole thing is really about. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I didn't make it clear enough that I did not actually assess Gnixon's behaviour but only Orangemarlin's. In fact, what you describe is what I expected to see in Orangemarlin's RfC diffs. But there are 74 diffs, many of which are mislabelled, and most of which seem to be perfectly harmless. I didn't check them all. I am aware that I don't know the full story, and that it is probably hard to know the full story without working on some of the relevant pages for a while. I have experienced the kind of friction that arises when people with vastly different backgrounds work on the same article, especially when laypeople push their pov against experts. Something like this might be going on here, but then Orangemarlin has done a bad job of exposing it; it is not evident to me from what I have seen and I am not willing to get much more involved. I still think Orangemarlin deserves to be punished in the way I suggested (which shouldn't be too bad for a marlin), and I have no idea if Gnixon deserves anything, or if so, what. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respond very briefly. Much of my editing involves trimming things; I know that can be contentious; I try very hard to discuss and get along with everyone. I think of myself as being very pro-science, but I try very hard to keep any personal perspective out of my editing, and I prefer not to talk about my personal views, which would apparently surprise Orangemarlin. Of your references to my edits, I only see examples of trimming things down, except in the admittedly debatable argument for identifying Dawkins as both an expert biologist and an outspoken atheist when referencing his book "The God Delusion" in the context of the creation-evolution conflict. I don't remember editing with you, but you seem to be familiar with me. I welcome and appreciate your comments, and if criticism of my editing is necessary here, I'm open to hearing it. Gnixon (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention that I strongly believe there are boneheads in all fields of science, including one with which I'm quite familiar, as well as in all other professions. I assure you I didn't mean to call any particular scientists or groups of scientists boneheads, rather I was emphasizing that my prior statement in the diff was true of all scientists, as I think you'll agree if you'll please humor me by re-reading the comment. Gnixon (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A passive aggressive personal attack on me again. You need to be banned for your ongoing personal attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone tell me how that could possibly be construed as an attack against OM, of all people? I'm sorry this seems to be degenerating, and I'll try to limit my comments here from now on. Gnixon (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack on me. I'm starting to feel as though I need to file an alert against your continued rudeness against me. However, I try to refrain from using the system unless the problem becomes severe. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be the place you'd file that complaint, except that neither of those two comments by Gnixon contain personal attacks. You need to refine your definition of personal attack. -- Cheeser1 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I second Hans' comment above. I am not uninvolved in this dispute and nor do I edit articles on intelligent design or creationism, which are areas in which I have no particular interest. I am not necessarily taking sides here because I am not familiar with Gnixon or his editing. But as a general principle, I would strongly urge any interested party here to thoroughly research Orangemarlin's contribs and editing style rather than accepting any assertions made by him at face value. Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be about civility than editing style? I don't support User:Orangemarlin's incivility, and in that sense, I agree with Hans and Badger, but my (limited) experience with his work is that it is pretty much supported by good references. Any editor's contentions need to be supported by reliable sources. In the case of science articles, that should be either peer reviewed scientific journals, or works closely based on them. I think singling out Orange Marlin like this implies that his assertions are not based on reliable sources, and unless you know something beyond your implications, you should come forward with specific issues regarding his edits. Otherwise, this comes across as bad-faith, implying that this editor is making unfounded assertions. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. Orangemarlin's article or "content" editing is always tolerable, usually accurate, and sometimes very good (from what I have seen, at least). He is a committed encyclopaedist. But his attitude to civility is disgusting and his treatment of other editors is frequently - very frequently - offensive and shows scant regard for their feelings, or for that matter for basic standards of decency. The "assertions" I refer to are along the lines of his assertion that Gnixon's post above constitutes incivility and a personal attack [7], but apparently edits like this do not.

Eh? If you can explain the logic of that then you are most certainly a cleverer person than I am.

You seem to think that I am commenting on Orangemarlin's article editing style - I am in fact referring to his edits on talk pages and in edit summaries. This is not about religion vs science. This is about Orangemarlin's basic incivility, extreme arrogance, and disregard for the principles that help make Wikipedia function- things like WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc etc etc. I am not a proponent of intelligent design nor a creationist (in so far as there's any difference between the two anyway). I am a scientist. But Orangemarlin has no right to treat other editors the way that he does and it should stop. Badgerpatrol (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah .... I see your point now. I am agreement with you. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit my faults Badgerpatrol. I am sorry we came to a head against each other at Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. It makes me sad that you have to take Gnixon's side in this matter, because I wouldn't want to force you to support any creationist editor, because you are a scientist. I hope that I can make it up to you somehow. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec w/OM) In terms of OrangeMarlin's conduct, this is absolutely right - his edits may be "right" and his contributions may be good, but his conduct is absolutely not. However, he seems willing to discuss his behavior (see his talk page). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually not. As I've stated about 350 times, possibly more, I cannot accept that there is a standard of behavior that can be described as "civil" or "uncivil." Civility is used as a method of controlling free speech, and I will not be a party to it. I do not attack anyone personally, although I'm most willing to point out their poor editing. I completely will admit I do not assume good faith, but I need to be convinced that good faith should be given. However, my sexual metaphor was incorrect, and I shall endeavor to remove it. Please do not accept what I wrote on my talk page as giving into the personal attacks of Gnixon. I will stand up to his attacking. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you have acknolwedged that your comment was inappropriate - that would be a standard of civility. Unfortunately, you don't get to decide whether or not there are standards of behavior - we have them, and you're required to follow them. Also, please refer to WP:FREE - Wikipedia makes no guarantee of free speech, but civility policy places absolutely no restrictions on what kind of relevant comments you can make, only how you can make them. Please review WP:CIVIL, you may find it helpful. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If OM can agree to deal with me civilly, stop labeling me a creationist (which I view as a baseless attempt to discredit me) and "POV-pusher", and respond to my edits in good faith, then I have no further need of help. However, I have tried repeatedly in the past to secure those courtesies, and have failed. Comments from outside observers are most welcome. (written before OM's post below, posted after) Gnixon (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But Gnixon, your edits are pushing a creationist POV. Those labels are well-earned. I am willing to accept that you are editing in good faith, but that doesn't mean your contributions aren't creating biased articles. Commenting on your contributions is not verboten - to say that your edits are pushing a POV is only inappropriate if it's baseless. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I understand your position, Cheeser1, but it's at the very least debatable whether I'm in fact pushing creationist POV. I've made it very clear that I don't think I am, and I've asserted that it has never been my intention to do so. Not being trained in acting or fictional writing, I would find it difficult to push creationist POV. However, I am trained in science and technical writing, and unbiased reporting of facts is important to me (although I pointedly don't ask you to rely on claims about who or what I am in real life). Judging from what you've written, we could apparently debate whether a rational observer would infer a slant from my edits. However, having made clear that I resent those characterizations and consider them baseless, one could at least do me the courtesy of saying one "thinks" that "my edits" are such and such, or "judges" them to be such and such, instead of stating it as an acknowledged fact. In OM's case, my interpretation is that he deliberately mischaracterizes me and repeats these assertions as fact so that people will believe I'm some sly creationist POV pusher without looking at the facts. I think that is extremely offensive and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. Gnixon (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are what you edit. I don't think denying it changes what people think of your edits, fair or not, because that's so often a tactic of vandals and admitted POV pushers. If your edits are vandalism, you're a vandal (note:hypothetical). If your edits are nonNPOV, then you're editing with a POV problem. If your edits are biased towards creationism, then you're a creationist as far as your contributions are concerned. If you want that to stop, you better start respecting the consensus building process. Your edit history is full of instances where you defy the community standards for consensus building, which is probably the main reason think you're pushing a POV instead of just making bad edits in good faith. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's kind of unfair to me. Is this the right place to discuss it at length? I don't want to distract this discussion from the original topic, but if you think this is an important enough element to warrant discussion here, I'm happy to discuss things. Gnixon (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, the thing I object to is OM going to great lengths to tell everyone what he thinks of my edits and what he believes my motivations are. I don't have a thin skin, but I think it's uncivil for him to deliberately attempt to bias others toward me. Calling me a creationist, a POV-pusher, and a creationist POV-pusher on articles like Evolution where people are sensitive to those types is a direct attack on my credibility, and it seems to be motivated by personal antipathy to me and a zealous need to guard science, not by the facts. This is obviously an issue of degree, as I don't dispute anyone's right to tell others what they think of my edits. However, I think his behavior amounts to a lot of vindictive name-calling. Gnixon (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vindictive name-calling? Another personal attack against me. What's that? Ten in this thing? I'm starting to feel aggrieved. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the recent history of the Evolution article I must now say that I agree with Cheeser1 on this. What is going on there must be extremely trying for the experts. The entire situation reminds me of the relation one often sees between children and their parents. The children have a lot of energy for mischief, while the parents try to concentrate on serious work. Eventually the parents get aggressive, and that is wrong and looks completely unjustified to outside observers. But it is very understandable. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For my own part, it would be useful to see examples of edits considered to be POV-pushing. Like Hans, I also have had a (very) quick scan through Gnixon's edits to [Evolution]] but unlike Hans, I didn't see much to immediately concern me. Note for clarity that I am not taking anybody's "side" and I am not claiming to be familiar with Gnixon's edits. I am only requesting evidence. Can we have some diffs to back up the claims? Badgerpatrol (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the failed RfC or some of the diffs I cited (which I pulled out of there). Yes, OrangeMarlin cites alot of stuff that isn't relevant, but he cites alot of stuff that is too. I gave enough examples above to give you some idea, I think. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[8] - I don't understand what's wrong with this comment. I know plenty of scientists, and some (the majority) are very clever and very accomplished people indeed. Equally, some of them are "boneheads", or could reasonably described as such (although it would be rather rude to do so). Scientists are not Gods, they're just people. Similarly, peer review is a good tool but not infallible - some dross does slip through, and the quality of journals ranges from the elite (Nature, Science, Royal Society) to the not so good (New Dworkin Journal of Mammology, or its non-fictional equivalent). My knowledge of creationism is more or less gleaned from reading the newspaper, but it was my understanding that it does indeed have quite strong support amongst the general public in America and in many other countries. That does not, of course, make it any more true - and neither does Gnixon say that in his comment.

There's an irony here that I'm disappointed everyone missed, although it's understandable without the context. I was actually writing in support of someone who criticized Intelligent Design proponents for not having publications. They said "all great scientists" have publications, but in fact, all legitimate scientists have publications. Thus if ID has no publications in peer-reviewed journals, it's not only that there are no "great" ID scientists, but that there can't be any legitimate ID scientists (not even of the boneheaded variety). Gnixon (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[9] - This is a major edit and he might have been well advised to discuss on the talk page first (especially on such a sensitive article). But I don't think its a particularly bad edit- the trimmed material was written in a familiar, almost first person style and the given reference [10] is...hardly unimpeachable as a source.

I don't remember having any problem with the reference, but I thought it inappropriate for that paragraph about "theory" in science to go off on a long tangential lecture about forensics. Gnixon (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[11] - I kind of see your point here but this edit is certainly not unambiguous either. Assuming good faith, he's only adding manifest fact. Richard Dawkins is (arguably) far better known for his views on religion and other supernatural phenomena than he is as a biologist (or at least he is these days, anyway). I believe his chair at Oxford is in "Public Understanding of Science". (I don't know enough about Dennett to comment on what his exact position is.)

Again, I am not familiar enough with this situation to take anybody's "side" - but I would not in a million years suggest that these edits constitute "blatant" POV. Apart from the last one, which maybe is debatable (although obviously true) I could easily have made those edits myself. Gnixon may be a creationist and a POV pusher who is driving everyone to frustration, but those edits (and a random sampling of those from the RfC, although I have not by any means looked at them all) do not at all demonstrate it to me. Badgerpatrol (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that he's edit warring over this stuff, way out of bounds of WP:CONS. Even if you assume as much good faith as possible, once he starts edit warring, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. If somebody says "revert due to creationist bias" and Gnixon reverts it right back, I can't fathom how there could be a good-faith explanation beyond not understanding WP:CONS, WP:R, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And I can't fathom how there can be a good faith explanation of how it can be justified to call someone a creationist based on edits which do not betray any obvious creationist tendencies. Orangemarlin has shown some contrition tonight and conducted himself in a (comparitively) admirable way, and on that basis, I (genuinely) don't want to appear to be laying into him. But WP:CONS only works if everyone is willing to assume good faith and discuss issues in a calm and rational way to build or adjust consensus. "Calm and rational" does not describe my experience with Orangemarlin and some of his regular editing colleagues (none of whom have weighed in here so far btw, and I think the discussion is much the better for it). Gnixon shouldn't edit war (has he broken the 3rr?) but sadly I very much doubt if his edits or points for discussion would have got a fair hearing on talk. I know from bitter personal experience that it is extremely difficult to get OM and his associates to actually respond constructively to substantive argument in a balanced and constructive way. Badgerpatrol (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that edit warring is bad, and there have probably been times in the past when I've too vigorously defended edits in the article instead of on the talk page (but I suspect that's true of many or most editors). I'm always trying to do better; I've never been accused of violating 3RR; I've never been warned or had any action taken against me for anything. While undoing OM's recent revert may not have been the best response, I don't know any policy that it violated, especially given my interpretation that it was done completely in bad faith. For a well-trod article like Evolution, obviously the best response was just to leave a note on the talk page and let someone else undo what OM did. I'll do that in the future. Gnixon (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Undo what I did? You mean you're attacking me personally for making a good faith reversion? I'm tiring of these personal attacks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just take this recent one, which removes the following from the lede: "It encountered initial resistance from religious authorities who believed humans were divinely set apart from the animal kingdom" (among other things). The justification was: "changes to tighten last paragraph of lead. Dropped mention of Wallace w/o lying. Dropped mention of early resistance from religious corners as non-essential. Still a little wordy." This is inappropriate because this controversy was historically extremely important. And as we all know, in the US it is still not over, although the exact contested points are evolving. (It's even beginning to spread to the UK and Germany.) This is a minor point, but there is currently a revert war going on on it. Another example is this edit, which also resulted in a fight. This would be easier to defend. I am not saying it is inappropriate behaviour to make such edits. I am saying that the editors who are trying to defend reason against the simplistic religious POV must be feeling like the parents in my analogy. The children are continuously asking for lots of little things and making a drama if they don't get them. It seems to be easier to just concede a point without a fight; but then they get bolder and demand more and more. This kind of thing is very enervating, but also very hard to prove, because every single instance looks like it is not a big deal. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And, to make that clear, while I can understand how some parents resort to beating their children for this behaviour, it doesn't just look bad, it's also morally wrong. That's why I wanted to whack (or feed?) Orangemarlin. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans, I can see what you mean and why that might be the case - it is difficult to take edits out of context and judge them, and the sum of the parts may be greater than the individual edits themselves, which is why I'm being fairly careful with how I phrase things. Gnixon has not explicitly made crystal clear here what his actual position is (although I do appreciate that this is a debate about Oranagemarlin's incivility, not Gnixon's personal beliefs). In isolation, the edits you quote indeed are no big deal (the second one I might have made myself, and the first I can certainly see a justification for, and in general he seems to make his arguments in a constructive and reserved fashion), but if it is pre-supposed that Gnixon is a creationist POV-pusher (i.e. if initial good faith is put aside) then obviously they take on a different tone. I would however like to see the evidence that he actually is a creationist POV-pusher rather than just an a priori assumption. (Either way, it doesn't excuse name-calling and gross incivility). Badgerpatrol (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But Hans, while I agree with your assessment of the sensitive nature of Evolution and the parents/children analogy, I don't know that it applies here. The fight you refer to was started by OM's reversion of my edit, and the last time I checked the page, everyone was happy when someone else changed things back to exactly my version. Regarding those cuts which you thought were "inappropriate", those changes were made in consistency with wide consensus that the Evolution article should avoid prominently discussing the creation-evolution controversy---how could going against the creationists' "Teach the Controversy" strategy in this case be construed as a pro-creationist POV push?? I agree that these issues are subtle, which is why I hoped to keep this action focused on specific, overt acts of incivility. However, I understand if people think broader things should be discussed. Gnixon (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting long-time stable verbiage is hardly an attack on you. But your continued attacks on me are becoming troublesome.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is much more detail than I ever wanted to go into. So just a brief reply before I go to bed. To stay in my analogy, if there is a consensus among the children that they all need icecream instantly then it doesn't necessarily mean that the parents should give it to them. They must not beat the children, and they shouldn't use foul language, but if they give in the children will demand a playstation next week. --Hans Adler (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but if there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors that the article must have ice cream, then by Wikipedia's basic principles, the article gets ice cream! (Totally off-topic, but I couldn't resist.) Thanks for weighing in, Hans, and sorry this thing ballooned. Gnixon (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found many of these comments helpful. I would really appreciate if even more people (preferably totally uninvolved) would weigh in. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I may not be totally uninvolved, as I have clashed with Orangemarlin on religio-political articles, but I would like to fully endorse Badgerpatrol's view of the situation.

Certainly OM frequents articles that attract controversial editing, and some of the people he deals with really are trolls or sockpuppets, but this does not excuse his behavior. He fans flames and creates enemies, when a more respectful approach might defuse conflicts and guide others towards productive editing. This is detrimental to Wikipedia, especially given the high-profile location of his activities, in that editors inclined to be reasonable are driven away and the rest are turned into warriors. He needs to realize this and change his ways.

He clearly is highly intelligent, and is (I have heard and do not doubt it) a productive encyclopedist. He is also (by his own testimony, which rings true) a successful businessman. Thus I cannot believe that he is incapable of realizing the problem here and becoming a better citizen. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) should apologize for the comment he made at Talk:Evolution. Ulitimately, let's not get distracted with red herrings. The only question that should be on the Table is whether or not this edit demands a caveat-free apology. TableManners^C·U·T 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer if OM's behavior toward me (and others) was discussed in general, but I'll understand if people want to restrict this to the recent incident (comprised of several edits), given that I haven't provided past diffs beyond the RfC. Gnixon (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My behavior? Another attack on me. That makes at least 12 on this alert itself. I think I'm going to have to disengage from your abusive behavior, or it might cause me undue harm on this project.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes your behavior. That's what the WQA is here to discuss. Just because Gnixon mentions your name does not make it a personal attack - it seems like anytime he says anything, you think it's a personal attack. I would strongly suggest that you "disengage" from this discussion - your conduct is starting to become a bit problematic. And no, that's not a personal attack. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cheeser here, it's becoming tiresome to hear OrangeMarline parrot the same line again and again. And I agree with BadgerPatrol's overall assessement of the situation. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll also agree with Chesser's observations, and based upon past interactions with OM and his comments here at WQA, he seems to fringe on being rather incivil. Not every user who comments, or opposes your viewpoints OM is attacking your credibility or stance, but if it does continue, then other actions will be required. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I came across this discussion by accident. Since I've had some interaction with OrangeMarlin, I'll comment briefly. I note Seicer's comment that, "if it does continue, then other actions will be required." Therefore, I note that this kind of thing has already been continuing for a long time, at least in the context of matters with which I have been involved. I'll give two brief examples, although more examples are available upon request. On October 19 of 2007, OrangeMarlin told another editor: "I can't wait to watching you fucked over." That resulted in a warning to OrangeMarlin. On December 26, OrangeMarlin accused another editor of being "anti-semitic" merely for having used the word "chutzpa." Again, a warning was given to OrangeMarlin. I'm concerned that Wikipedia does not have any efficient way to keep track of such warnings; in this case, we apparently have a situation where each person giving a warning is unaware of previous warnings.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah Ferrylodge. This must be a revenge comment because I put you up for review by ArbCom. Sorry, but it's bold faced attempt by you. You're on probation, not me. Oh, one more thing. The comment was anti-semitic. I get choose what offends me. Not you. Your people weren't executed by the millions by Nazis. My family was. I tend to take casual comments like that very poorly. Apparently, you choose to further that type of anti-Semitism, which I don't personally like. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You attack my alleged motives, instead of addressing the diffs. Typical. I will now provide a small bit of the further evidence regarding your incivility, in response to your ongoing attack. You again now refer --- dishonestly --- to my religious heritage. Previously, you wrote"Ferrylodge, being a christian pov-pusher, would never have Chutzpah." I responded by saying, "As a Jew, I take great offense when I hear frivolous bogus charges of antisemitism, because it trivializes the real thing." OrangeMarlin, as one Jew to another, I hope that you will reconsider your preposterous style of editing, and I hope that some action is taken against you sooner rather than later to expedite that reconsideration.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Cheeser, let me be a lot more serious about this. Gnixon has done this several times to me and other editors. I'm not going to dig up the diffs, but if you want them, I'll take time from dealing with vandals who seem to be attacking articles today. I consider several of Gnixon's comments to be highly inflammatory. He has accused me of harassing him, he has accused me of a variety of things. Almost every one of his comments is a veiled attack. Gnixon is a abusive, disruptive editor. I don't countenance his personal attacks on me, no matter how slight. This whole conversation is a waste of time. I've made the changes to the comments I made in the Talk section, I've apologized to two or three editors (and not one of those wimpy apologies, but a straight out obvious one). Gnixon ought to apologize to all of us for wasting time on a frivolous activity, for besmirching my good name, and for POV-warrioring (even Badgerpatrol, who has only a marginal tolerance of me, called Gnixon that). So let's move on. If you want me to apologize to Gnixon, I will because I was wrong in my sexual metaphor (which I've stated before). But someone needs to tell Gnixon that he's gaming this system with these constant attacks on me. And that's what this is. It's cute that the other POV-warriors like Ferrylodge lump into the fray, but I'm used to him. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:"even Badgerpatrol, who has only..." - Your interpretation of events, and especially my comments, is so hopelessly skewed that frankly I can only assume deliberate mendacity on your part. Show me a diff where I call Gnixon a POV-warrior. I have stated repeatedly throughout this conversation that in fact I have yet to see any convincing evidence that Gnixon is a POV-pusher and I've repeatedly requested that others provide it. Redact or retract your statement above in so far as it pertains to your utter (deliberate?) misreading of my statements on this matter. I for one certainly would like you to actually provide some diffs to back up your point of view- I would especially like to see Gnixon's "highly inflammatory" commments, which as I'm sure you understand, would potentially turn this entire thread on its head.

Produce them please.

Orangemarlin, I have to say that your behaviour is becoming increasingly bizarre - and that's certainly not a personal attack, it's a statement of genuine puzzlement. Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about one sexual metaphor. It's about a repeated pattern of incivility toward myself and others for which OM shows no remorse, and which he makes clear he has no intention of curtailing (consider all the comments about rejecting civility in principle). I have no confidence that this conversation has yet solved the problem. Gnixon (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, I think the problem is that you spend too much time thinking about what Gnixon says, and not nearly enough time thinking about what you say. Everything he says seems to be a personal attack (see above - he made two harmless comments and you took great offense). And you don't seem to be entirely clear on where you should draw the line when you're speaking (er, typing). I would suggest that you take some time off, review your own contributions (not others') and think seriously about how you say things (and to some extent, what you say). You are often in heated content disputes, incivility pops up all the time, but you seem to be exceptionally prone to making such comments. You should think things over seriously, because despite Gnixon's behavior, despite how right you might be in a content dispute, you are still just as much subject to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and you can wind up blocked for that - if you don't take the time to think about things, an admin might force you to, and I don't want to see that happen when you do seem to have good intentions, however egregious your behavior might become. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat tired of seeing this behaviour from Orangemarlin and am appalled by the masturbation comment (thankfully since removed). I have previously told OM of my intention to block him for breach of WP:CIV and WP:NPA should it continue and am close to doing so due to that comment. However, it would be sensible not to do so given the (hopefully) productive discussions going on here. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Violet, I appreciate your comment, and I too hope these discussions have been or will be productive. However, please consider the following:

Before your warning, Orangemarlin had already been warned about WP:CIV and WP:NPA by User:IrishGuy for calling me a "whiny little creationist". A third admin has warned him for edit-warring. Even now, Orangemarlin rejects WP:CIV as a matter of principle, much like he dismissed your warning as "a bunch of crap." This represents a consistent pattern over at least the last 9 months without any sign of change. Yet interest in this discussion seems to have died off.

What message is the community trying to send? Apparently, consistent hostility and incivility toward other editors is at most frowned upon. If explicitly rude name-calling finally pushes someone to complain, Orangemarlin needs only point the finger back at the complainant, obfuscate things with a fantastical reinterpretation of events, and wait a few hours for things to blow over. At worst, he'll be given warning number N+1, which will quickly be archived from his talk page and forgotten about, whence he's free to return to his old ways. I'm not screaming for blood here, but I wish someone would get through to him that WP:CIV in non-negotiable. Gnixon (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you want besides frowning upon? This is the WQA, we are not an administrative alert board, and if you're so convinced that nothing will ever change, why are you making a complaint to a place where the best we can do is give him "warning number N+1"? Also, you are grossly mischaracterizing the response to the complaint - please do not lash out at the people who are trying very hard to help you resolve the situation just because they didn't do exactly what you want, or because they happened to notice that you are not completely blameless in this matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a detailed knowledge of the WQA process; I'm not sure what options are available to it; I'm not sure what specific action needs to be taken. I suppose I'm just frustrated that nothing seems to have gotten through to Orangemarlin. I certainly don't mean to lash out at those who have posted comments here, since many of them seem quite helpful. If anywhere, my criticism is directed at the general response from the community; however, my point is not to criticize, but rather to argue that the "masturbation" comment should be considered as part of a larger problem. Gnixon (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Ironically, one of OM's favorite activities is to post warnings to other users. A glance at his last 500 edits shows some 25 such posts, often labeled "Final/Last Warning." Is Orangemarlin the best choice for WikiCop?) Gnixon (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Those warnings are a standard part of editing on Wikipedia. I dish out several of those a day, sometimes, because they are necessary in order to utilize the WP:AIV. Please do not decontextualize or mischaracterize what could easily be positive contributions by OrangeMarlin. This comment isn't even relevant to the issue at hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at a few of the warnings before my comment (to fulfill the onus of AGF), was partly what led me to question the whether Orangemarlin was appropriate for that important but sensitive role. However, I understand it's a little off-topic, so I won't pursue it further. Apologies, Gnixon (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The vast majority of these warnings seem to be for obvious cases of vandalism to pages that Orangemarlin is watching. I think this makes your rhetorical question weaker than it would be otherwise. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most were obvious cases of vandalism that deserved response, but my point need only rest on the observation that even vandals are entitled to WP:CIV, and perhaps a gentle touch is even more valuable in that arena than elsewhere. Anyway, as I mentioned above, that's only a side-point, and I'll let it go having said my peace. Gnixon (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cheeser1 that WQAIf no more action can be taken than warning OM, which has been repeatedly demonstrated not to make any difference to his behaviour, then WP:WQA is more or less a useless talking shop, unless it can lead to a more substantive way forward. I agree with Gnixon however that the situation with Orangemarlin is a weeping sore that has gone on too long. We should AGF that most of his disseminated warnings are for vandalism, but we have all seen that OM's definition of a personal attack against him is...bizarre, at best. I would very much like to see diffs of Gnixon's "highly inflammatory" comments that OM seems to have found so provocative. OM's repeated allegations of personal attacks against him are indeed often fantastical, from what I can see, and seem to almost lapse into autosuggestion. Repeating a lie a thousand times does not make it any more true, as OM's own dealings with creationists and ID proponents should presumably have made clear to him. This discussion has been constructive and I think could lead to real and lasting progress on the issue. If, as Cheeser1 seems to state, WQA is not the appropriate forum for a lasting solution, then comments on what is an appropriate forum would be welcome. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment itself is bizarre. Cheeser1 has been very active working on this complaint; spinning his reply to an exasperated Gnixon in the way you are doing is absurd. "We should AGF that most of his disseminated warnings are for vandalism" also looks like a bizarre attack to me. There is no need to AGF, we can just look at his logs. I already had a (very quick) look at OM's warnings and reported the result, in reply to Gnixon's remark. I will AGF and merely conclude that you are merely too lazy to do the same. But that's no reason to assume everybody else is equally lazy. This nonsense only distracts from the valid points you are making in your comment. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Repeating a lie a thousand times does not make it any more true" is not a very helpful formulation, to say the least. If OM were lying when he says he is being attacked he could just stop doing so for a while and recommence later. He is very obviously not lying but perceiving these attacks, whether rightly (something subliminal could be going on, after all, although there is no evidence for that so far) or not. That's the problem, and that's why a "talking shop" is exactly what we need. The AGF principle is there to help us avoid exactly the kind of (innocent I will say, assuming your good faith) mischaracterisation which you have just made, and which tends to aggravate conflicts.--Hans Adler (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect Hans, I find your above comment and accusations incivil. Please let's get back to the matter at hand. I find your tone inappropriate in a conversation that has to date been conducted in a largely civil and sensible tone. I have altered my above comment however in line with your objection.

Amongst Orangemarlin's recent warnings (and I interpret that in a broad sense, not just template warnings) we find this in response to this, this in response to [12] (which maybe borders incivility, but is not a personal attack), [13] in response to this, this (particularly disgusting and unfounded) accusation in response to this.

I have had more than a "very quick" look at Orangemarlin's edit history. I am by now quite familiar with it, although I can't claim to have looked through every one of his warnings or edits. There is much to be concerned about. With regard to warnings specifically- I say there is a need to assume good faith because there is a need to assume good faith- many of OM's warnings are for neutrality violations for example, which are a judgement call - and frankly, I no longer trust Orangemarlin's judgeement. It does seem (and the above conversation and diffs may provide some evidence) that OM uses warnings and accusations of personal attacks as a form of personal attack himself, something specifically prohibited under WP:NPA. I can see why Gnixon is indeed "exasperated" - it seems to me that he's been accused of things he quite possibly hasn't done (if he has done them, let's see the diffs) and repeatedly personally attacked. OM has been warned and warned and warned and he is not changing his behaviour one little bit. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[Addendum]- I always endeavour to extend good faith to editors - until they demonstrate otherwise. WP:AGF (and, more importantly, common sense) clearly states that good faith is not infinite. With his repeated, totally unfounded, allegations of personal attacks and skewing of other editors' commentary, his ongoing (and 'severe) incivility and his gaming the system by accusing others of personal attacks and incivility whilst a) claiming that he doesn't care about civility anyway and b) repeatedly making manifestly incivil comments and personal attacks, OM has used up my good faith. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Badgerpatrol here. It's hard to find any justifiable reason for OM "perceiving" personal attacks here. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, some people believe in one or more gods. It's also very hard to find any justifiable reason for that, and yet it is obviously inappropriate and uncivil to accuse them of lying. And that's true even if they still insist after weeks, months or even years of fruitless discussions. Good faith is not supposed to be used up in such situations. The assumption of good faith is needed especially in such situations. The question here should be something like: "Why is OM feeling attacked and what can we do about it? How can we stop the disruption caused by this?" I think it's a very bad idea to discuss the loaded question: "How can we make OM stop lying about his being attacked?" --Hans Adler (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, I agree with your second and third example. I don't understand what's going on in the first, and while there is a lot in the fourth that is "disgusting" as you say, it's not in what OM says. (You linked to "The Evil Spartan"'s "chutzpah" comment; presumably you meant something else.) I am sorry for the accusation above that I have striked out now. Since Gnixon's original "last 500 edits" comment the topic has shifted a bit, and I wasn't aware of that. I would probably have seen that if I had followed my own advice of assuming good faith properly. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reassessing your comments, I appreciate it. I've now corrected my post above - two of the diffs were in the wrong order; in fact Orangemarlin's accusation of anti-semitism and references to the Holocaust were solely in response to Evil Spartan's use of the word "chutzpah" (a common word in everyday usage regardless of one's religious preferences and certainly not offensive in any way nor intended to be so). It's sadly ironic given OM's editing interests that you seem to equate OM's irrational behaviour (and I mean that descriptively, not as an attack) with irrational religious belief. The question at hand is not "How can we stop OM from feeling that he's being attacked?" rather it is "How can we stop OM from attacking other people?". The diffs I provide above are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his behaviour unfortunately. It is offensive, it poisons the atmosphere, and it generates a huge amount of totally unecessary light & heat.

I'm sorry to state it bluntly, but he has been reported to this board several times, he has been warned many times on his talk page, he was a party in a recent arbcom case (during which his actions were more or less ignored, for whatever reason). He has not altered his behaviour or even accepted that said behaviour is wrong.

As Yeats said: "The best lack all conviction, whilst the worst are full of passionate intensity". If you have had a good look at Orangemarlin's edits, you will see that good faith has been pushed far enough. His behaviour is anti-wiki and unacceptable. Let's actually do something about it. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin (2)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Votestacking complaints are supposed to be leveled against those who canvass for the votes, not for the people who happen to come and comment on the article at hand. OrangeMarlin overestimated the number of blocks in Guido's edit history - he should have checked, and has been warned against making such comments, especially so flippantly. OM is in the process of re-examining his conduct on Wikipedia in light of far more substantive complaints - this one lacks much substance, and has been addressed thoroughly. Content dispute referred back to the talk page of th article in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User continues to show aggression towards me. Responded to votestacking on Fibromyalgia and is spreading lies about me in highly incivil tone on his talk page after being warned for this behaviour by User:Revolving Bugbear. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah Guido Guido Guido. Bugbear's only warning was to not respond to canvassing, which I did not know it was. And you called me a liar and disruptive, which is a personal attack. And have you not been blocked more than once? I would suggest your constant stalking me is problematic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that user is intending to continue in the same manner indefinitely. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? Provide diffs, I see only one comment by OM on talk:fibro. You've got a history of frivolous complaints here at the WQA, and OrangeMarlin is pointing to your history of editing, which isn't very positive. If you have a votestacking complaint, it's not OM's fault, it's whoever canvassed for the votes, and that doesn't make you "right" in the content dispute. OM did nothing wrong here, unless you've got diffs that aren't reflected in the current discussion as it appears on talk:fibro and OM's talk. Please keep in mind that this is the WQA - we respond to complaints about civility, personal attacks, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I hate these things. Editors which I have put in their place with either ArbComs, RfC's or whatever attack. That's why my responses in the previous one of these things was less than serious. I have not been blocked. I have not been ArbComm'ed (is that a word?). This is a waste of everyone's time. Also, I believe that there are a HUGE number of warnings against Guido for attacking me. He can be blocked I believe for attacking me any further. Yeah, I know, you're going to make me find the damn diffs.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, although they are already in plain sight:

• response to votestacking: [14]
• false report of multiple blocks: [15]

New diffs:

• false accusation of stalking: [16]
• false report of 'huge number of warnings': [17] Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Of those 4 diffs, the latter two are copies of OM's comments in this section. I see no way the first one could be perceived as uncivil. Only the second diff, where OM says Guido is an edit warrior that's been blocked several times. He gets no AGF from me..., could possibly be construed as uncivil (for choosing to apply a label and refusing to follow WP:AGF). One can see from the a topic not far above this one that I've complained about OM's lack of civility, and I don't know Guido, so it should be easy to judge the direction of any bias I might have. That said, I think this is at most only a minor instance of incivility. Of course, I'm basing this judgment only on the 4 diffs seen here. Gnixon (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Those four diffs are the evidence presented here - that's what you should be basing your judgment on (refer to the instructions on filing a complaint above). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Often, providing a proper response to a WQA does involve more research than just the diffs. The diffs are examples, but are usually not the end-all-be-all of the complaint, as the situation that sparked the WQA may have been going on for some time. If you look at a user's edit history using a diff as a starting point, you may find a longer history of civility or incivility than just what's been reported, and that'll provide you with a better idea of how to respond to the editor(s) in question. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment was too short. The diffs provided should highlight the entire incident in question, and that is what we're here to look at. If they only provide a partial account, then one should investigate further. However, this is the WQA, not an RfC/U - we aren't here to do a full review of everything a user ever did, and our researching the users' (all of them) histories should only serve to fully contextualize the current complaint (although that may, in some cases, involve a substantial amount of context - as is the case here, given that Guido has, in the past, filed unnecessary complaints, one of which was against OrangeMarlin). But, in terms of evaluating the complaint at hand prima facie, the diffs should first be evaluated in their own right. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that we're not doing RFC/U here, but I've seen many cases where a WQA helper going the extra mile to research the whole situation has been able to provide much better feedback to all parties than simply following the diffs provided. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never filed any unnecessary complaints. I suggest that you follow good advice and withdraw, since you are only making things worse. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"I have never filed frivolous complaints, and I demand that you withdraw because of the frivolous complaint I filed against you moments ago?" Surely you are joking. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: [18]. In this ANI complaint, Guido requests that OrangeMarlin be blocked for using the hyperbole "execute" in place of "block" (or otherwise stop disruptive editing). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made no such request. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You alluded to a block or a warning by posting about it at ANI to gain immediate action and by stating, "A death threat is a death threat, hyperbole or not, and should be dealt with." No one agreed with your statement. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido: Your block log only shows that you were blocked once for a 3RR violation, but otherwise have not been blocked for any civility or policy violations. OrangeMarlin was incorrect in saying you'd been blocked multiple times, unless he knows something I don't and you have previously been blocked under a different account.

HOWEVER: I read over the RFC discussion in Talk:Fibromyalgia and the subsequent edits in the article itself, and I see evidence to support other editors' claims against you. I believe that OrangeMarlin was in his right to revert your edit as in the first diff above ("response to votestacking"), as he cited the RFC in his revert summary. That does not appear to be aggression or personal-attack behavior to me.

In the RFC, you were asked multiple times to explain your reasoning that the sources everyone else agreed upon didn't support the text in the article, and as they put it, you stonewalled. As a result, they were in their right to move forward as per WP:CONSENSUS, and your actions after that point appear to have been disruptive. You did bring up some good points, but when asked to back up your points with citations, I did not see you do so.

Keep in mind that continuing to make edits against consensus after consensus has been reached, without properly explaining your reasoning, is considered disruptive and causes most editors to stop assuming good faith. If you make an edit in the article and it's reverted, the best course of action is to take it to the Talk page, even if it has already been discussed before. But keep in mind that the onus is on YOU to sway consensus through logical discussion and good, reliable sources.

OrangeMarlin: Please refrain from making personal attacks and untrue comments about other users. Contrary to your statements in the diffs provided above, Guido has not been blocked multiple times and has not received a large number of warnings. Those that he has received have been for relatively minor things such as WP:3RR. I do agree that it may be to his advantage to try a different approach to his editing practices when it comes to content disputes, but that does not warrant the kinds of comments you've made against him, especially when they do not appear to be true. Such comments serve to discredit other users and usually only make the situation worse.

Additionally, other users have previously complained about your behavior here on WQA and elsewhere, and at least from what I've seen so far, your response to those editors has been less than helpful. In my view, it comes across as somewhat high-and-mighty (especially "editors I've had put in their place through [arbcom, RFC, etc]...", which is never helpful). You might consider toning that down a bit.

More if necessary later. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect about a consensus being reached on Fibromyalgia, and also to claim that I failed to provide sources. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page, where I have explained things multiple times.[19] Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure looked to me like a consensus had been reached. The people you mentioned as dissenting from consensus were quoted back to you with what they said, and none of those statements appeared to be disagreements to the overall consensus - just suggestions on how to change the text improve the presentation in the article. You appeared to be the only one asserting that the sources didn't back up the article text at all. And you kept referring to ICD-10, but I fail to see how that supports your assertions - that is just a list of codes, and without referring to something specific about that article, I doubt other people - even people who are well-versed on the subject - could be expected to know what part of it you're talking about. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is nonetheless therefore untrue to claim that I didn't provide a source, and I have explained in full why this source is important and what the difference is. You may have missed the earlier discussion.

Yes, they were quoted back, but these quotes related to the text put forward in the RFC, not to the text inserted by Djma12, and even then do not constitute consensus since two other votes were left out. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned, consensus does not equal a vote. Please go back and read the policy again to ensure you're completely familiar with it. What I saw was a repeated sequence of you stating that the sources were invalid, people asking you WHY they were invalid, and you pointing at a very vague answer with no further explanation. Other editors did not accept that response and continued on without you. Looking back at the earlier discussions, you were asked to support your viewpoint and you claimed that you didn't need to, despite the fact that the general consensus was that the content was well-established and cited. So your using the ICD as a source was deemed "not good enough" by the other editors, even when the RFC went through. (Continuing to point at that source and say "See? I did provide a source!" isn't going to help when the source, such as it is, has not been shown to support your claim.)

Honestly, I think Djma was right. There are far more editors supporting the text that you kept removing than there are supporting your side of the argument. Turning around and accusing those editors of being on the attack against you isn't helping your case. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Nothing in your description of events is even remotely accurate; you are building a house of cards with no foundation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only calling it as I see it. If you can point to specific instances of things you said and did that contradict what I'm saying, please do so. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Start here, where I refer to and explain the ICD10: [20][21] [22][23] Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido, I think you are confusing the principle of consensus with "if I am right and the others are wrong then I have a veto right". You haven't. Obviously this is a problem, but it cannot be avoided because so often the other side is also convinced of being right. Incidentally I don't even think think your arguments are valid. I know nothing about the disease(s) you were discussing, but a classification designed by a committee of WHO bureaucrats doesn't strike me as a good argument against scientific studies. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The purpose of the ICD and of WHO sponsorship is to promote international comparability in the collection, classification, processing, and presentation of mortality statistics." [24] So it's not to make diagnoses more exact, it's not even to make the mortality statistics more exact, it's only to make them more comparable. You are trying to use it for something it was not designed to do. The others should have spent more time to explain this to you, but a lot of expert editors suffer from burnout, so the failure seems to be excusable.--Hans Adler (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is nonetheless a source that represents international consensus, for that is what the classification is based on. Further, there is also a WHO treaty, which implies that the WHO classification must be followed. Listing a somatic disease as a psychiatric disorder is a violation of that treaty.

However, all of this is just another layer to the house of cards, which was built on the assertion that I did not provide a source, period. When that assertion could not be maintained, it was asserted that I didn't explain the source. Now that I provided the edits of where I did explain it, it is asserted that my explanation should have been countered. I wonder what will be next. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans, Guido, this has nothing to do with the original complaint, or etiquette at all. Take the content dispute back to the talk page of the article in question, so that all concerned parties have an opportunity to take part in this discussion. I strongly advise all editors to respect consensus. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) If we are building a house of cards as you say, it must be a pretty good one, because I don't see it collapsing just yet. I read the entire discussion from which you took your most recent diffs, and that was what I was referring to above when I said that you did not adequately explain how the ICD contradicts the text in the article. The assertion from Djma and other editors was that the ICD did not directly contradict what was being said, nor did the other sources being provided, and that the scope of the ICD and WHO treaty did not apply to the contested text in the article. IMO, while you did argue against that point, you didn't explain what made the ICD stand out above the other sources.

Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should always contain a balanced point of view. Fibromyalgia is a poorly understood condition, and research is still being done on it. As such, it's not something that anyone can firmly classify as one type of disease or another, since the leading scientists on the subject don't fully understand and cannot agree on its causes. It is fully appropriate for the article to mention the different points of view, with their own sources, in a way that gives equal weight to all the relevant points. You need to ensure that by deleting text and discrediting some sources, you're not putting undue weight on just one point of view. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Cheeser's comment above, moving the content discussion to Guido's talk page. (This is a discussion regarding his handling of the content discussion, not so much about the content itself.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant portion of this content discussion has been copied over to User talk:Guido den Broeder#Fibromyalgia content discussion from WQA, in case people want to continue discussing it. I feel it's more appropriate to take it there than the article talk itself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Where it transpired that User:KieferSkunk had looked at the wrong text, attributing Dr. Anymouse's version (which looks balanced) to Djma12. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)