Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive71

Improper terminology at Butterfly stroke

Resolved

 – Both parties advised; filing party warned.

User:Izno is continually reverting front crawl to freestyle in the list of strokes and their speeds. The correct terminology is front crawl, especially when comparing it to other strokes. This is attested to by the actual article on front crawl (to which freestyle stroke redirects anyway). He is editing in bad faith, as reasons for this terminology have been posted on the talk page for the article, and he has not responded but continues to revert.

I'm not sure what to do here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.15.234 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

4 points here:

1. You should have notified Izno of this WQA - you didn't.
2. Calling Izno an "idiot" is plainly unacceptable - I've warned you.
3. Calling anything or anyone "moronic" is obviously not going to go down well either, no matter what context you use it in.
4. Hopefully Izno will respond at the talk page regarding the content dispute, and explain why he didn't prior to or at the very least, straight after reverting.

That's it for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about WQA (just found it by searching around about edit disputes), and didn't realize I was supposed to notify anyone. I doubt it would have made any difference since he has been unresponsive on the talk page. I apologize for sharp words but I was trying to get him to respond on the talk page (not that civility has any bearing on accuracy - facts are facts. this is a minor and silly dispute in the first place and I can't believe anyone would continue reverting accurate terminology into inaccurate terminology like this). I will make sure not to use insulting terms in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.15.234 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, have you checked WP:V and WP:RS? Thank you for your assurance on the issue of civility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Freestyle swimming is plainly not a redirect. In that article, it is noted that the two terms are synonymous in essence, especially when referring to competitive strokes. Having been a competitive swimmer for the past 9 years and having learned lessons long before, I haven't heard it referred to as the front crawl since I was in the lessons stage. The usage of the term in context with the rest of the paragraph means that it doesn't really matter which, and as freestyle was the term first used, I am unsure why it needs to be changed.
As for your lack of good faith... /shrug. I've had worse.
Ncm: Feel free to move this to the talk page of butterfly stroke if you wish. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained why (twice!) in the talk page for that article. I thought that was what we were supposed to do in the case of edit disagreements, but I can see that system breaks down quickly. That is why this WQA thing exists now. 99.172.15.234 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this would probably be less of an issue if your points of view could be verified from reliable sources. The unreferenced tag was placed on that section in July; that part of the article really needs to be referenced - it may so happen that the entire section is removed due to the lack of citations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox

Work in progress; comments welcome

User User:Likebox has been presented with clear arguments as to why a segment of Quantum mysticism is WP:Synth. This argument was convincing to a WP:3O. Still LikeBox holds his position and displays considerable ownership over the text. His argument are not clear and additional interpretations/perspectives would be useful. A note was left at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard three days ago but has yet to be addressed.--OMCV (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No clear 3rd opinion yet.Likebox (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As the editor providing the 3rd opinion, I respectfully disagree. I stated at 20:15 yesterday that the passage in question "does, in my view, constitute synthesis". My apologies if that wasn't clear enough. Anaxial (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

After briefly reviewing Talk:History wars it appears that Likebox is currently have significant policy related issues on that page.--OMCV (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It also appears Likebox may have had a very similar conflict at Talk:Chinese room#Searle's assumption (and following sections) over material (Synth) very similar to what he has added at Quantum mysticism.--OMCV (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is definitely original synthesis, though that is irrelevant to this board. The ownership issues, on the other hand, are. Likebox has written a great deal of Quantum mysticism, but ownership of the article is with the community. If they would back off from the text that is not explicitly supported by a reliable source (preferably more than one) both in content and notability, I think a better article would result. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OMCV, you are removing text claiming that it is OR, yet it is sourced. If there is an ownership issue here it seems to be on both sides. IMO --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael please read Talk:Quantum_mysticism#In_re_third_opinion and offer your opinions there, your insights would be valuable. Thanks.--OMCV (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't quite get that the third opinion was rendered. I changed the text to remove the statement objected to, although I feel strongly that it was OK before.Likebox (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) To 2/0: this is not a synth, because none of the ideas there are original in any way. It might seem that way if you do not read the sources provided, because the ideas are weird. They appear first in Everett's thesis, in a hard-to-understand quantum form, then they appear in Dennett and Hofstadter's book. Hofstadter also has an article on many-worlds. I am not so perfectly well read on everything that I could find all the sources which do this, but I feel that there should be a few more, considering how widely discussed this idea was in the 1970s and 1980s.Likebox (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Synth is special form of OR in which none of the ideas are original "in any way", wp:synth says ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Its by combining these tried and true ideas that Synth is produced. Please read wp:synth as I've asked before. To insure there is no OR I would like "each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim".--OMCV (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what SYNTH is. When I say none of the ideas are new, I mean that all synthetic statements of the form "A and B therefore C" are also not original. I did not make too many of these assertions in the text, mindful of the need to avoid synth.Likebox (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the History Wars article as an uninvolved admin. While the present dispute over its contents certainly hasn't been conducted in line with Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, both sides of the discussion are at fault for this in my view - there's been no serious efforts to develop consensus text, seek outside views or approach experienced mediators. As such, while Likebox could improve their conduct in this discussion and show greater respect for other editors (I found their appeals to other editors to participate in the article as a 'jerk' to frustrate the editors they disagree with to be particularly concerning) no lines which warrant sanctions have been crossed. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, as I said I only briefly looked at History Wars. I read this and found the specious and personal argument style rather familiar. Nick-D I was wondering if you wouldn't be able to help mediate or even just discuss material at Quantum mysticism? I for one would welcome a third opinion for what may be a long processes.--OMCV (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of ownership this is the sort of reaction I've been dealing with at Quantum mysticism. I don't believe "leave this page alone--- you don't know QM" is an appropriate edit summary.--OMCV (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What this diff is leaving out is that there were several successive partially conflicting diffs to the sections in question, and I just reverted all of them. That one, of course, is not a problem all by itself. The reason I reverted the changes is because they showed that whoever wrote them had a gross misunderstanding of elementary aspects of quantum mechanics, and I thought "oh no, somebody saw mysticism in the title, and thinks that this is a bunch of nonsense".

There is a part of the article about wavefunctions (now it is phrased with a link to schrodinger's cat, so that this type of confusion won't happen again), and how they spread out to describe an ever expanding collection of possible-worlds. This is an undisputed part of quantum mechanics, acknowledged by all, and independent of interpretation (the interpretations only comes in when you measure the system described by the wavefunction). This property was discussed by Von Neumann in his book on the foundations of quantum mechanics, but also by Einstein in his correspondence with Schrodinger, and by Schrodinger in the famous "Schrodinger cat" paper.

This text was replaced with "In quantum mechanics the uncertainty principle means that we can never know the initial conditions" or something to that effect. This is absolutely wrong, and completely inappropriate for an article explaning why quantum mechanics is sometimes thought of as mystical. It suggests that quantum mechanics is classical mechanics + uncertainty in the initial conditions, which is just not true. Classical statistical mechanics is classical mechanics + uncertainty. But nobody goes around saying that Boltzmann was a mystic!

Quantum mechanics adds a fundamental new thing: the wavefunction. During a "measurement" something fundamentally different happens which does not happen when nobody is measuring. This new thing is "collapse of the wavefunction" (in Von Neumann's now standard language). The information revealed by the measurement is data which is associated with the act of observation, not with the thing that is being observed. This is construed as mystical by some people.

I am sorry for getting so nit-picky detailed about all this, but if you don't know the literature on quantum measurement problem, all this stuff looks like hooey. I don't blame OMCV for being suspicious that the whole thing is OR and SYNTH. But it really isn't. Once I saw the type of changes he was making, I just wanted to make sure he read the literature and understood the issues before making further edits.Likebox (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By my count three editors have identified the contended text as OR, User:OMCV, User:Anaxial, and User:2over0. Still my efforts to remove the text is reverted without significant explanation [1], [2], [3], and [4]. This is just the most recent edit warring, it takes two to edit ware so I admit my part but IMHO I'm representing a consensus of three versus one.--OMCV (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Specious arguments: [5].--OMCV (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dbrisinda

I was hoping to get another opinion on a conduct issue.

Recently on Homeopathy and the associated talk page, User:Dbrisinda and I (as well as others on the page) got into a disagreement on small issues like the placement of citations and inclusion of descriptors such as the word "few".

This user apparently got frustrated and left the following on the article talk page, "translating" my words into something I did not say, and certainly did not mean. [6]

After seeing this, I left a note [7] asking him to not do this again. (see the rest of thread at his user page).

Instead of removing or striking out his comments, he justified it by implying I was not being truthful or reasonable. I asked him not to make such implications as I considered them an attack on my character, and he repeated them, saying that I needed to prove to him that I would be more "truthful" and "reasonable" before he would stop making such statements, presumably by agreeing with him on the content dispute on homeopathy. At this point I decided to disengage with him on his talk page as it was obvious he saw no problem with his conduct.

An uninvolved user then deleted User:Dbrisinda's original "translation" from the homeopathy talk page and posted on his talk page not to do so again. He again tried to justify this behavior by trying to prove a point to "readers" how unreasonable I was being.

Is this acceptable behavior? I do not plan on letting this incivility drive me from commenting on or editing the Homeopathy article, and as such, any advice on how to proceed is appreciated. Yobol (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a requirement for everyone who participates on Wikipedia to assume good faith. When Dbrisinda made this edit he or she was not assuming good faith. It is possible for Users to express these ideas and suggest alternative wording without resorting to the sort of condescending language used by Dbrisinda in the above edit. One of the benefits of participating in Wikipedia is that we learn strategies for communicating with others in a civil fashion, even when we disagree with their points of view. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• No, it was not acceptable behavior by User:Dbrisinda. It was a personal attack. Another editor has removed it from Talk:Homeopathy and warned/advised Dbrisinda, which were appropriate actions.
• The tone of Dbrisinda's subsequent comments seems more appropriate, if not ideal. Editing controversial pages can be intensely frustrating. If the issue has not been repeated since the original comment, I would chalk this up to frustration bubbling over and let it go. If commentary of this sort becomes a recurring feature, then the matter could be re-addressed.

Two other observations: first, the discussion at Talk:Homeopathy on the use of the word "few" seems to have devolved into a back-and-forth. I would submit that neither of you are likely to convince the other by repeating your arguments, and that it's time to solicit some outside input to help move things forward. Secondly, as I think I advised Dbrisinda elsewhere (and perhaps this applies with Yobol as well), it would be healthy to get away from the endless disputes at Talk:Homeopathy occasionally and branch out. Spending all your time arguing a small range of points on a single controversial issue isn't healthy for one's perspective, and in extreme cases it can give rise to the impression that one has little interest in the encyclopedia except as a venue to promote a narrow and specific agenda. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as the editor who removed those comments, none of Dbrisinda's subsequent edits look particularly problematic. Frustrated, sure, but they are actively debating sources and generally using the talkpage for its intended purpose. It might be time for another RfC at Homeopathy, but unless this sort of thing becomes a habit, I would advise just letting it become water under the bridge. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the clarification and the excellent suggestions. Yobol (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[undent] In this edit Dbrisinda moves my comment to which (s)he was replying out of its original context (in which its meaning and intent would, I think, have been immediately apparent), and then implies that my edit is pointless or senseless (see edit summary and the words "Come again?" in the edit) and that I was arguing the opposite of what I had been arguing (I had been arguing that the wording of the article, "they are few in number", meant exactly what it said, and Dbrisinda had been arguing that it meant "few compared to the non-positive studies"). Is this acceptable (I may be being a bit too thin-skinned here, but I found it quite annoying)? Brunton (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tfz (Purple Arrow / Purple), User:HighKing and User:Dunlavin Green

I'm reporting personal attacks against me and lack of etiquette from the above-mentioned users with regard to their comments on this talk page. This is somewhat surprising considering Tfz's stated opinion of "trolling", "respect" and "posturing" (see his talk page).

Diffs:

• "his typical pov-motivated editing" (by User:Tfz)
• "page move was performed by User:Setanta747 who has previous history" (by User:HighKing)
• "According to his homepage he's a British unionist in the northeast of Ireland so that gives us all perspective on the politics behind both changes" (by User:Dunlavin Green)
• "And when you look at the edit history of that editor, Setanta747, you start to understand that the motives were inspired by his anti-Irish/pro-British sentiment and nothing more, and has since left the project" (by User:HighKing)

I have no idea how many more personal attacks against me might have come into being in Wikipedia over the last few months, but I would like to see them, and inability to assume good faith, eradicated.

A note to HighKing: I couldn't possibly be anti-Irish, as I am Irish myself. Just because you may be prejudiced, there is no reason to tar everyone else with your own brush. You clearly know nothing of my "motives". --Setanta 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You should notify the editors in question that you have raised this issue here at WQA. However, reviewing the entire talk page, this seems to pretty much be a problem of people not assuming good faith. Userboxes should indeed not be used to guess the political motivations of users, and a historical block log should also not be dragged into a discussion to try and reduce the impact of a users views/actions. Personally I would advise all involved users, including those not involved in this WQA but who are involved on that talk page, to remember to discuss content, not users, and to assume good faith of others. --Taelus (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

move to close if this all there is. Those diffs are all from May/early June, and one of the editors has retired since. This page isn't for punishing past misbehaviour, it's for solving current problems. Otherwise, echo Taelus' remarks. Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PS This is a repost from 30 June 2009 - Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive66#User:Tfz (Purple Arrow / Purple), User:HighKing and User:Dunlavin Green. Rd232 ^talk 18:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice. Punishment isn't what I am after - what I am after is for the comments to be retracted and for a reminder to be given to the editors in question - as Taelus suggested - to discuss content and not users. It is all to easy to make another attack in defence of an accusation. Punishment such as 'blocking' is, in my opinion merely, frustrating and counter-productive. It may even make matters worse. Persistent behaviour though, obviously has to have something done about it.

With regard to past misbehaviour versus current problems, I do not expect to remove myself from Wikipedia, only to find that people have been name-calling and sullying my name, when I return. Even if I had been actively editing, there's certainly a chance I might not have discovered these personal attacks - I wasn't involved in the conversation and I certainly wasn't notified of it.

I appreciate that Tfz has now ceased editing. I'm surprised at Highking though, who I should have thought would know better. Dunlavin Green is new - at least to me - and his is a clear case of simply looking at my userpage and jumping to assumptions based merely on what I have stated my political ideology to be. I'm sure I don't need to point out that just because someone has a certain political ideology, that doesn't necessarily mean to suggest that they are incapable of reasoned and balanced delivery of information. I am not interested in returning to Wikipedia if this kind of behaviour is going to continue unabated, and without proper action being taken in regard to it.

This kind of behaviour leads to suspicion. For example, my account was blocked and put under a probationary period after my account had been 'hacked' and I made edits without logging in (because I couldn't log in). Whilst I didn't advertise my presence, I didn't change my editing style or try to hide the fact of who I was. Then (because it was quite obvious who I was) I was accused -wrongly - of sockpuppetry, and the case was accepted. I had intended to try to retrieve my account (in fact this is a new account under the old name - the previous account has been renamed and locked), but I thought that might take some time and energy I wasn't prepared to deliver. What is one supposed to assume with regard to that? Two edits were made to my userpage after the account was stolen, yet I am told that an investigation can't be carried out. Now I'm not accusing the three editors above of having been involved in this.. but nor can I, in all honesty, rule them or several other editors, past or present, out of having been involved.

If you leave this for a day or two, I will probably get around to notifying several of the members involved in the discussion. I welcome any other advice or opinions in the mean time. Thanks. --Setanta 19:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, yeah, one comment when plucked out of context appears to be a personal attack, but I'd advise editors to read the comments in context rather than the way Setanta is picking and chosing specific sentences to see that 99% of the personal comments in that thread were against me (e.g. No, the main reason is that HighKing hates the term British Isles. He has a long history of trying to rid Wikipedia of it.) and if you read my comments throughout that page you'll see that I just do not engage in making personal comments. As to the comments themselves, the only part where I stepped over the line was to talk about his motives. The rest of my comments? I don't see any problem. But oddly enough, there's already a diff where a similar WQA was dismissed because Setanta was making equally personal comments, and I see in Setanta's post above, he directs this comment to me Just because you may be prejudiced, there is no reason to tar everyone else with your own brush. so I guess this WQA is really a taking-the-piss tongue-in-cheek announcement of his return? --HighKing (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor at 98.207.210.210 - various issues. Again.

Previously took this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 and the editor was blocked, and here Wikiquette and the editor was warned and encouraged to do better. However:

• Here the editor abuses me on my talk page concerning the sockpuppet block.
• Here the editor states that the editor will (continue to? anon edits) edit war, simply stating what must be done, and that the editor does not have time to provide relevant content or sources, so irrelevant or un-sourced content should remain in the article, as there is no WP policy that requires content to be made relevant or sourced in a specific period of time.
• Here the editor proceeds to war.

I don't feel partial protection is called for, much of the content in these articles comes (painfully) from anon editors and the problem isn't that severe. I am unsure that further blocking will do any good, the editor works anonymously, clearly by choice, as the editor had an account but only used it for the edit war that led to the block. Ideas? I struggled with where to take this, and considered the edit war page, ANI... but I am hopeful that guidance from other ordinary editors might help.- sinneed (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is weekend, so I request that some extra time should be given in this case so that we do not end up blocking an editor without listening to his side of the story. It appears that his previous block might have happened in an error as well.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• 99.51.223.161, are you also editing under 98.207.210.210? This is just a question, not an accusation... if one edits anon, one will have different addresses in different locations, but it is important to know. - sinneed (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Respected editor User: Sinneed has clearly tried to present me in a very bad way/shape. My comments (below) will prove that the reality was exactly opposite. Either respected editor Sinneed doesn’t understand me OR either I am unable to present my views in some way of his liking, so that he could understand me positively. He is trying his best to get me blocked, his initial try was successful (but it was a mistake – I will prove it in the following paragraphs-and I am already in the process to get it corrected), his second attempt failed and this is his third attempt.

He has put 3 allegations against me.

• That I have abused him
• That I have said that I do not have time provide relevant content or sources AND I will edit war
• That I actually did edit war.

I respectfully prove that all there allegations are wrong.

Allegation 1 – Respected editor Sinneed’s wording -

• Here the editor abuses me on my talk page concerning the sockpuppet block.

Answer -

I am a very sensitive person; if I ever realize that I had made a mistake and someone innocent had to suffer then I always try my best to go back and correct it (or get it corrected). I thought that other people/editors might have same kind of thinking, so when check-user proofs started coming up that some editors blocked through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 were not related to each other then I left a message to respected User: Sinneed to give him the first opportunity to get mine and other innocent editor User:Gurbinder_singh1’s blocking history cleared. But unfortunately Sinneed immediately interpreted my good faith message as an abuse.

History -

Respected Wikipedia administrators/editors, kindly note that User: Sinneed started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1, I was hoping that the truth will come out once check user will investigate his RFC, but unfortunately I was quickly blocked along with an innocent editor User:Gurbinder_singh1 and an abusive editor User:Satanoid without any check user investigation.

Later on, Iprovided evidences against User:Satanoid and his accounts were blocked and a range block was implemented against his IPs per [[8]]. But -

• this same check-user investigation also proved that [[User: Gurbinder_singh1] was totally un-related to any of User: Satanoid's accounts.
• if I was the same guy as User:Satanoid and User:Gurbinder_singh1 as suspected by respected User: Sinneed in his Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 then why would I present strong proofs against User:Satanoid over here

Now when half of the truth has came out, so in an effort to encourage User:Sinneed to get justice to the remaining two editors who were mistakenly blocked per [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 his RFC], I left him a message so that I could let him take the initiative since this mistake had happened per his own RFC only.

Allegation 2 – Respected editor Sinneed’s wording –

• Here the editor states that the editor will (continue to? anon edits) edit war, simply stating what must be done, and that the editor does not have time to provide relevant content or sources, so irrelevant or un-sourced content should remain in the article, as there is no WP policy that requires content to be made relevant or sourced in a specific period of time.

Answer -

Respected editor Sinneed has lied. He has distorted the meaning of my text and ‘has presented his own distorted version to get your sympathy and (most-probably) get me blocked. I was simply trying to expand my knowledge of Wikipedia policies so that I and other involved editors could edit accordingly.

Here’s my actual text -

• Since wikipedia editors might not be able to (and can not) work 100% of their (day and night) time on wikipedia so I need some wikipedia policy stating that 'requested information must be added within that many hours ' or text will be deleted.

History -

• Respected User:Sinneed asked for Concerns? Additions? Ideas? on 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) and he dropped the referenced contentswithin 48 hours on 27 August 2009 (UTC).

I simply felt that considering other respected editors personal (family, school, work…etc) schedules, 48 hours (actually even less than 48 hours) of notice time was too short. That’s it.

• Even another respected editor User: Sikh-history requested User: Sinneed to read the relevant wikipedia articles.

You must have noticed that respected editor User:Sinneed has clearly used his manipulation skills and ‘presented my thoughts in his own distorted way. He completely changed the meaning of my text to show me in poor light.

Allegation # 3 – Respected editor Sinneed’s wording -

*Here the editor proceeds to war.

Answer –

Respected editor Sinneed has lied again. I did not indulge in the edit war.

This minor addition can NOT be called an edit war, as respected editor Sinneed has presented.

History –

After adding my concerns/answers in the article’s talk page, I I added the duly sourced text into the article. Respected editor Sinneed moved the same text. Since I did NOT want to do edit wars, so I did NOT revert/modify it.

I would like to make a humble request to respected editor Sinneed to not to manipulate the facts to get other editors blocked. Instead he/she can help us in improving the articles by reading the references and other sources. It took a lot of time for me to gather all these facts, I could have used this time to improve wikipedia articles further if I was not pushed into it. I will also make a humble request to Wikipedia editors to not to take any action against Sinneed. I respect him. Kindly give him your best advice.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Tut, tut. Please rest assured that while I may well be wrong in every point, I did not lie. Your interpretation of events may indeed be more accurate than mine. I don't think so, though. I do agree completely with part of your statements: instead of all this, the time would have been better spent working on WP.- sinneed (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism

User:Ruslik0 on Solar System[9] HarryAlffa (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

While I wouldn't go so far as to call the edits wp:vandalism, that does seem to be a very large number of requests for quotation for referenced material that is widely known... volcanoes and valleys on Mars, for example. Simply stating that an edit is vandalism probably won't be widely seen as wp:incivil behaviour: the two of you simply disagree.

As an editor who asks for quotes to back up sources that I cannot readily fact-check and that seem dubious to me, I have gotten much resistance... many editors simply won't provide them, and strongly object to the flags. I fear that in this case it does seem that the clarification requests and quote requests are a bit spam-like.- sinneed (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As to, "quotation for referenced material that is widely known... volcanoes and valleys on Mars, for example", that was not the edit Ruslik reverted, calling (or implying) me a vandal. I congratulate you on a surprisingly deep analysis, usually the shallowest look is performed and the subject of an inquiry is roundly criticised - at least that's my experience when I have been the subject. Perhaps the deeper analysis (the sort that should be routine, again well done) was only performed because Ruslik was a sysop? Authority has it's effects even here.

Congratulations on the depth, but what about broadening the focus? You "condemned" all my requests with one example. But the one actually accusing of vandalism was in fact a request for clarity of a couple of passages; calling three different objects "the largest", even with qualifiers is not very clever here; but I won't list them here - look at the diff I supplied[10]. So it was deep, but missed the target. The only way Ruslik could be judged NOT uncivil was to NOT analyse the edits he reverted. Which is exactly what you have done.

I can see why you might view my quote requests as suspicious, but if you'd tried reasoning with the usual denizens of Solar System, my actions would be your only recourse as well, and I would ask that you take back the "spam-like" comment, these are good faith requests.

The "Mars quotes", are explained in the Talk page - again good depth, but poor width!

This isn't the first time he has cried "reverting vandalism". I was hoping that a warning word from an independent person would help restrain the invective he has been carrying around since I took the Solar System to FAR. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• wp:AGF - This is a place to come to get ordinary, interested editors to comment on your actions and the actions of others, and perhaps offer help. The "deeper"(no) "analysis"(no) was simply because I filed the report immediately 2 spots above this one, and noticed your difficulty, and offered a word.
• At this point, reading your response, I think that spending further effort on this is quite pointless. I wish you all the best in your future pursuits, and bid you good day.- sinneed (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Disruption

And now another incivility from User:Ruslik0, "this is disruption"[11], with no communication in the relevant sections (created by me for the purpose) in the Talk page. Please someone have a word with him. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the view that some of these flag insertions are wp:disruptive editing. I would suggest that Ruslik0 personally try to simply ignore the flags, leaving them in place, and move on. The flags themselves will do no harm, and an interested editor might choose to furnish the quotes or to explain more completely. Or not.- sinneed (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I only now noticed that you said Ruslik0 was an admin. In that case, I defer to Ruslik0's greater knowledge of WP: You should have listened when the admin attempted to educate you.- sinneed (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is what I meant about the problem of "authority", bowing and scraping. I disagree with your "disruptive editing" description. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would point out that characterizing my respect as "bowing and scraping" is quite rude. My opinion was given 1st. I did make one change... from a suggestion to an editor more experienced than I to a statement of what I would have done (always better anyway).

Is there a diff where you ask Ruslik0 not to call good faith edits "vandalism", or you ask Russlik0 what he/she thinks the problem is with your edits and you try to listen? For that matter, has anyone notified Russlik0 that this is under discussion here? That's a common courtesy, if not a requirement. Every editor is responsible for learning and following policy on their own, and as an admin Russlik0 really should not be throwing around terms like "disruption" and "vandalism" casually, particularly when in content editing mode (and thus acting as a regular editor, with no special privilege to decide who is being disruptive and who is not). Nevertheless, many people overuse the term vandalism to label edits that frustrate them, and don't realize that it's supposed to be limited strictly to bad-faith edits intended solely to degrade or deface a page. I've found that whether you're the target of the accusation or bystander it's best to start with a friendly "forgive me if you know this already, but per WP:VANDAL..." message. Then give them time to cool off. For the most part it becomes a civility problem only if an editor, fully aware that the term is an accusation of bad faith or upsets someone, persists to make a WP:POINT. "Disruption" is a broader term. It's still not the best thing to accuse people of that, but it does not necessarily imply bad faith. I agree with sinneed that edit warring to insert fact tags and edit notices in an already reasonably good article could be considered disruptive to the article. If I make repeated messy edits to an article while my Internet connection keeps shutting down, I'm disrupting the article even if I'm trying my hardest not to do so. Someone here can have a word with Ruslik0, or Ruslik0 can visit here. Just be friendly and be ready to listen why Ruslik0 considers your edits to be inappropriate. People react a lot better to calm not and requests than they do to accusations. Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An oversight on my part, I didn't notify Ruslik. Sorry about that. Ruslik has a history of hysterics and ... well sod it. I can't be arsed. Bye. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hysterics? This is a lie. HarryAlffa as usual insults other editors. As to vandalism see this, where two banners were inserted in the small sections. The purpose was "to degrade or deface a page". Meanwhile, I started this thread on ANI. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to provide a brief excursus into the recent history. HarryAlffa began his disruption of the Solar System article back in the May (or even in August-September last year). He started FAR, which was soon closed as keep. In the course of it he made a lot of uncivil remarks about mental abilities of other editors. You can see them by reading the page or in the history. I want only to provide one diff. After that FAR the relations between HarryAlffa and other editors were poisoned, and I generally stop assuming good faith on behave of this editor. AGF is a great policy, but not a suicide pact. However I expected that HarryAlffa would at least back off, instead he started an RFC, where he tried to get what he had not got in FAR. Insults followed as usual, but RFC produced no results. In the June HarryAlffa was blocked for one week, partly because of problems with Solar System article (but not only). Since then he lied low for some time, but recently resumed his activities. So, when I wrote "disruption", I made this claim taking into account the previous history. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) has twice called me a sockpuppet (here and here). This is uncalled for. There is nothing that warrants this outrageous accusation, this assumption of bad faith. Disagreeing with me is no problem, undoing my edits is no problem, but incivility is extremely bad form. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record: this edit by 83.80.18.68 (talk · contribs) and this edit by 94.212.31.237 (talk · contribs) were both made by me. I have never pretended to be another person, and I have never engaged in "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive" behaviour. A disagreement, a content dispute, is not vandalism. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the user reminding them to assume good faith, and to avoid personal attacks, including calling others a sockpuppet when this is unproven. I also did a little research into the two IPs that he has accused, and they are both statically assigned and are located in different cities in the Netherlands some distance apart. More details can be found on User talk:Kintetsubuffalo. As for this scenario, I suggest that you ignore his attacks and continue editing, hopefully he will disengage. Happy editing to you both, --Taelus (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: 94.212.31.237 did notify the user of this WQA being filed, however the user reverted the addition of the notification to his talk page without comment. --Taelus (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the accusations of bad faith continue. I am a good faith editor, who happens to disagree with Chris on something. Nothing warrants his continuing condescending attitude. Whether I am logged in or not doesn't matter, IPs deserve AGF as well. I have admitted to editing one article from two computers. That does not make me a sockpuppet. I have never been disruptive and I have never pretended to be another person. I just happen to go somewhere. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sockpuppet tags that were attatched to the two IP addresses you were using. Another user may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe from checking policy and templates that an IP address cannot be a sockpuppet for another IP address, due to the nature of them being able to be used by multiple people. They can be connected to a username used by a sockpuppet, but this is not the case here as no user account is involved at all. --Taelus (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

failure to communicate by TheDJ to Endo999 over making Translation Popups a Wikipedia Gadget

I proposed my javascript code in my monobook.js file to be a gadget in en wiki. TheDJ reviewed this and proposed some changes, which I did. On May 25 he posted this note to me on his talk page:

"It is looking much better now. Now we only need a name for the thing, and I will add it to the Gadgets. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)"

From this time to the current he

1) has not put the code up as a gadget

2) has refused to answer any of my communications with him, which has been several although not too many.

It has been 3 months that I have been stonewalled. I would like a communication from him telling me the reasons why he did not put my code up as a gadget, after he said he would. It is impolite to refuse to communicate with someone if they have not been abusive or broken Wiki policy.

I am personally subject to a hate campaign in Australia where I live and am concerned that this campaign has spread to him.

Endo999 (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So basically, my laziness is for you a reason to assume that I'm part of a hate campaign ? My communication is Hi, and please ask someone else. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This reply by TheDJ is not

1) a reason why he did not put up the gadget, when he said he would. 2) a breach of civility. 'Hi' is not a reason why he did not respond to me for 3 months

Endo999 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not productive to badger somebody who is ignoring you. Your best bet is either to contact somebody else who can do it, or if there is nobody else, complain to whoever "supervises" TheDJ in whatever function is involved here. Looie496 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You can ask any administrator to implement this gadget. TheDJ may be simply busy on Wikipedia or in real life. Ruslik_Zero 09:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• • It is best to remember a few things: first, Wikipedia is not any of our real jobs, it is a hobby for everyone, including admins, so it is counterproductive and incivil in and of itself to demand someone do something for you, even if they indicated they would in the past. Second, is there any reason TheDJ is the only person who could possibly put this gadget up over the last three months you said you were trying to get him to help you? Third, I am sure you have heard of our good faith policy, so please consider refactoring (striking out) your speculation that someone on this site is continuing a hate campaign against you unless you have substantial evidence to show this is the case. TheDJ not answering you or doing what you asked him to (even if he said he would in the past) is no where near sufficient evidence to make that type of claim. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Protonk deleting a page (obvious copyright violation) that was properly cited and referenced

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – deletion review.

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

Allegations: {User:Protonk - speedily deleted a page I had written The Uses of Literacy- and was working on. It was only one paragraph with rewording and citing but with a quote (in quotation marks) from the source. It was from one source as it stated but it was, in my view appropriately cited and reworded. Protonk speedily deleted it as obvious copyright violation, which I disputed and dispute, and refused to help me with how to find out how to undelete it or complain. Just told me to write it again. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Deletion review would be your best bet rather than here.  pablo_hablo. 16:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC) maybe not, as I see the page is back.  pablo_hablo. 16:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Msrasnw: I am not sure what you expect to be done in this case. Prontonk may or may not have been correct in deleting the page as a copyright violation (cannot view the original version so I can't say one way or another) but when you discussed this with him, he explained his reasoning and told you how you could recreate the page so it would not be deleted again. If he had undeleted it instead of instructing you to re-write it, someone else may have deleted it again as a copyright violation before you had a chance to revise it, so telling you to re-write it was certainly appropriate, and in this case seems to have been successful. Protonk explained his actions and told you how to re-make your article so it wouldn't be deleted, and your article is now written, live and improved, so I am not sure what you are looking for here. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, make sure if you move a notice such as this from one forum to another, you need to notify the person of the move as well. You notified protonk of the RFC but failed to tell them about this thread. I have notified them of this thread already, but you need to let editors know in the future when you are discussing their conduct. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you like you may (As Pablo says above, but later struck out) go to deletion review to get a review of the actual deletion. The process is kinda complicated so if you have trouble just leave me a note and I can fill out the DRV for you. However, I don't think my deletion of the original page was erroneous and so (because I deleted it as a copyright violation) I'm not going to immediately restore it. As I said when you first contacted me, the best recourse for you was to create a new article without such heavy reliance on a single source. You did that. All restoring the original article will do is add three revisions into the page history containing (what I thought to be) copyrighted material. Again, I may be wrong about the nature of the material transferred--WP:CSD#G12 doesn't assume anything about your mindset, just the words on the page. What I saw was two paragraphs which were at best very closely paraphrased. Obviously your interpretation differs from mine. I'm open to a review of it, but I'm not inclined to reverse the decision myself. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is a waste of time. The original speedy was perfectly within process and Protonk's reply perfectly reasonable within its parameters. No process is perfect, and in this case some other process that resulted in a more efficient and more pleasant transformation from at least borderline copyvio to decent stub would be preferable. Suggestions for policy improvement, sure, but let's leave this particular incident behind. Rd232 ^talk 19:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• • This is a waste of time it is true. I wrote a little article which was not, in my view, a copyright infringement as it was cited and sourced properly and I was working on it still. I was notified on my page that it was to be deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising by User:I dream of horses - then while dealing with this and asking that adminisatror why - another admin (Prontonk) deletes it under G12 for copyright infringment without notifying me. My worry is administrators are just trying to prove how swift they are without proper consideration of people actually making articles. I asked to have my work undeleted - which would have been for the admin to do and was just told to start again and do it properly. I discovered I can get it back myself using the cache thing - but it would have been nice to be told this. I think there is something wrong with the attitude of the administrators involved in this process. The process for complaining also seems difficult. Is it the case an administrator can delete anything saying it is copyright violation and then the victim has no recourse. Do other admin check with the original that it was a copyright violation? Anyway I can see how one get get sucked into spending time on all this admin stuff instead of building a nice encyclopedia. best wishes anyway(Msrasnw (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC))
    • If you need more time to work on things, a WP:Usersubpage can be a great asset. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User:The Four Deuces

Resolved

 – Case closed. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) has claimed in an edit summary that he was reverting an edit by me that wasn't by me: "Reverse Introman's edit - please discuss on talk page." [12] As you can see, the edit was done by a user "12.160.113.34." Apparently The Four Deuces has assumed it was me in disguise, since I told him I would probably start using another username in order to keep him from stalking me which I think he had been doing. I think this should be nipped in the bud, because I can see foresee him claiming all kinds of edits are by me when they're not. This would lead to me having a reputation as a bad editor if the edits are poor. Without evidence he shouldn't make claims like this, especially in a public display for everyone to be misled. I think it's bad ethics and really offensive. Thanks for your assistance. Introman (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It was actually Vision Thing's edit that I reversed, and mistakenly referred to your user:id. Unfortunately I do not know how to change edit summaries so I immediately wrote "(Sorry, I misstated your handle on my edit summary.)" on the Talk:Fascism page.[13] Notice that this edit is dated 23:05 31 August, 2009. I notice that you posted a protest to my talk page too. No, I did not assume that it was you in disguise. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Case closed. Introman (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Introman reported by User:The Four Deuces

Resolved

 – (Reduced likelihood of problem occurring again. All parties now have new strategies for dealing with similar situations. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

User:Introman has posted abusive messages on the talk pages of two editors.

Posted to User talk:The Four Deuces:

Your following me

You seem to like to follow me around searching for what articles I'm editing and then disputing them no matter what they are and for whatever reason you think of. I'm considering setting up a another username to prevent this from happening. Then you can judge edits on their own merits instead of upon who is making them. I think this may be best for you because it appears to me that you've lost any trace of objectivity that you may have once had. I'm confident there are edits I've made that you wouldn't have bothered with if you didn't know it was me making them. I'd be glad to set up another username if you think it would be helpful to clear your head a bit. What do you think? Introman (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see you don't want to weigh in on this. I'll go ahead and keep this username for the articles I'm working on now. But for new ones, at least those that deal with political topics, I'll probably move on to another username. This way you won't feel you have to track me down and challenge my edits just for the sake that I made them. Hope that helps makes your life easier! Introman (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[14]

Posted to User talk:Rick Norwood:

How can you sleep at night?

You delete clearly referenced information [14] and in your edit you say: "restore referenced version, see talk." Wikipedia doesn't work very well when people are dishonest. Introman (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[15]

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You did, in fact, remove referenced information and your edit summaray was, in fact, therefore dishonest. No comment on the other issue seeing as I can't be arsed going through the diffs, but coming here complaining about one statement that was in fact completely and totally accurate does not bode well for the accuracy or validity of your other complaint. → ROUX ₪ 03:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the edit to which you refer was made by User:Rick Norwood not by me. My complaint is about the etiquette of Introman's comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for Rick Norwood, the "referenced information" that was removed is referenced to an article about the social market in the Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy which states:

Furthermore, the combination of Freiburg-style Ordnungspolitik and sociological neo-liberalism following Roepke and Ruestow can be regarded as a continuation and reformulation ot the classical liberal tradition in the lineage of ADAM SMITH, Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville.[16]

This does not appear to be a good source. The article is not about Smith or classical liberalism. Edmund Burke btw is usually seen as a conservative, not a classical liberal. The passage has been taken out of context. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Come off it dude. It says right there that Adam Smith was in the classical liberal tradition, along with Burke and Tocqueville. And besides, there were two other sources there besides that one saying Adam Smith was a classical liberal, because I know you and your buddy won't accept ANY source I give for ANYTHING. This is what the other two sources say: "The early Classical Liberal theorists assumed that workers disliked the monotony and submissiveness of factory work. Adam Smith worried that industrial jobs would cause workers to become "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." Barry Stewart. Political Economy: A Comparative Approach. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. p. 183 and "They also averred a laissez-faire attitude toward internal tarriffs and the merits of economic liberty which greatly influenced Adam Smith and other classical liberal writers toward the development of a rational discipline of political philosophy." [17] Tell the truth for once. Adminstrators, notice the continued deception and dishonesty even HERE. It's ridiculous. This is what I go through with Four Deuces. The source will say something in plain English and he'll just sit there and deny it says what it says when it's staring him right in the face just like he's trying to do to you here. But then they'll turn around and just make stuff up that's in a source and revert if I try to correct it. It's TOTALLY dishonest. (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a message at Introman's User talk page to advise him of this Alert. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is crazy. Both Rick Norwood and Four Deuces are the most horrendous Wikipedia editors I've ever come across, in terms of ethics and integrity (and also in terms of editing). They appear to work as POV team. I'm sorry to say, that I can't hold on to the "assume good faith" practice anymore with these two. Rick Norwood just makes up things and then cites a source claiming the source back up what he put in the article. Then if I try to fix it, Four Deuces will come in to prevent that by reverting it back. And both of them give deceptive edit summaries. Dishonesty just seems to pervade everything they do. Four Deuces seems to watch which articles I go to revert any edit I make no matter how minor because apparently he has something personal against me. But, on top of this, I suspect that they're the same person trying to get around three revert rules. One time I said something to one and the other one replied instead, but by the contents of the message it seemed as if he forgot to switch back to the other username. I'll see if I can find it. And what do you know, one comes here to defend the other just as one always come to prevent me from changing the other's edits, IN EVERY CASE. That they're the same people is just a suspicion right now though, I want to make clear. Anyway, to the best of my ability I try to represent sources as accurately as possible, and if you look at my edit summaries, they're VERY detailed, more than anyone else I've seen so that people know exactly what I'm doing. I have nothing to hide. So it's frustrating to have to deal with others who aren't willing to show anything close to the same respect. Without honest people and integrity, the world doesn't work very well, and Wikipedia is no exception. Introman (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman added an in-line citation here. User Rick Norwood then removed it here. Introman then responded at Rick Norwood’s User talk page, asking How can you sleep at night? See here.

Rick Norwood responded by creating a new section whose title explicitly names Introman here. These Guidelines explicitly forbid using section titles to name another User, or to attack a User.

I concede that some of Introman’s language (eg How can you sleep at night?) is not ideal, and is directed at Users rather than technical content. However, his language at its worst is nowhere near as bad as the language that is usually reported here at WP:WQA. I see that he has not been treated well. Some amount of frustration is understandable, particularly when Introman sees himself named and shamed in a section title, contrary to Wikipedia’s guidelines and WP:Civility.

I agree with Introman that Rick Norwood and the Four Deuces are doing quite a good job of reverting Introman’s careful edits. I think more effort should be invested in good faith communication on Talk pages rather than reverting edits that have been carefully made. On Wikipedia there are no deadlines so there is no reason to delete in-line citations as soon as they appear, especially now that the interaction between these three Users has been drawn to the attention of the WP:WQA community. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• At this point it almost appears that Four Deuces may be forum shopping in an attempt to run Introman off the articles that are being closely defended. A recent report for edit warring ended in a short block of Introman, however, if Four Deuces and Rick Norwood are acting in concert that might very well have changed the outcome of the report. While some of Introman's comments have been incivil, it also appears that they are mostly correct since at least one edit summary that's been pointed out was clearly misleading - continued use of misleading summaries may be grounds for a block as disruption. I would strongly suggest that all parties disengage from reverting and use dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 06:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to not revert so much is what I've been trying to do. As an alternative I've been putting up dispute tags in order to prevent edit wars, so we can discuss without so much reverting, letting what I believe to be faulty edits stand. But then guess what? Four Deuces threatens to do an "RfC" because I put up a dispute tag! You can see this at the bottom of the capitalism article talk page [:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Capitalism[18] Introman (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, Four Deuces said "User:Introman has shown a consistent pattern of disruptive editing on this article over three months and continues this pattern after a 24 hour block for edit-warring. The best way to resolve this is through a WP:RfC/U and I will set one up if anyone else agrees that it is warranted." This was in response to an admin (User:Slrubenstein) calling Introman a "disruptive editor" in that NPOV tag thread. Rd232 ^talk 07:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For who? It's warranted for Four Deuces and Rick Norwood for sure. I don't know what the deal is with Slrubenstein. He has the nerve to post something basically calling me stupid [19] and then says I'M disruptive. It's really hard to put new information into Wikipedia because of all the POV pushers. If someone doesn't like you putting in information that conflicts with their POV, then you're "disruptive." Introman (talk)

To be precise, he basically said you hadn't read enough on the topic. [20] I note in that exchange you accused him of bad faith, saying he merely rejected the source because he didn't like what it says. Rd232 ^talk 08:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were just quoting Four Deuces. Introman (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I am not acting in concert with Rick Norwood. In the article where you blocked him for edit-warring, Capitalism, User:Lapsed Pacifist, User:MoralMoney, User: BernardL, User:Slrubenstein and myself all reversed Introman's edits and Introman then reverted. No other editor supported his edits, either through making reversions or through discussion on the talk page. Rick Norwood was not involved in that dispute.[21] Introman's response to your block was: Wonderful job you're doing there Sir! I think you may be mistaken but you're the expert. Introman (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[22]

In the articles where I have been in dispute with Introman he has made changes without discussion and provided sources that are not reliable, do not support the edit, or would not normally be chosen. For example, his support for an edit for Adam Smith (1723-1790) in the article Classical liberalism came from an article about the Social market in Germany after the Second World War (1945- ).[23][24] It appears that he looks for sources to support his edits rather than reading about the subject and adding information from sources that he has read. Also he fails to obtain consensus for his edits.

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin51, if you look at the edit history of Classical liberalism and the talk page you will see that both Rick Norwood and I have attempted to discuss Introman's edits with him, but he has merely reverted to his preferred version and only later posted to the talk page, often contradicting what he had previously said. An examination of his comments clearly shows that he has no understanding of the subjects of the articles he edits and in fact does not even read the articles. His self-description on his talk page is informative: Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Introman, and I only do intros. Working on bodies of articles is beneath me.[25]

He provides no real reasons for his edits, continually changes his reasons for them, misrepresents what he has previously said and continually asks for sources for anything said to him. He is also in conflict with other editors at the Libertarianism article although I think only one of the editors there edits at Capitalism.

I would be appreciative if you looked at the discussion pages, which I believe confirms what I have said.

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying about me, saying I "in fact [do] not even read the articles." I do read the articles. Article are supposed to summarize the contents. Of course I read the articles if I'm doing intros. Be careful of what you say is a "fact." And so what if I happen to get into a CONTENT conflict with another editor? That's part of Wikipedia, when you have a bunch of people putting in information. What matters is how it's handled. Running like a little girl to administrators to try to get the other person banned or something by making things up is not the way to do it, and neither is false edit summaries, nor is rejecting every source someone presents to you no matter how explicit. Introman (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: I see you are making some new claims. For example:
Rick Norwood and I have attempted to discuss Introman's edits with him
Introman has merely reverted to his preferred version
often contradicting what he had previously said
An examination of his comments clearly shows that he has no understanding of the subjects of the articles he edits
in fact does not even read the articles
He is also in conflict with other editors at the Libertarianism article
All claims should be supported by diffs. The way WP:WQA works is that the person bringing the claims supplies the evidence, and the WQA community then examines the evidence. It is not the WQA community who searches for the evidence.

Introman: I notice that at least one of your posts here involves aggressively defensive language:
Stop lying about me
Your comments are addressed to User:The Four Deuces For example: Running like a little girl to administrators
Allegations regarding your behaviour have been put before the WP:WQA community. Ideally, your posts here should be addressed to the WP:WQA community. The WP:WQA community is able to recommend in your favor, or against you. It is not in your interests to make posts here that display your propensity for self-defence and assertiveness. The WP:WQA community has done nothing to offend you. It is in your interests to display your skills at co-operation, willingness to work with others and willingness to assume good faith. Displaying those things would help the WQA community to recommend in your favor. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood has done it again. He's again put a dishonest edit summary, deleting sourced content saying he's doing the opposite: [26] This is how Rick Norwood and Four Deuces operate. If I revert this back to the truly sourced version, Four Deuces will show up and revert it back to how Norwood wants it (unless he's laying low now that he's been exposed). The lack of ethics is really frustrating. As you can see as I showed above, quoting the sources, those references do explicitly support that Adam Smith was classical liberal. He's also deleting John Locke, along with those references: "John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) in may ways remains the clearest statement of the classical liberal's devotion to each individual's liberty." [27] "In this book I will use the term classical liberalism to refer to those pre-ninenteenth cnetury thinkers, such as John Locke..." [28]. So in addition to the false edit summaries, these two just DENY DENY DENY what is right in their face, because they don't like what the sources say. Introman (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the incidents Introman just described relate to a dispute between Rick Norwood and him and that I was not involved and not mentioned in any of Introman's references. Introman wrote, "If I revert this back to the truly sourced version, Four Deuces will show up and revert it back to how Norwood wants it (unless he's laying low now that he's been exposed)." But of course I have had no involvement in this current dispute. I would like to point out that I set up this alert because of my concern about Introman posting abusive messages. I believe that Introman has used this process to continue this abuse. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin51, here is the evidence of my claims. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood and I have attempted to discuss Introman's edits with him, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rick Norwood set up a section on the Talk:Classical liberalism to discuss Introman's edits 22:24, 19 August 2009[29] I set up a section 16:42, 22 August 2009.[30]

Introman has merely reverted to his preferred version, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here are his reverts to Classical liberalism:[31] Diff Edit summary 22:24, 19 August 2009 Where's your source that it has two different meanings? YOU'RE saying it has two different meanings. The classical liberals ascribed to laissez-faire economics. I see no different meanings. 22:37, 19 August 2009 citation for the claim that classical liberalism has two different meanings? 00:55, 20 August 2009 Editor didn't have a source that there are two different meanings. Editor also claimed in talk that classical liberals werent for limited government, which shows no understanding of the topic. 00:56, 20 August 2009 Editor didn't have a source that there are two different meanings. Editor also claimed in talk that classical liberals werent for limited government, which shows no understanding of the topic. 00:59, 20 August 2009 pointing out the more basic thing which is that classical liberalism is the liberalism that existed before modern liberalism. 15:55, 20 August 2009 POV-intro. Rick Norwood trying to give the impression that the classical liberals weren't laissez-faire liberals. 20:57, 21 August 2009 no source was provided for giving impression that the classical liberals werent laissez-faire liberals 21:12, 21 August 2009 put in variation of suggested sentence by editor Voluntary Slave from talk page 21:51, 21 August 2009 Noted that it is the philosophy of the early liberals 22:11, 21 August 2009 Removed claim that classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of John Locke. Classical liberals include a lot more than John Locke. 22:16, 21 August 2009 No source for the claim that these synonyms only apply to people today who subscribe to classical liberalsm 22:43, 21 August 2009 source for Hayek being referred to as a classical liberal 21:35, 22 August 2009 POV-intro. Sources not saying that these synonyms only applies to "modern classical liberals." The sources in this ariticle are not talking about "modern classical liberalism" 17:42, 23 August 2009 "laissez-faire liberalism" doesnt fail verification. It's on page 21 too. Maybe easier to see there. 01:33, 25 August 2009 what is "modern" classical liberalism? The sources in this article are about no such thing. This article is about classical liberalism, period. 01:37, 25 August 2009 Your claim that it is only "libertarians" that use the term "laissez-faire liberalism" is not supported by the source. 01:38, 25 August 2009 no source for this statement 02:03, 25 August 2009 Changes were discussed clearly in both talk page and edit summaries 20:53, 25 August 2009 I don't see anything to back up your claim that the source is "libertarian" or that it's only "libertarians" that use the term "laissez-faire liberalism." 15:40, 26 August 2009 This article is not about a "phrase." It's about the PHILOSOPHY of classical or traditional liberalism. And you havent presented evidence that only libertarians talk about classical liberalism. 15:52, 26 August 2009 This source it talking about U.S. political policy. This article not just about the U.S., so it shouldnt head off the article. 15:58, 26 August 2009 again, the article is not about "the phrase" classical liberalism, but classical liberalism itself 15:59, 26 August 2009 why "traditional liberalism" synonym deleted? 16:01, 26 August 2009 It is POV of you to claim that these beliefs are not the beliefs of the classical liberals, especially given that the source that you provide says that they are! 16:41, 26 August 2009 Added some names of some notable classical liberals 16:46, 26 August 2009 source doesn't say "modern" classical liberals. 17:37, 26 August 2009 can't believe someone is disputing that the father of classical economics is not a classical liberal, but here's a few sources. 19:24, 26 August 2009 sources for Locke being a classical liberal

often contradicting what he had previously said, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Below are examples from Talk:Classical liberalism. Rick Norwood and I contended that the term classical liberalism was used in two senses: (1) to refer to liberalism before the 20th century and (2) to refer to laissez-faire liberalism. Introman contended that there was only one definition, but then gave several definitions. 22:46, 19 August 2009 Classical liberalism is the philosophy of limited government and laissez-faire economics as first presented by the early liberals. It's as simple as that. 23:17, 19 August 2009 Early liberals didn't believe limited government? WHAT?! LOL!... Yes it refers to the philosophy of the early liberals. And their was a philosophy was a philosophy of limited government. What do you think they were rebelling against? Intrusive government. 00:05, 20 August 2009 "Limited government" certainly does mean non-intrusive government. It means the government whose power is limited from intervening in the private sphere. It's held back. It's retrained by a Constitution. And it doesn't mean it's not strong, but that it's strong in protecting liberty but weak in interfering with it. 00:23, 20 August 2009 I'm not using "limited government" as a synonym for classical liberalism. I just said classical liberals supported limited government, which means one restrained from interfering with liberty, both personal and economic. A "minarchy" and a "restrained" government would be the same thing, i.e. a government that doesn't restrict liberty. 15:51, 20 August 2009 Everyone else says classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of the original liberals. 22:20, 21 August 2009 Classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of the early liberals. Those today who subscribe to that philosophy are known as classical liberals as well, naturally. It's as simple as that. 19:43, 23 August 2009 But what constitutes classical liberalism is the GENERAL philosophy. 17:10, 26 August 2009 "Classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean liberalism before the 20th Century." 18:23, 26 August 2009 In your second quote there is a definition that says classical liberalism is political liberalism and economic liberalism (free market philosophy) together. That's the definition used in this article. 18:42, 26 August 2009 The classical liberals, the OLD liberals, supported, as your source says "constitutionalism plus the free market." 19:14, 26 August 2009 Classical liberals don't support regulated markets.

An examination of his comments clearly shows that he has no understanding of the subjects of the articles he edits and in fact does not even read the articles, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following appears to show both: Introman inserted the following text into the lead of Conservatism in the United States: The capitalist conservatism that dominated the Reagan administration which favored a more or less laissez-faire free market economy arose from classical liberalism. We discussed it at Talk:Conservatism in the United States: The quote makes it seem that classical liberalism did not play a role in American conservatism until Ronald Reagan. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) If you have a source for classical liberalism inspiring conservatism at an earlier time then provide it. That's not a good reason for censoring mentioning that classical liberalism was the main economic influence on Reagan's conservatism. Introman (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC) It says in the article "Freidrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman advocated a return to classical liberal or libertarian policies and together provided a vigorous criticism of the welfare state and Keynsian economics.... In 1965 conservatives campaigned for Buckley as a third party candidate for Mayor of New York and in 1966 for Ronald Reagan, who was elected governor of California. Reagan sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 and 1976, before finally being elected president in 1980.[32]

He is also in conflict with other editors at the Libertarianism article, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This can be determined through a summary of his recent edits and discussion at Talk:Libertarianism. Diff Edit summary 06:17, 19 August 2009 best known version is right libertarianism 15:58, 19 August 2009 it's not about the terminology 18:10, 19 August 2009 clarifying what left libertarianism is 16:50, 20 August 2009 Stanford Encyclopedia says right libertarianism is the most popular one too 16:54, 21 August 2009 I don't see the source saying it's been implemented around the world. Doesn't make sense. What society on Earth is the libertarian ideal? 20:05, 23 August 2009 don't forget civil liberties 02:48, 25 August 2009 making clear the libertarians are not only in the Libertarian Party 22:45, 26 August 2009 i know this is not true. There are libertarians who support foreign military intervention. It's not sourced anyway, so plenty reason to remove it. Here is a mention of the dispute on the talk page. He began arguing with User:Carolmooredc in May and the dispute continues 3 months later: User:Introman - whose user page says My name is Introman, and I only do intros. Working on bodies of articles is beneath me. - chooses to distort an introduction that outlines the current version of the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC) First, you don't just make some comment that barely addresses my concerns and stick back in your comment. This is edit warring WP:3rr. Second, you do NOT address my first concern, that if you want to talk about "best known version of libertarianism" you should also mention the other references that talk about private ownership and free market libertarianism being better known, per the discussion of that issue. (And deleting rest of discussion as irrelevant.) Third, if you addressed that it would be clear that "Means of production" not the phrase all those sources would use. It is a heavily charged socialist/communist term, as you yourself admit above. To engage in truly cooperative editing you should revert yourself and address my concerns above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[33]

oooh fancy! Introman (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Here is another example of what I see as edit-warring by Introman, which happened today, and with which I had no involvement. The lead of Modern liberalism in the United States contains the statement:

"America was founded as a liberal nation, and the preamble to the Constitution of the United States includes the clause stating that the purpose of establishing the Constitution was to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", which most liberals believe requires an active role for the government."

Without discussion, Introman then added the following to the end of the sentence:

20:30, 28 August 2009:"...unlike the classical liberals who also wanted to advanced human welfare but believed that this was best achieved by minimizing government intervention."[Paul, Jeffrey & Miller, Fred Dycus. Problems of Market Liberalism. Cambridge University Press, 1998. pp. 1-2][34]

20:52, 28 August 2009 Upon being reverted, Introman changed this to "unlike the classical liberals who also wanted to advanced human welfare but believed that this was best achieved by minimizing government intervention"[35]

20:58, 28 August 2009 Rick Norwood set up discussion of the dispute on the talk page.[36]

21:15, 28 August 2009 Introman replied on the talk page.

21:23, 28 August 2009 Without waiting for a reply, Introman reverted Rick Norwood's edit again to add "unlike the classical liberals, such as Adam Smith, who also wanted to advanced human welfare but believed that this was best achieved by minimizing government intervention and leaving individuals free to pursue only their own self interest. The ideology of American modern liberals is not to be confused with what is called "liberalism" in continental Europe, where it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies. It also differs from classical liberalism which holds to the Jeffersonian idea that "that government is best which governs least"". (He adds additional references for this edit.)

Although the first edit by Introman was referenced to Problems of market liberalism, it actually refers to an article in the book by Gerald F. Gaus which presents a point of view. More importantly the article says nothing about the founding of America as a liberal nation.[37]

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it really suspicious how Four Deuces is SO protective of Rick Norwood's edits. Never has he challenged or complained about anything Rick Norwood has done, no matter how attrocious. So quick to try to do whatever he thinks might work to keep me from changing Rick Norwood's edits. Hmm... Introman (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not very helpful for Introman to say he has suspicions without saying what they are. I have had disputes with Rick Norwood, but not in the last two weeks, which is when Introman began to change the leads in several articles. I have not defended Rick Norwood's edits but rather opposed Introman's edits. My reasons for doing so have been extensively discussed in each article's talk page where this has occured. I would also point out that I have disagreed with Introman's edits in articles that Rick Norwood did not edit and that Introman has found disageement with his edits in at least one article that neither Rick Norwood nor I edited. (I have given examples of these above.) The Four Deuces (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I already stated what my suspicious are in regard to this. I suspect that Four Deuces and Rick Norwood are the same person, trying to get around the 3 revert rule. And as I said earlier, it's not yet an accusation. It's just a suspicion based on some things I've witnessed. I'd like to see your thoughts on this, Four Deuces. Do you think Rick Norwood may be you? You seen anything suspicious? If not, maybe we can lay this theory to rest. Introman (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman, on this page complaints have been made about some of your edits and, by implication, complaints about your willingness to participate in a reasonable and scholarly manner. I have examined all the evidence provided here, and in addition I have done some of my own research. I have noticed that where Introman goes, conflict goes too.

I agree that you are not the only User displaying a lack of fraternal spirit. Others have displayed antipathy towards you. However, I have seen evidence that these others display a commendably fraternal spirit towards Users other than you. I have not yet seen such a display from you, but I will give you full opportunity to show that it exists.

I can say at this stage that I am likely to conclude that your preferred style of communication on Wikipedia is a competitive, combative style. I am also likely to conclude that it is your style of communication on Wikipedia that ensures conflict is your constant companion.

If I finally reach these conclusions I can do nothing more than encourage you to recognise that on Wikipedia you are among friends; that your knowledge and competence are not under threat to the extent that you need to defend them vigorously on a daily basis. I will recommend that you strive to develop a new persona, a new style of communication that will be appropriate to dealing with friends in what is, after all, a hobby for all of us.

Before I reach these conclusions I am keen for you to have the opportunity to comment, and to argue against these possible conclusions, if that is your preference. If you disagree with me, could you provide me with one or two recent diffs that show you communicating with another User in a friendly, non-combative and scholarly manner? That would help me. Thanks for your patience in this matter. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When someone is just so dishonest and disruptive, and lacking in all integrity, it's only natural express irritation with them. It would happen in real life with anyone. People get upset and express that. It's human. But apparently here there's a different personality standard here than in real life. Everyone must present themselves as if they're on opium apparently, so I'll tone it down in the future. But yes of course there are times when I'm not so course with other people who I may have a content conflict with. Not everyone is as unreasonable as Four Deuces and Rick Norwood. Can you tell me how to give a link to a portion of a talk page, so I can show you examples? Introman (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out Four Deuces himself given bogus edit summaries. It's not just "Rick Norwood." Many times, in more than one article, he says he's reverting to "Restore agreed version." But this so obviously untrue. If it was agreed, then why are people making changes that he's reverting? Obviously, what he wants is not agreed to. And, note, these reversions with "Restore agreed version" are not only for my edits, but for the edits of others users as well. Here are some examples from the Social liberalism article: [38] [39] [40] [41] This dishonesty is very irritating. But as I said, I will will try to be more ...gentle? in my responses. But as you can see, anyone would be highly upset at this type of behavior. Introman (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained this to User:Introman: "If you want to edit this article then you should discuss major changes, bearing in mind that other editors have agreed to the phrasing in the lead....00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)"[42] Before I re-wrote the lead I posted my suggested changes on the talk page.[43] I waited for commentary, made the appropriate changes and revised the lead 9 days after recommending my change. User:UberCryxic and User:Mcduarte2000 were the only two editors who replied and they said respectively "I like it" and "I now agree with you". UberCryxic agreed with me when I reverted the lead on 28 May back to this agreed version.[44]. McDuarte2000 has recently commented on the lead.[45]

Following Introman's comments Mcduarte2000 made a minor change to the lead.[46] All the reversions I made where I stated "Revert to version by Duarte" or "Restore agreed version of lead - please discuss changes on talk page" or "Restore agreed version of lead" were restorations to Mcduarte's version. It was almost identical to the version UberCryxic, Mcduarte and I agreed to and there has been no subsequent agreement for any other version.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Two or more Users agreeing on text to be used in an article is commendable. However, such agreement does not confer ownership on those two or more Users. If the agreed text is subsequently amended to delete a statement, the deletion can be reverted or challenged, especially where the deleted statement was supported by in-line citations and references. If the agreed text is subsequently amended to add a new statement, the new statement should be assessed on its merits. The statement can be deleted if it does not enhance the article, and especially if it is not supported by an in-line citation or if it contradicts or is incompatible with the agreed text.

Most importantly, if the agreed text is amended to add a new statement, the statement must not be deleted for no reason other than it differs from agreed text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There is no intention that Wikipedia articles will be frozen when a group of Users agree that the article is as good as it can be made. Inevitably, many articles will reach a high level of maturity to the point that large numbers of Users agree that the articles are as good as they will ever be, but then new Users will edit those articles in such a way that the original large numbers of Users will not approve.

Consequently, if edits have been reverted solely on the grounds that the article is being returned to a version previously agreed by a small group of Users, I am unable to condone those reversions. When an edit made in good faith is being reverted, the reversion must be accompanied by an explanation, either in the Edit summary, the Talk page or a post on the editor’s User talk page. That explanation must be based on something more substantial than that the article is being returned to an agreed version. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) I did of course explain my changes in detail in the talk pages. Introman first changed the lead in four edits with the notation ""modern liberalism" is the more used term" in his first edit.[47][48] I reverted back with the notation: "Removed OR from lead - must agree to sources given"[49] Introman then made another edit with the notation "removing unsourced"[50] followed by four more edits.[51].

I then set up a section on the talk page where I stated:

Introman, what do you mean by saying "removing unsourced" in your edit to the lead. The lead was clearly sourced to Contending liberalisms in world politics and your edits distort the meaning expressed in the original text. If you want to edit this article then you should discuss major changes, bearing in mind that other editors have agreed to the phrasing in the lead. Incidentally, you added in (also called modern liberalism and new liberalism) but the lead already states Social liberalism is also called new liberalism(as it was originally termed), modern liberalism, and left-liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion, when I reverted Introman's edits, I provided an explanation in my edits and on the talk page and my main reason given was that the new edit was not supported by sources, but in fact contradicted the sources cited. I did mention that other editors had agreed to the version he changed, but did not give that as the main reason for my disagreement with his edits.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this thread has actually achieved quite a bit.

Introman is aware that The Four Deuces is very determined, and trying to get The Four Deuces to deviate by tough talking is not successful. In future I imagine Introman will be more subtle. Ideally he will be more careful in his direct approaches to individual Users, and when he finds a difficult editing situation or a difficult User he will enlist the assistance of an independent third party by making use of WP:Request for comment, WP:Dispute resolution and other Noticeboards.

The Four Deuces is aware that he does not acquire ownership of text that he has written. He has been reminded that other Users are not only allowed to edit established text, they are encouraged to do so. High quality dialogue with new Users is essential if established text is to be left in place without offending the new Users.

All participants have been reminded that Wikipedia is something to which we contribute as a hobby. It is not a project on which our livelihood depends.

I think this forum has achieved all that it is capable of achieving, and further dialogue is probably unnecessary. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks, accusations presuming bad faith

Some time ago I added some text to the Power ballad, with references. Recently, that text was removed without much discussion - leaving the article in a non-NPOV status, in my opinion. To clear up the problem (to see my summary, of the problem, look at the talk page at Talk:Power ballad), I removed some more text from the article, which I believed to have weasel words, and to have a non-NPOV. This edit was reverted - without discussion - as 'vandalism' by User:Peter Fleet. I asked on User talk:Peter Fleet why it was called vandalism - and he presumed bad faith on my part (ignoring most of the cateogories listed as things that are not vandalism on the vandalism policy page), to my eyes not having read any of my discussions about the change previously. In his response to my question, he used personal attacks in his edit summary, calling me a "vandal". [[52]] aka User:Wiki libs used some further text which I took to assume not good faith, and which involved more personal attacks (such as Fleet the consensus on that page is that Lumi is wrong (common). I might have let this slide, but this is not the first time both of these users have acted in what I consider to be bad faith (i.e. WP:DICK), and assumed the worst/reverted without question, either with regards to an edit I made or that someone else made. I believe the philosophy that is being shown here (illustrated by Libs' recent update to their talk page -- for 2 weeks.... Hey King, Hey Sssoul, Hey Ms Bathory... you are in charge now... revert every single edit to every single music page until I get back!!!) is disruptive to newcoming editors, who will be discouraged by the strongly negative reaction, and overall has a negative effect on wikipedia (despite any vandalism that is prevented). I would appreciate it if some outsiders with fresh eyes looked into this situation, and told either me, or them, or both, what they are doing wrong. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring by a single editor against multiple editors is a losing cause. Right or wrong, you won't win. If you can't persuade other editors at the article to support your position, it's best to give up on the issue and work on something else. Accusing other editors of bad behavior won't help you; nothing will help except to get support from other editors. Looie496 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(response to Looie496): My hope here is not necessarily to have a resolution on the edit conflict, but to have someone talk with anyone involved (even me) who is acting against the goals of wikipedia and tell them what they should do differently... this goes beyond a single edit conflict Luminifer (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am the 'King' Libs was referring to with that edit summary, and I can attest that NO one his going-away message was intended for took it as an actual request; he was obviously being facetious. Libs spends a lot of his time on Wiki(pedia) watching music-related articles for POV-pushing and OR (and there's a ton), he was making a joke that we should 'stop the presses' as it were until he could return from vacation and take the reigns again. --King Öomie 13:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please add some diffs to this page, so we can quickly see what you're referring to without digging through revisions and contribs? --King Öomie 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gladly. I see you found some things - thanks for looking into this. I guess it's ok to respond here despite the text on this page saying "don't post here - post on the page you are talking about the dispute at" when it's actually asking for clarification. For the record, I knew Libs was joking, but I thought given how many people he's angered with his reversions, and how harsh his demeanor can be, that the joke was very inappropriate (along with his insulting me on Peter Fleet's talk page). I don't deny that he does some good here but I believe that he does a lot of harm as well. Luminifer (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Timeline (the last two are the personal attacks, the rest is just history):

• [53] Reference for Def Leppard gets moved to the wrong place (no one notices)
• [54] I bring it up on the talk page, asking where the removal happened (a month later)
• [55] I find the change, and move reference back to right place
• [56] Libs moves the references back to the wrong place by accident
• [57] Libs then claims (wrongly) that neither source mentions that this is a power ballad
• [58] I revert, saying to look more closely, as the title is even "Power ballads"
• [59] Fleet undoes the edit, saying now that the reference is not a good source.
• [60] I decide to be bold and remove what I believe to be a non-NPOV example on the article. Having only one example of a 'power ballad' described as the 'first' from only a specific genre or artist is misleading and not really worthy as a piece of information - it was discussed earlier on the talk page [61] and the feeling I saw was that it needed to be there in order to state that it was not the first power ballad PERIOD, but rather was the first POPULAR power ballad of that genre. It was also stated by some that there needed to be more, earlier examples. I thought it was better to have no examples than a misleading one (as I explained in detail more recently on the talk page under that section).
• [62] Fleet decides this change is vandalism and reverts it.
• After asking Fleet why this was done, in his response to me, the edit summary contains the personal attack "reply to bad faith vandal"[63], and also threatens to have me blocked from wikipedia for "this kind of behavior" (if you continue to do so you may be blocked from editing).
• When I ask Fleet to refrain from personal attacks, Libs responds telling him that my edit WAS vandalism (despite [[WP:Vandalism][ saying otherwise - some have since said this on Fleet's talk page), and presents some further personal attacks (Lumi is wrong (common) ), (Ignore Lumi's whining Fleet).[64]. (An aside: He also said that "blanking text because you don't like it is vandalism", assuming bad faith and apparently not having read any of my explanations/questions about it violating NPOV on the Talk page, yet seeming to think that blanking text _he_ doesn't like is ok, because he can justify it with wikipedia rules and/or supposed consensus.).

I believe that sums up the personal attacks issue, at any rate. Luminifer (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your mistake was in the "I decide to be bold" part. Boldness is encouraged when you are approaching a topic for the first time, but when you are engaged in a dispute, especially a one-vs-many dispute, being bold will be interpreted as an attempt to win by force, and will usually lead to a forceful response, as happened here. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll buy that - but I wasn't actually the first to try to "win by force". I was in fact following the example of the other editors I mentioned, who do so much more than I do. I had at least also brought it up on the talk page and received no specific response to the inquiry... Luminifer (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)- Seems like a misunderstanding. Some of us WP:GWARRIOR-hunters have very little patience for what we perceive to be edit-warring over what song is or isn't a given genre. If he mistook your WP:BOLD display as a hostile act, I'd expect he was VERY short with you. Perhaps this is a lesson- most genre warriors have very few edits, perhaps he should have checked yours (2.7k). --King Öomie 18:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than the edit where a reference was put in the wrong place; can you clarify where any other those diffs show something wrong? I see your edit to tha article in question as more bad-faith than being bold especially where you deleted a piece of sourced text because you disagree with what it says. Looking at the page today it would appear is if though you are still edit warring over the article in question. Now re-adding the same source repeatedly and altering the text in a controversial way. And an editor has called recent edits into question for adding false content and for misrepresenting a reference in order to support an editor's personal opinion. GripTheHusk (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

All of the information I placed there was referenced directly by the source. I will update the talk page with the information. I don't really know why this article has so many people that insist it should read with incorrect information - incorrent (a) based on what I know (meaningless) and (b) based on the source that is cited. Luminifer (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of not getting anyone into trouble, I have fully-protected the article. I know everyone involved here and have respect for all parties. I will not get involved in the content dispute, but I have stepped in to quell this to-and-fro'ing. It can't go on, especially with this WQA going on as well. I hope you can all respect my reasoning for doing this, and as a final favour – please start using the talk page, you will have to while the full-protection is in place, so you may as well get used to it. – B.hotep •talk• 19:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should have done that, as you are involved. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You should have taken it to the page protection page and allowed someone else to look at it. It is not like there was any dangere to the wiki was there? Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am involved in that I know all the editors well. I am not involved in that I have not edited the article, I haven't protected a particular version (even Luminifer isn't bothered which version I protected, see my talk page), and I have no opinion expressed on what the content should be. Danger to the Wiki is a bit of an overstatement, but as I said, maybe now they can start talking, or just move away. Is that so bad? I haven't just waded in with my size nines. :) – B.hotep •talk• 19:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You have protected it with the summary of.. Edit warring / Content dispute have you reported anyone? Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Content disputes don't have to be reported. Edit warring can be dealt with by trying to discuss issues with the users involved. If we can solve this between us all, then that's job done, isn't it? – B.hotep •talk• 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Luminifer has shown very good faith and he has accepted your protection, so lets see how it goes. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I hope Luminifer respects my reasons. And my request for looking at the way he deals with the situation. Even if the consensus is against him as it currently stands. I know Wiki Libs very well, too, so me being the admin in the middle will hopefully work out well on all counts. – B.hotep •talk• 20:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can move forward from the situation were Luminifer felt it needed to come here with the title ..personal attacks, accusations presuming bad faith.. then it will be an improvement. As far as I can see all of Luminifers editing has been in good faith and also working with the citations and I don't think that he has been treated fairly and he has been referred to as a vandal and I disagree with that accusation and it should be redacted imo. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see where Luminifer was issued a warning on his talk page. But this warning was not issued by either of the 2 people he has named in his complaint. Luminifer did delete referenced text from the article after posting on the article talk page about his personal objection to the text but only removed it after his own contribution to the page was removed due to poor sourcing. This is most certainly a bad faith edit. Deleting sourced text from an article just to prove a point is not vandalism but is certainly the equivalent even if WP:VANDAL does not detail as such. In either respect no warning was ever issued over the bad-faith edit. Further review of the recent edit history of the page shows that Off2riorob also deleted the same referenced text from the article but was reverted and received a vandalism warning for removing the sourced text. If Luminifer did not receive a warning on his talk page from the 2 people named in his complaint how did either editor breach Wiki-etiquette? Fair Deal (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to have to ask this, but could you have links to the diffs you are referencing here? I think you got the order a little confused - at least, I find it hard to follow what you're saying. The warning on my talk page was listed after I filed this complaint. As far as I can tell, Off2riorob did not receive a vandalism warning at all. There are other issues I that I see with your summary, but I'll only do that if someone asks, since it's not really related to the issue. The way in which these users breached wiki-etiquette is described in my timeline summary above, and has to do (at least in the easiest to demonstrate sense) with personal attacks. Luminifer (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to respond here (or respond at all) to comments like the one I just responded to. I would appreciate any input on that. Thanks... Luminifer (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

One more comment : re:And an editor has called recent edits into question for adding false content and for misrepresenting a reference in order to support an editor's personal opinion. Yes.. that is going on here, but if you look at the google books links I provided on the talk page, you'll see that it's not me doing it. The article has been non-NPOV by misrepresenting a reference for a very long time, and many people have tried to fix it over this time, but it always gets reverted back. I don't think anyone actually ever read that reference. Luminifer (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:mdphd2012

On the Proton Therapy page user mdphd2012 contributed an entry that all other editors agreed was inappropriate in tone (as well as inaccurate in content). mdphd2012 has been unwilling to make any changes suggested by other editors, and has undone any edits by other editors of his/her contributions. Other editors have attempted to engage mdphd2012 in discussion toward a consensus solution without success. mdphd2012 has also removed inappropriate tone banners placed by other editors on his material multiple times. mdphd2012 has also labeled signed and justified (by comment) changes made by other editors as "vandalism" AE1978 (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't look into this properly, however I do want to make the following notes for what little I checked. You didn't notify the subject about this WQA - I've done it for you in this case, but you should in the future as the instructions above indicate. Adding diffs to your report often enables others to provide feedback much more efficiently - in this case, I think you were referring to the following edits (where he refers to others as vandals): [65] [66]. This is definitely inappropriate in the context of how vandalism is defined, and the attempts at discussion on the talk page. I also noted that the article does seem to have a shaky history. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit summaries by User:mdphd2012 were not as good as they might have been. I think the edit that is in immediate dispute is "bigger" than ideal during a content dispute. It seems clear to me that this is not vandalism on either side, but a wp:content dispute that may devolve quickly into an wp:edit war. Hopefully wp:conflict resolution will prove helpful. Made a suggestion at User talk:AE1978. The tone of the section needs work, as the flag removed more than once by mdphd2012 says. I did not try to fact-check the sources so I have no idea if the section is worth keeping. It appears as I read the talk page that there is wp:consensus that a section highlighting the issues should be in the article... just not the section as it is written. I would encourage both parties stop reverting and continue seek compromise wording.- sinneed (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Escalated to ANI.

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

I am requesting a neutral, third party to intervene in a wikiquette regarding this editor. He has placed a personal attack against me in an article talk page and failed to assume good faith on my part. The origins of this incident are at the Survivorman article.

• An anonymous IP added content that I felt was unsourced and a personal opinion/review of the show
• I reverted the addition using the edit summary "Rv, unsourced and personal opinion"
• GabrielVelasquez undid my removal
• GabrielVelasquez then added a comment to the article talk page calling me arrogant and my edit and edit summary stupid. A confrontational tone was used to regarding verifibility and my apparent lack of perfect memory
• A note about my edit was left on my talk page that I feel was needlessly confrontational
• I requested that GabrielVelasquez retract and strike the comment about me left on that article talk page and reminded him about WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF
• I received this reply stating that I did not AGF to the anonymous IP

The paragraph that I felt was an opinion was subsequently removed by another editor.

On a side note, there appears to be additional incidents of GabrielVelasquez not AGF on Talk:Planetary habitability. I am not involved in this dispute and have no further comment or opinion upon the matter.

If a neutral, third party can intervene in this issue, I would appreciate it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The paragraph that I felt was an opinion was subsequently removed by another editor."
  - This a deception, that paragraph has nothing to do with the removed and returned-with-source comments.
  This is a desperated attempt to save face rather than admit error. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NOW that I look at the entire, three-in-one edit I see the other paragraph. I meant to return the single top sentence mid-paragraph and didn't see the full paragraph much lower down in the multi-edit. I would not have return that commentary and was going to reword it or delete it but didn't give it enough thought to do either. As I said on your talkpage Dodo I am not your enemy and asked you not to judge me by that one edit. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Escalating this to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Otterathome

Stale

 – 20:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good day,

I am posting this here because I believe it to be the best place to do so. If I am incorrect, I humbly request to be directed to the correct page.

In the general area of pages related to the lonelygirl15 web series, we currently have some trouble with User:Otterathome, who seems to have made it his personal goal in life to remove as much as he can get of LG15 from Wikipedia; he started nominating a large number of pages related to the series, mostly of the actors involved, but also of spin-offs. That, in itself, is -of course- not a problem. The problem is the way he behaved afterwards:

1. First of all, he shows no actual interest in improving the pages. His entire argumentation in all related discussions boils down to "this is not notable, it must be removed". He doesn't even dismiss merging or improvement - he simply refuses to acknowledge the option. He simply doesn't talk about any other options than deletion, even if directly asked about merging, etc. He simply ignores such lines and reliably replies with something that boils down to "not notable, must be deleted".
2. When he notices he's about to "lose", he gets dirty. This is nicely visible in the AfD for LG15: The Last. In the discussion, there were basically two people arguing against keeping the page, User:Atama and him. Since he was not acknowledging any attempts to discuss, I directly proposed a merging effort to Atama, which both s/he and a new user deemed acceptable.
   Instead of finally joining the discussion and giving his opinion on my merging proposal, Otterathome went on to first try to invalidate the amount of supporters the page had by falsely implying there had been a call to brainless vote on the AfD, then tried to cast doubt on Byronwrite's support of the merging effort, and then tried to discredit milowent by inventing a conflict of interest. All directly after it was clear that the only other person supporting a removal of the page was content with a merge rather than deletion, and without ever giving a statement about improvement, merging, or any option other than deletion himself. But it gets better.
3. He doesn't accept "losing". Both LG15: The Last and the page on Jackson Davis (an actor in the franchise) were kept after the AfD. In the case of Jackson Davis (where his behavior in the discussion was similar), he went on to appeal the AfD decision. After that failed again, he turned his attention to LG15: The Last again, now, finally, as a last measure, actually acknowledging merging as an option.
   But don't think he even mentioned my previous proposal, already supported by other people, nuh uhh. He didn't even mention it. When asked, directly, "What about renegade's idea in the deletion discussion about a LG15 portal style page?", his response was "Feel free to make a portal. I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted, I don't mind which".

I believe it is very clear that Otterathome has a personal vendetta against LG15 content on Wikipedia, rather than any interest in improving any of its pages. Let me assure you that I am not questioning the nomination of the articles per se. That is, of course, his good right, and I admit some of the pages were not exactly in good shape when he nominated them (they improved considerably during the AfD, another fact which he refused to even acknowledge).
What I take issue with are not the nominations themselves. What I take issue with are the facts that he

• is unwilling to discuss any other solution but deletion (despite WP:AFD clearly listing half a dozen other possible outcomes), and
• just doesn't let go.

Nominating something over notability concerns is one thing. Insisting on deletion over all other options, continuing to fight for deletion even after a decision was made, and immediately trying to get rid of a page through non-deletion measures after deletion was rejected, is an entirely different thing.

Once more, since I know this will be his first argument when he sees this: I am not making any statements about the notability of the pages in question, or his right to nominate pages for deletion. I purely take issue with his unwillingness to consider other options, his relentlessness despite official decisions having been made, and, ultimately, also with the new tone he's putting on now that he wants to merge the page away - "I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted" sounds almost like he considers himself an admin of sorts, and entirely ignores the fact that it has just been decided that that exact page will be kept.

As such, I am here today to request assistance with this situation from the community at large. Independent from all notability concerns, Otterathome's behavior is more than questionable and directly interfering with our efforts to provide an encyclopedic overview of the LG15 franchise.

Thank you for your time.

~ Renegade - 80.171.27.157 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Renegade. You have chosen the correct place to raise your Alert. Other members of the WP:WQA community will comment in the near future.

I have had a quick look at the articles you have mentioned, and looked closely at your criticisms of Otterathome. You support the Lonelygirl15 series and are attempting to retain them and improve them. Otterathome is perusing them with a critical eye and being the Devil’s advocate. He is displaying a different disposition to you but I see nothing to indicate his behaviour is outside the bounds that are acceptable within Wikipedia.

Whenever an article is nominated for deletion there will be Users who argue in favour of keeping the article, Users who argue in favour of deletion, and others who argue in favour of a compromise such as improve, merge, or re-direct. It is in Wikipedia’s interests that Users argue thoughtfully and vigorously for whichever outcome they believe in the most strongly. We shouldn’t take it personally when a User argues vigorously in favour of deletion of an article that we have helped create – that is what is expected of Users who take on the thankless task of nominating articles for deletion.

If any User acts outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour, that behaviour can be challenged. Acceptable and unacceptable behaviours are defined in such articles as WP:Civility, WP:3RR and WP:AGF. If you believe Otterathome has behaved in breach of one of Wikipedia's rules, feel free to provide details here. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My advice to Otterathome is, if you find it impossible to deal with the kid stuff calmly and patiently, just stay away from it. Nobody reads it except kids anyway, and it keeps them away from more important articles until they mature a bit. Kids have a very skewed view of notability, but getting into holy wars about it is just a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While I was not trying to turn this into a hunt for violated policies, but more a discussion of his behavior in general, I do believe he broke the rules you linked in the following ways:

• Consensus: He clearly ignored consensus by flagging a page for merging a mere week after it was decided to be kept, and threatening to have it deleted anyway. In fact, apart from finally having to acknowledge merging as an option now, his posts on the talk page now sound exactly like his posts in the deletion discussions. It looks like he simply doesn't accept it's over.
• Co-operation: As I laid out above, he simply didn't even acknowledge any option other than deletion, ignoring any attempt to discuss merging with him, and, instead of commenting on the proposed merging structure, he ignored the factual bit of that discussion and instead tried to discredit a supporter of it. That can hardly be described as "reasonably cooperative".
• Civility: As already alluded to above, imo, he engaged in acts of incivility in a variety of ways:
  • Trying to put in doubt the validity of people's opinions, by conveniently placing blind vote allegations and "no or few contribution" warnings right as the discussion started to take a direction he didn't approve of.
  • Deliberately misrepresenting, if not outright lying about User:Milowent's supposed connections to the production company, in a cheap attempt to disqualify him from the discussion.
  • As well as engaging in a generally hostile and dismissive attitude towards anyone arguing against deletion, culminating in his previously quoted line "[...] I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted, I don't mind which.", which, independent from its general tone, also clearly violates WP:CIVIL's provisions to treat all editors as equals - who is he to set us ultimatums, especially after it was just decided that the page would be kept?

In addition, his constant attempts to try to invalidate new users' opinions by placing the vote warnings, tagging Byronwrites as having no other contributions, etc. are surely not a sign of assuming good faith. (As well as, I believe, a violation of WP:NEWBIES.)

As I said before, I do explicitly not question his right to nominate these articles or to argue for their deletion. But for one, there is a vast difference between arguing for deletion, and trying to discredit every user arguing for the opposite, and for two, a decision has been made. It's over. The AfD ended, the decision was to keep, and yet, he's still on the talk page telling people the page needs to go away.

That is not part of the deletion process anymore, and, as such, cannot be explained as expected of users who do the nominations.

Thank you for opinion :)

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.79 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wanted to note that Otterathome has now nominated Jackson Davis for deletion again, just 16 days after the prior AfD closed. Here's the new deletion discussion where I noted this in more detail. --Milowent (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to add my two-cents to this discussion. I have been dealing with Otterathome in the third deletion review for Jackson Davis. If you read my edits there, I have largely been debating policy with him, as opposed to his actions, but I do feel his actions need to be addressed, so I am bringing them here.

Otter seems to have a personal vendetta against the web series genre, but no real knowledge of it. see quote: "It doesn't state anything about webshows, but I don't know if any of them are "commercially produced or significant" because they have so few sources.", see his entire argument here about WP:ENT, and this entire post.

He discredits sources without knowing enough about the sources as well. For instance, in this diff, he states that the two actors Jackson appeared on an interview with were not notable, without bothering to learn about the people first. He also continues to insist that a show is a "non-notable web show" even after citation showing otherwise had been added to the page.

Although WP:DEADLINE is not an official rule, it is a general guideline, which he does not follow. See diff - "7 days is long enough seeing as closing statement at DRV suggested to relist it [Please note: The closer actually said "no prejudice against relisting" NOT "you should relist it again."] There has been plenty of time for editors to improve the article, I nominated it at the start of August, nearly a whole month." He also seems to misunderstand WP:NOTAGAIN, which he cites over and over to defend his actions. diff, diff2, diff3, etc etc.

WP:NOTAGAIN states that "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Therefore, his continual use of citing NOTAGAIN to justify his actions are not accurate (for my full point, see here). Whenever this is pointed out to him he ignores it. This demonstrates an attempt to game the system and wikilawyering. Another example of gaming the system appears when he tries to argue for using WP:BAND as a guideline for a source for Jackson Davis (an actor), while taking the context of the guideline totally out of context.

He also uses tactics to discredit the other voters in the discussion, such as adding the notavote template (diff) when things are not going his way, declaring a user to be an SpA voter when they disagree with him (which fails WP:NEWBIES), and adding the puffery template to the article when the AfD was not going his way. (See my reply to that in full here.)

He also does not show civility when dealing with other users in the debate, calling another user's post a "long rant", told a user "when you stop failing WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL and stop criticizing Wikipedia itself", telling a user "Why do you keep repeating yourself? I don't think you know what consensus means.", saying "Wow Zoeydahling you sure know your stuff." in a clearly sarcastic manner, and tells a user who simply voices their opinion "You've basically just repeated everything that has already been said so have contributed nothing new.", thereby simply dismissing that user's opinions without any real reason to.

He tells a user to WP:AGF, but clearly shows WP:IRONY in doing so, as his actions linked throughout this post demonstrate that he does not, in fact, show good faith. The policy explicitly states "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." (emphasis added) I believe I have demonstrated throughout this post that he does not, in fact, show good faith in dealing with editors and is once again trying to game the system and wikilaywer, as he is misrepresenting policy and attempting to discredit any users who call him out on his behavior by simply citing the policy (without understanding its underlying theme, that you should assume good faith until it is proven otherwise).

I would also like to point out diffs like these: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 which further clarify my point from the words of other editors.

In conclusion, I would very much appreciate if Otterathome's behavior could be addressed, and perhaps he could even be discouraged (if not outright banned) from editing articles on the web series genre which he clearly knows nothing about and cannot edit in a calm and rational manner. Additionally, I would like to note that this post just addresses his behavior on the Jackson Davis AfD, as his behavior on the LG15: The Last deletion/merge was already addressed above. However, I believe that information also demonstrates the same principles I have just addressed.

Thank you very much for your time.

--Zoeydahling (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Mere hours after the Jackson Davis AfD was closed as keep, Otterathome has decided to go after another Lonelygirl15-related article Mesh Flinders (AfD). It is pretty clear that he is determined to rid the Wiki of any LG15-related content in any way he can and will not get over it, let go, or just drop it. He appears to be guilty of tendentious editing (not having a neutral point of view when it comes to such articles). Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Troublemaker1949

Resolved

 – User blocked for 1 week

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

User:Troublemaker1949 has been engaging in disruptive behaviour at an AfD for an article they created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zane Carpenter and are fully in breach of WP:CIVIL and WP: NPA. Also been hassloing the nominator here: [67] GainLine ♠ _♥ 15:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have given him a final warning on this and reverted his most recent edits to the AFD. I will keep an eye on this user/this AFD. either way (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He continued so I blocked him for a week for his incivility and desire to disrupt the AFD process. either way (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Abusive warning by ex-Admin impedding progress just to be that way and boost his ego.

Resolved

 – GabrielVelasquez blocked for 24 hours for harassment Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

---

I had attempted to avert another indecent where Wikipedia was misquoted to people
"Thessaloniki is the Capital of the Republic of Macedonia" with this edit.
This edit was reverted and changed and mocked and reduce and finally made invisible by an abusive Admin's perverse mockery.
I had to press for this to be added and and this arrogant Admin just could not be wrong.
Later when trying to solve this I had reverted the vandalism when I noticed "Capital of Macedonia" redirected to "Adolf Hitler,"
and changed it to "Thessaloniki" and I thought with this the problem solved.

Then this Admin deceptively changes redirect so that he/she can revert (nearly waring with me) a related edit and say
"(no, "Capital of Macedonia" does not redirect here. Why would it?)," a clear LIE.
I consder this warning the last straw in a series of bad faith edits (read Abuses) by this administrator.
Oh, in the end after I mention bring it up here he does the right thing so as not to look bad and says "maybe I'll be politically correct today."
Turns out he isn't a real admin, and his threats to block me is another falsehood.
I must say I can image why this one was dropped as an admin if that's the case.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I already mentioned this incident over at WP:ANI#User:GabrielVelasquez at Thessaloniki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Perhaps someone should add this to the other abuses here: - the guy obviously likes to cause trouble with editors, especially in the Greek areas, and the remedies are obviously not enough. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Jusdafax

I am getting sick of this. Because I am open with my political positions (though I've changed it since this whole thing began) and b/c he doesn't agree with my edits (though several other users have) Jusdafax has taken it upon himself to launch a crusade to make sure that everyone knows he thinks I have a right-wing agenda and it has grown rather annoying: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], and [75]. I have been patient and hoped the fact that others (two liberals mind you) were agreeing with me would halt the baseless accusation, yet they continue. I ask that Jusdafax please stop this so we can get back to WP:CIVIL editing. Soxwon (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I too am getting sick of this. Interestingly, Soxwon states he has now decided his proclaimed conservatism no longer serves his editing at Karl Rove and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoteToImpeach, where I am not alone in my interest in his previously stated politics. He has used every tactic in the book to try to intimidate me, including a message I quote in full:

If you have a problem with me being up front with how I stand then discuss it with me, don't go following me about trying to frame me as some sort of right-wing demagogue. You have concerns about the environment and San Fran on your userpage, yet you don't see me going around calling you a hippie Californian Green peace nutjob now do you? Soxwon (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this message, from my perspective, is disingenuous in its contention he is not insulting me by "not" saying I'm "a hippie Californian Green peace nutjob". It seems to me Soxwon's message is meant to be intimidating, with a veneer of plausible denial. Tellingly, he does not see fit to include his message to me in his bill of particulars here. I have never used the tactic of attacking people on their personal page on anyone in Wikipedia, nor shall I. Yet, breathtakingly, Soxwon has brought the issue of Wikiquette to this forum, the same day he leaves his uncivil comment. This shows a confidence that astonishes me.

Soxwon appears to me to be highly agenda-driven on the Karl Rove page, which is why I took a look at his both his user page and his edits. The latter led me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoteToImpeach where I found114.161.253.11 (talk) complaining about his actions in much the same way I did. To quote: "I have to question Soxwon's motives for deletion, in light of the information on his user page stating: "I'm a right-wing capitalist, and for the most part conservative." Is this proposed deletion politically motivated?"

"Truth offends worse than fiction", as the saying goes. Today's actions at the page VoteToImpeach, in my opinion, speak for themselves. In itself, the page is not that important. As a test case, I looked into Soxwon's claims that the article should be deleted because it can't be referenced. Despite my coming up with seven in a few hours of part-time effort, it appears Soxwon has now decided he doesn't like the references, or more likely, the subject of a notable Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, and his website to impeach George Bush. Clark is additionally notable for defending Saddam Hussein at his trial. Is it really such a stretch to see that this person (Clark) and subject (voteToImpeach), to put it mildly, are almost certainly not going to be to a self-described "right-wing", "mostly-conservative" editor's liking?

Since the subject of Soxwon's recent history of a request for deletion (in my view, in this case, censorship) goes to the heart of his editing at the Karl Rove page, I placed a notice on the Karl Rove talk page asking for a discussion of what I see as his overall right-wing bias. Soxwon, true to form, instantly deleted it. I undid it, and gave my reasons. His response: delete, and call me a vandal. He understandably does not want broader attention called to his actions.

To conclude: This issue goes beyond mere Wikiquette and to the heart of how an on-line encyclopaedia should be edited. The Karl Rove page is one of a number of hotspots in Wikipedia. It goes without saying that many people who go online for history go to Wikipedia first. I contend that the issue at stake beyond who 'wins' this particular point.

What this is all really about is who gets the self-proclaimed right (to quote another of Soxwon's attempts at intimidation again on today's VoteToImpeach deletion page discussion, "...you're now outvoted and by two far more experienced editors.") to censor history his way using various tactics including making me out to be uncivil and 'punish' me - all for speaking in a forthright manner regarding him, and my deep concerns about an admitted "right-winger" editing with an agenda.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Jusdafax (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume I am one of the "liberals" that Soxwon refers to. I disagree with Jusdafax's characterisation of Soxwon's behaviour on the Karl Rove page. Soxwon has been interested in reaching consensus, to the extent of going out of his/her way to find sources for material s/he had originally wanted omitted. In mitigation of Jusdafax's actions, we have had a problem with a very disruptive, wikilawyering POV pusher on that page (now blocked), and fuses have been shortened accordingly, especially in the attempt to clear up the damage the blocked user left behind. It does not help that the Rove article (by general consensus) was, before all this, messed up with weaselly words and a lot of unsourced allegations, some of which are actually sourceable, and some of which are not. Rove is a divisive figure, and wikipedia is not immune from this. I think Jusdafax needs to assume good faith, not pre-judge, and listen to when third parties ask him to be more civil.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to BaseballBugs and Wikidemon at the deletion page. I know how they stand and wouldn't characterize you as I don't know you well :). Also the "references" of which Jusdafax speaks are (and this is true): a myspace page, a press release/promotion by Ramsey, a mocking Weekly Standard piece, a democracynow page, a counterpunch editorial by one of the co-authors for The Case for Impeachment of Bush and Cheney, a link to the cite in the SFBG, and a blurb in a local paper in article paper about Ramsey. Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jusdafax, you really appear to be judging edits based on what you feel are the political positions of the editor. We're here to comment on edits, not editors. If you disagree with Soxwon (or any other editor), I'd strongly suggest addressing their edits with calm, logical points, rather than just trying to dismiss them as "agenda-driven." That kind of argument really won't get far around here. Dayewalker (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have found SoxWon to be a fair and reasonable editor, who occasionally comes to me for advice, and I try to give a fair answer. If he were agenda-driven, I don't think he would bother asking a self-styled liberal for advice. I think Just The Facts is upset over the article being nominated for deletion and is striking back in whatever way he can. But there is growing consensus that the article does not stand well on its own and would be better situated as simply a line or two in the Clark article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vsevolod, Dayewalker and Baseball Bugs on this. Jusdafax has been responding inappropriately and not assuming good faith vis a vis Soxwon. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur in what's been said. This is the comment that really jumped out at me - leaving messages on someone's talk page is "intimidating" them? A talk page message isn't talking to someone "openly"? (A user's talk page is no less a public venue than an article talk page, after all.) Then going through the other difs, all one sees is accusations of POV pushing and a kind of reverse censorship bleat (usually we get "I'm being censored"; here we're getting "he's censoring," but it's the same phenomenon). The diaphanous response by Jusdafax above confirms the conclusion that this is a pretty clear-cut case of one editor (Jusdafax) getting his panties in a bunch over the existence of an editor with a contrary point of view (SoxWon). That kind of parochial "lives in SanFran and commutes to HuffPo" insularity is unfortunate, and here we see it being used to justify incivility and harassment toward SoxWon. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, no ad hominems Simon, particularly not political ones.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov: look up the meaning of ad hominem. It means "to the man." That means a personal attack. So your, "Please no ad hominems Simon, particularly not political ones." makes no sense. When you lift material from others, make sure you understand what you're lifting. But hey, glad you like my term.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I must add to the Justafax complaints. He's accused me of being a sock puppet, he's called me a joke, he went to my talk page and lifted material I had deleted and pasted it on the Karl Rove talk page. He's angry, inappropriate, insensitive to the needs of others, and seems to think only his opinion matters. Along with his friend VsevolodKrolikov, who both seem so like minded, he is edit warring material on the Karl Rove page that has been well cited and researched to fit his agenda. Whoever can do something about this, please do it ASAP. Many thanksMalke 2010 (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Xellas Posting Uncivil Personal Attacks

Stuck

 – Warned & taken to ANI.

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

User:Xellas is personally attacked my character and integrity in Momusufan's talk page because of what I wrote in Location hypotheses of Atlantis. They include innuendo and speculation falsely implying that I either support Robert Sarmast, I am Robert Sarmast, or have some vendetta against him. Also, he or she falsely claimed that my contributions contain "details" that "Sarmast never spoke or published anything to". Presumably, this falsehood is evidence of his spurious allegation that I am either conspiring with Sarmast or actually am Sarmast. In addition, concerning the Location hypotheses of Atlantis, he or she stated:

Have you seen any other theory to be debunked in here? Of course not!!

Here he falsely implies that the only editing that I have done on this article has been on its Cyprus section. Given that I have edited and contributed text to sections of Location hypotheses of Atlantis about Antarctica, Azores, Canary Islands, and Sundaland. his statement "Of course not!!" is completely false. As a review of my posting history shows, I was editing and contributing to Wikipedia articles long before I did any editing of Location hypotheses of Atlantis. His or her comments about me clearly violate Wikiquette. He or she needs to cease posting these fraudulent and uncivil allegations and retract the fictional claims and allegations that have been posted so far.

Recent discussion about User:Xellas and the Location hypotheses of Atlantis article can be found at User talk:Xellas Paul H. (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provde precise diffs rather than pointing to entire Talk pages? --HighKing (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started a section about the article in question at WP:FTN#Location hypotheses of Atlantis. Looie496 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments that I am referring to are currently the bottom paragraphs by Xellas of the section, Regarding the vandalsim of Location of atlantis, which is currently at the bottom of the Momusufan's talk page. Instances of the false accusations of being someone, whom I am not are:

No geologist would spent his time with a failure like sarmast unless is Robert himself or knows him very well and either a conflict or sympathizes with his work.

and

Ok Paul? Or Should I say ok Sarmast.

In the above statements, Xellas is falsely implying that I am someone, whom I am not, and have hidden agendas that I do not have. In order to support these claims, he or she falsely claimed:

How come you know his work in details when Sarmast never spoke or published anything to that extend?

The material that I contributed to Location hypotheses of Atlantis contains only information that I found on either his book, his website, or a web site about the The Urantia Book to which Sarmast contributed articles (and found using Google). Xellas' claim that I have inside knowledge of Sarmast's ideas is an absolute falsehood.

Overall, his or her comments focus mainly on attacking me and my motives for contributing to Location hypotheses of Atlantis, which uncivil behavior on his or her part. Paul H. (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Hi Paul. This is weird as you so obviously disagree with Sarmast, who is an editor on here - he's emailed me saying who he is and doesn't seem to be keeping it a secret, but he hasn't edited in quite a while. I told Xellas you weren't Sarmast. This is a bungled attempt at outing by the way, perhaps another Admin can step in and help here? I don't think it would be appropriate for me to take action. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Raised at ANI, Xellas given a warning by another editor. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I believe this is a threat to my person (direct or implied) and would like to know if I am correct.

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding clarified.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GabrielVelasquez&diff=311788222&oldid=311757130
not that I am afraid of User:BatteryIncluded but i don't see that this kind of behavior should accepted.
The context is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BatteryIncluded&diff=311784400&oldid=311202540
Copied from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_and_survival&diff=311778738&oldid=311764686
Thank you for your consideration. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are over reacting to the posting "Chronic disruption at its best. I think you deserve the Karma heading your way." It is critical and obscurely incivil. It is no threat to your person, direct or implied. So your belief is incorrect. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a threat, and probably not even uncivil. I note there is a WQA report about you directly above - some of your comments there were uncivil. Unfortunately, this WQA report will only be seen in the light of the report above, and may lead to the conclusion that you are attempting to make a point and/or game the system. My advise is to keep a cool head and close this WQA. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, imo this is just misunderstood. I get where you're coming from, but it's not a threat. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Per HighKing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

personal attacks cont

Hi - I noticed that my posting got archived without there ever being a resolution (here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive71#personal attacks, accusations presuming bad faith)... Should I repost anything; is it still ongoing or has it been dropped on the floor? Luminifer (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WQA, as a voluntary process for everybody concerned, frequently ends without a resolution. If you feel that unacceptable behavior is continuing, the next step is to escalate, either to an RFCU or, if you feel that immediate admin intervention is called for, to WP:ANI. Generally speaking a WQA is treated as a "warning", and you're not likely to be able to get any action unless you can show that bad behavior has continued after the "warning". Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification! Luminifer (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:The Squicks

Please straighten this guy out about his language and maybe his thinking. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The language by The Squicks was not needed. The thinking looks sound in the reversion, just not in the text attached, as I read it. I would suggest gaining wp:consensus before trying to add the content again. You have been reverted 3 times by 2 different editors. A step back would be wise.- sinneed (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He's been given a note by an admin already. Mbhiii, you failed to notify the subject of the WQA - I've done so for you in this case, but please ensure you do so in the future. As for your own editing, Sinneed has summed it up well - seek consensus as edit-warring is not the solution. See also my comments at the subject's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

:::The edit war continues. - sinneed (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Unrelated, I followed Mbhiii to Yankee Doodle and confused myself. Apologies if I confused anyone else.- sinneed (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Karkeixa

User User talk:Karkeixa (accused of Spamming, accused of going against the WP:3rr, acussed of vandalism) is close to the insult of my (and others, and organisations and everyone that has no his point of view) in Talk:Leonese language of multiple things without proofs. I think that this actitude is against Wikipedia good faith policy, wikipedia etiquette policy, and that this actitude must end, specially because he has been advertised. Thank you and I'm at your disposal for clarifying everything.--Auslli (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A related wp:SOCK investigation is ongoing. Until that is resolved I don't have much to offer. I must defer to wiser and smarter folk who might. :) - sinneed (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you by your attention. I Want to finish with this matter as soon s possible and continue working in wikipedia, specially in the articles and Projects I like. Thank you again for your time. --Auslli (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User: ChildofMidnight - uncivil editing behavior

Stale

Nja²⁴⁷

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

---

User:ChildofMidnight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

has recently been creating an uncivil editing environment at the Barney Frank article. This behavior includes edit warring, belittling other editors' content in edit summaries, and repeated insertion of content despite requests to allow the relevant discussion on the article's talk page to take place.

I started to become more involved in the article after I saw that User:ChildofMidnight may have been engaging in edit warring by repeatedly attempting to insert a particular piece of information, despite objections from another editor [76], [77], [78], [79]. Between the third and fourth attempt to insert, I posted a comment on his talk page

"Please also understand that the WP:BLP policy applies to the entire article, not just those sentences that refer to Barney Frank directly. Also, your argument that it is 'well sourced' does not trump BLP policies"

At this point, I performed my first and only revert ever of this disputed content [80], stating WP:UNDUE as my reason in the edit summary. Before my revert, rougly one third of the "early life" section of the article was about Frank's father's connection to organized crime. Shortly thereafter, I joined a discussion on his talk page, in which he followed my above comment with

"...So you guys should cut out the bullshit and false accusations because that's a blockable offense..."

Administrator User:Chillum intervened, and agknowledged that both sides of the argument were legitemate, and suggested that we discuss the disputed content on Talk:Barney Frank. I then went and created this section on the talk page, where I and several other editors are discussing the addition of this content. This morning, ChildofMidnight made this edit, with the summary

"if we can't have accurate encyclopedic statements then there's no room for this bullshit puffery in the opening paragraphs"

and then proceeded to insert the information he attempted to add before for a fifth time [81]. I now see that very shorly before I created the talk page section, ChildofMidnight created one as well, where he says that

"For some reason a couple of editors are going ballistic over Frank's well sourced statement that his father was involved with the mafia. What's the big deal?"

The editor that ChildofMidnight was going back and forth with before I became a part of the situation is User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I think that if this behavior continues, people are going to get baited, and it will be extremely difficult to work on the article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is basically an informal way of intervening with editors who may not be aware that their behavior is problematic. CoM doesn't fit that description: he's been the subject of numerous WQA and ANI threads, and he has been topic-banned from Obama articles. So this report isn't going to accomplish anything -- if the behavior is unacceptable from an experienced editor, report it at ANI. Looie496 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I've been dragged to these boards numerous times by various POV pushers posting lies, distortions and other nonsense after coming after me because they disagree with the way I edited something. Once or twice a dimwitted admin, unable to comprehend the simplest of situations, even blocks me. It does get old after a while. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah well there you go. CoM just won't listen. As L said, this venue isn't enough. Read up WP:DR; RFC is probably your next step William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: a need for further action also arose here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_ChildofMidnight. In view of CoM's response above, it's hard to imagine a constructive outcome from a WP:RFC/U ("An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information."); but it could collect information for appropriate sanction. However where an editor has a history such as this and a constructive outcome is wildly improbable, ANI might serve better. Rd232 ^talk 09:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to squeeze that WP:CIVIL muscle, CoM; your language speaks volumes. --King Öomie 12:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Distortions? I don't feel like digging around for it, but I can recally CoM claiming I'd said things I never said, and never responding when challenged. He's a good editor at times, but he's problematic and worse at other times. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see those diffs Doug. But thanks for the pile on! ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would just point out what a joke it is to have editors come to my talk page to accuse me of "inventing words unsupported by the source" and telling me to "Cut out the crap that you know perfectly well is complete bad faith" when I add a perfectly reasonable bit that's fully supported by a reliable source. Then these same editos complain to admins that I'm uncivil. But maybe you guys have a different idea of civility than I do. I know R2d2 does, I've seen his behavior first hand and it's grotesque. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, OK, sorry, I guess your response to the above post discouraged me from looking at the situation as a whole: "Indeed, I've been dragged to these boards numerous times by various POV pushing fuckwits posting lies, distortions and other nonsense after coming after me because they disagree with the way I edited something. Once or twice a dimwitted admin, unable to comprehend the simplest of situations, even blocks me. It does get old after a while."[82] Such incivility (on this page! the irony), rather than any serious attempt to defuse the situation, prompted my comments. (In any case, someone else would be better placed to examine the situation, since anything I would say short of complete exoneration wouldn't go down well.) Rd232 ^talk 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, when someone comes to your talk page, calls you a liar, tells you that you're editing in bad faith, reverts your good faith edit as "vandalism", and then complains on a noticeboard that you're uncivil, it's hard to take their comments seriously. The edits were perfectly legitimate. The incivility came from those attacking me. I'm human, so when people behave like complete assholes I have a tendency to treat them as such. And from what I've seen you and WMC are not particularly civil or respectful to other editors, so as far as ironies go, the two of you lecturing on how others should behave seems a little bit ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if that's how you see it, that's how you have to explain it. Could just be a brief oneliner, referring to wherever those comments were made. Rd232 ^talk 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect world when someone comes harassing a good faith editor on their talk page with a bunch of personal attacks and incivilities, at least one admin would step forward to discourage them from doing so and ask that they focus on article improvement and content issues. But instead we have this gamesmanship and drama mongering where the civility policy and noticeboards are used as cudgels to go after editors in content disputes. And guys like Connolley look out for their friends and go after anyone who dares disagree with them. What can I tell you? We have puffery sourced to Bill Clinton's speechwriter in the opening paragraph of an article (that isn't discussed anywhere in the body) while well sourced encyclopedic content is omitted because POV pushing editors don't want it mentioned that Frank's dad and his dad's business in Bayonne New Jersey had mafia ties. If they want to keep it out, then do it. But don't come accusing me of "gross" BLP violations, or misrepresenting sources, or vandalism, for trying to write an accurate article and being unwilling to expect our readers to guess what "Frank's father ran a Jersey City truck stop—a place Frank describes as 'totally corrupt'" means. I thought we were supposed to spell things out, not spin things to our liking and personal politics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "In a perfect world when someone comes harassing a good faith editor..."... The thing is, tallying up the numerous AN/Is, WQAs, ArbCom, etc... "good faith" is no longer a term that can be applied to you. WP:AGF is not a shield for terminal, habitual, bad-faith behavior. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

re: "...at least one admin would step forward to discourage them from doing so and ask that they focus on article improvement and content issues.": Ahhh, yes. You would think that at least one admin would be willing to say something when people make assumptions that should not have been made, and others badger and harrass an editor. tsk, tsk, maybe someday someone will be willing to step up. </sarcasm> I'll be the first to admit that there are times that CoM's responses make me cringe. The fact is however that CoM is spot on in this case. A few editors tend to deny the fact that well sourced and verifiable information exists, and continually remove that information which they feel paints their "heroes" in bad light. I have to wonder what would happen if we tried to counter some of the blatant puffery in the lead with some well sourced counter-point views by folks like ... ahhh, I don't know - say Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck etc. Should CoM tone it down? .... Sure. But when editors stick to the rules, provide well sourced information that gets deleted for reasons that I can not fathom, and then get baited on their own talk page, then I can understand a bit of "telling it like it is". And that's the way it is, on Wednesday September 9th, 2009. Have a good day, and may the force be with you. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Ched. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know ChildofMidnight's editing ways that well, but after reading the information here and seeing his first comment...I must say he does have an attitude problem. Calling admins "dimwitted" isn't needed. Also, I highly doubt everyone that starts a discussion on him is instantly just wrong in every case. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ched and myself are of the view that ChildofMidnight needs to tone it, but there may have been mitigating circumstances at times, including in this case. Could you point me to which user here (other than you) suggested, let alone asserted the view that whoever "starts a discussion on him is instantly just wrong in every case"? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I said that seemed to be his view...because of his first post. He is just dismissing all discussions on him as "nonsense" if they are brought up on boards. I don't think any other people here said anything about it, if that's what you mean. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, and yes, that does seem to be true. But I don't think it's difficult to appreciate why ChildOfMidnight may have an urge to dismiss noticeboard discussions, admins, and other things, given the history. At least half of his block log consists of entries where an admin was executing/reversing unjustified actions, or those which could have done with a bit more thought. As far as I'm aware, those also came about from noticeboard discussions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well said Ncmvocalist — Ched :  ?  00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Cult church informational page being sabotaged by current church members

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – WP:NPOVN or WP:ANI.

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse

I was a member of this church for nearly 10 years of my childhood. I am currently in therapy because of it. But that's beside the point. The article detailing the truth about this church is constantly being sabotaged by current church members, being replaced by a very nice-nice benign small paragraph about how it's just a regular church. If you look at the revision history, just today they have changed it at least six times, and I have been refreshing the page and changed it back just as many times.

I don't know if there's anything that can be done, if the article can be locked up or something. It has been changed by different IP addresses on different days. Today, it's been 81.138.10.158 , previously, it has been 82.2.31.240 , user Jjburt, and numerous others. (Up until 5 minutes ago, I was IP # 68.9.22.155)

At one time, the discussion page was completely blanked as well. I undid that, and it looks like user WBardwin was kind enough to format it and make it look pretty.

You can imagine how aggravating this is, the back-and-forth, over and over again, an uphill battle. I hope something can be done.

O0pandora0o (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Re the article being locked: A lot of the editing seems to be from unregistered accounts, so you could file a request for semi-protection. That won't prevent determined editors from changing it, but it'll limit damage from drive-by editors.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Both versions of the article being edit warred over are defective. What is needed is engagement on the talk page; I have filed a request for semi-protection, reported 81.138.10.158 at 3rr, and stripped out the portions of the article for which the sourcing problem is made acute by BLP problems. My suggestion is that you all talk this through on the talk page.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help with this. I will be pulling citations from articles on the Rick Ross site to back up the info on the "Instances of Mental Abuse" section. I'm not sure that the other people involved will necessarily want to come forth to the talk page, as they just seem to be happy with drive-by editing. I'm not sure they even know that the talk page exists, except for that one Minister who posted that one time. But we will see.

Thank you again! O0pandora0o (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WQA is the wrong forum for problems like this -- it is an early-stage mechanism for dealing with problematic behavior by individual editors. The place for this is the NPOV noticeboard, WP:NPOVN, or if the problem requires quick admin intervention, WP:ANI. You won't get any useful results here. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

True enough that this was the wrong forum. But s/he did get a useful result: s/he got assistance from an editor who understood what remedies were available and how to pursue them, leading to the stabalization of the situation. I tend to think that actually helping rather than grousing that someone with no reason to know better doesn't know better is the better strategy, what say you? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Abusive language by disruptive editor

Resolved

 – IP blocked.

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

---

User:76.75.4.195 has proven themselves to be a pretty disruptive editor, trying to make a point on Sublime (band)--the editor is arguing that Sublime without the original singer and guitar player, now dead, is not Sublime, and that the singer and guitar player who is slated to play on the Sublime reunion, a guy called "Rome", is being added to the WP article in defiance of the spirit of the original band. Moreover, WP editors who comment on his disruptive edits are said, on the talk page, to be sucking Rome's cock, and they are fags to boot. Well, I'm not a prude, but that seems a little bit too rude here. Your advice is appreciated. I understand this board is not the place to ask for a block, but I am unsure which path to pursue here--the editor is rude and boorish, takes extensive liberties with the English language (I do not approve of "douche" as an abbreviation of "douchebag"), and acts in a disruptive manner. Thank you for your concern; please wash your hands after looking at the editor's contributions. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 12 hours. Dreadstar ☥ 05:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Abductive

Stale

I thought the matter of User:Abductive not assuming good faith with me had been dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another personal attack on an AFD and when another editor reproached him here [83], but now there has been another attack from him here [84], and I think this is the best forum to discuss it.

Both examples represent incivility and bad faith in assuming that an editor has ulterior motives. Both are an attack on my good standing as an editor who does his best to follow WP rules. I think Abductive should try to concentrate more on the issues at hand and not other editors possible motivations. Johnfos (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything particularly wrong with that edit... or the original edit you complained about either, for that matter. It looks like you are choosing to read every comment in the worst possible light and running off to complain about it. The underlying issue is that he has legitimate complaints about your behavior not following Wikipedia policies. If you don't want him to point out your bad behavior, stop the bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you [85], I've never been blocked so my behaviour can't be that bad. Johnfos (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty bizarre bit of reasoning. So anyone who has never been punished yet hasn't done anything wrong? How convenient. Unfortunately POV pushers don't get blocked as often as people accused of not being as civil as someone else demands them to be, despite POV pushing being a far worse offense. Lots of POV pushers game the system by reporting that people are treating them as if they did something wrong even though they are breaking the basic, fundamental principles of this site and people have a right to be mad at them. So, I repeat, if you don't want people to point out your bad behavior, stop the bad behavior. It doesn't look like you have any intention of listening, so with any luck maybe a block will finally be headed your way. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked so many times [86] that for someone like me your credibility as an editor is zilch. I just don't pay much attention to what you say anymore. From my point of view, you are always ranting on about something or other, providing little constructive input. Johnfos (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Johnfos, if you wish to avoid having sanctions imposed on you, please stop engaging in disruptive and unseemly conduct, and move on. Following and commenting about DreamGuy (talk · contribs)'s contributions or block log, when it is unrelated/immaterial to the matter at hand, suggests that you may hound any editor who has no findings against Abductive (talk · contribs)'s conduct. Crossmr (talk · contribs) already told you that there was nothing that resembled an attack in your original ANI complaint, and he pointed out what the actual matter was. Similarly, Chamal N (talk · contribs) and TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) already indicated that dropping it, rather than hounding Abductive again, is the way to go. The fact that you still brought it here after the issue was resolved at ANI suggests you are simply not getting it - forum-shopping, wikihounding, incivility and assuming bad faith are not the solution. DreamGuy was spot-on when he told you (above) "it looks like you are choosing to read every comment in the worst possible light and running off to complain about it" and that if you don't want others "to point out your bad behavior, stop the bad behavior". Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnfos, as you very well know, consensus was that it was not a personal attack as was explained both here and here. I really don't see any reason for you to keep going on about this unless you have a personal grudge against this editor. Your comment above on DreamGuy's block log on the other hand, is a borderline personal attack and a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. If that is the way you respond to someone who was trying to help you, your own block log may not be clean much longer for you to brag about. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If I deserve to be blocked, please do so. Or if I deserve a formal warning on my Talk page, fine. I am in the denouement of my time on Wikipedia. Johnfos (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)