Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive85

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

Polish people in the Waffen-SS

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: Discuss at Talk:London_Victory_Parade_of_1946 Gerardw (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This edit [1] is troubling. I don't see any verifiable evidence or sourcing to suggest there were Polish people in the Waffen-SS, the paramilitary arm of the German Nazi Party which adhered to theories of racial superiority and conducted genocide against Poles as well as Jews and other groups. Moreover, the edit adds information that is not specifically connected the article, and seems to be some kind of WP:OR. The edit returns after several removals of similar content, and may indicate a long-term WP:TE issue or a breakdown of WP:conflict resolution. The edit is an example of the months of trouble going on at London Victory Parade of 1946, and in my opinion is the tip of the iceberg. Comments, and intervention, most welcome. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Might I refer you to Anthony Sawoniuk? He was a Pole, joined the Waffen SS, changed sides to join the 10th Hussar Regiment of the Polish II Corps and was later convicted by a British court of war crimes, i.e. murdering Jews as part of the holocaust. Interestingly, the same unit contained Szymon Serafinowicz, who was also tried by a British court for war crimes. Unfortunately Serafinowicz's trial was halted due to ill-health. The current wording is because you couldn't accept "served under German command" but it is also more accurate: only Poles who were eligible to join the Deutsche Volksliste were able to join the Wehrmacht but all Poles were eligible to join the SS (although there was of course no Polish SS unit for them to join). But with that said, I'd have no objection to the wording being "served under German command" if you would prefer that the words Waffen SS are not used.
I would submit that the number of Poles who fought under German command most certainly is relevant to the article (should we really be surprised that 35% of the Western Command Poles, i.e. the percentage who had fought against Britain, were not invited to take part?) and it is more relevant than the extended quote from Rees' conclusion or the views of Polish troops on post-war peace treaties. Varsovian (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You submit that it is relevant to the London Victory Parade of 1946. But as far as I can see, no verifiable source does. That seems to be a WP:OR issue. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The first verifiable source that comes to mind for me would be I know that editors who don't understand Polish will have a problem reading that article but, and please do correct me if I'm wrong here, you speak Polish and so will have no problem. Varsovian (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't speak Polish - I use Google Translator. Is there a reference to the London Victory Parade of 1946 in this source of yours? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This is the first time I've done one of these so please tell me if you think not. Would it be better placed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably not: it says there "To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution." It also says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." and you have not done that. This is purely a content dispute. I've already put forward my solution to the dispute. Varsovian (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, continue on the article talk, and if you feel unable to come to consensus consider WP:THIRD or WP:RFC. Gerardw (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:Wiggalama

This user has made multiple edits to the Deadliest Warrior article that contradict Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS policies. So, to help find a way of including the content they wanted to incorporate into the article, I left an post on their talk page ([2]). The post is civil, polite, and explains in detail the problems with the content they posted. In response, they left a comment on my talk page that barely makes sense, but does include personal insults based on my sexuality ([3]).

I'm interested in helping to improve this article. If I remove the content they've added based on the previously mentioned WIkipedia policies, he obviously is just going to add it back again, and there's clearly no point in talking to him about the problem. What should happen? -Hooliganb (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears as though the content in question has already been removed by other editors. -Hooliganb (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is ludacris. The post of his was rude and arrogant, with the view of superiority throught. Since he decided to put it directly on my page I also added discussions about what was on his page with my opinions. I never went into ad homenims, and why should someone be allowed to post personal information on their own page and further not have it up for debate? Why give them a slot where they are the first hand contributors to their opinions expressed? Is Wikipedia truely so low as to give such positive reinforcement for the sake of keeping volunteer editors happy? I did not attack his sexuality, but claimed that the way he supports his view is in error, and that I disagree with it as well. I have not bothered to add it(the addition on Dealiest Warrior) back as he is clearly a dogmatist about the article despite all of my and others attempts at talking about the historical inaccuracies of the show that have been cited by several experts that are relevant. While I am at it, I recommend having sexuality banned from personal wiki pages so as to avoid such a sensitive matter. Also, I am interested in improving the Deadliest Warrior article as well, and have shown much more respect and courtisy than he in dealing with the article. I would go so far as to say he should be suspended for his inappropriate behavior, but that is naturally for better and/or for worse your decision among others. Wiggalama (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. Gerardw (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User Under The IP

I was browsing some AfDs and come across an already closed one on a deleted discussion which can be found here. I seen that this anonymous editor under the IP address told people "to get fucked" after stating why the article should be kept. If you look at the contributions of this IP, you will notice that all it shows is a !vote on the AfD discussion. Here is the information where this IP originates from if anybody is curious. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a stale incident, there's no history, and it's an IP editor. While the comment is obviously inappropriate there really isn't much to be done. Gerardw (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Stalking from User:Snowded

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: content dispute Gerardw (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my poor english. My english skill is not good. so, i attacked by fluent english editor. I blocked as 3rr by this user report, after that, This user try to stalking all my edits, and continually reverting and give warning to me. Even I point out wrong edit. he did not discuss topic, and try to accusing me as bad editor. I have a right reason to revert POV and vandalism, hoax edit, I have a right reason to edit But, he is a fluent english speaker, so he can depict me as vandalism editor by his fluent english skill. I really feel unfair. Even admin believe this user than me. I really feel unfair. I know My english skill is not good, so i have not persuade skill. I can't point out what is the wrong edit by this user. I can't touch any edit by this user. I want discuss and editing article. I'm not want engaging edit war. He try to harrasing every single my edits, I can't point out Even '100% wrong'(hoax) edit by this user. I want espacing from this bad faith user's stalking. 660gd4qo (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

block record and 3RR report. Straight back from block and making exactly the same edits. Not sure s/he understands what stalking is about--Snowded TALK 19:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
admin believe this user than me. admin UNFAIRY block me. I already punished by you. After realese, I continually purnished by you? I can't edit any thing by this stalker. Even i have a enough evidence. 660gd4qo (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking at this edit. Why are you removing sourced material? --NeilN talk to me 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
POV and content Forking.[4] It was edited by throw away newbie acct (account for this topic). It was not major delete. I was "return"(revert) to before this newbie acct edit. and it was not actually sourced material. unclear offline book name reference. we can't confirm its sources. And i point out several 100% HOAX edit. 660gd4qo (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a closer look but two points here: 1) "Newbies" are free to edit as much as established editors are. We judge contributions on content, not on who made them. 2) References to books are perfectly valid (assuming we can verify the existence of the book) as we can go to a library to verify the cite backs up the content. --NeilN talk to me 19:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but the Snowded keep reverting exactly same edit. and vio 3rr. Would you have a quick look?

[5] revert exactly

[6] revert exactly

[7] revert exactly

[8] revert exactly

[9] revert exactly 660gd4qo (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick looks shows an incredible mess, and no stalking.
I am unwilling to repeat Snowded's revert, as it reverts to another damaged version, but this present state is not acceptable, as "South Korea" did not exist in the 19th century, and the FIERCE POV push does not belong.
I would encourage the editor to create this article in his or her native tongue, then request that it be translated, as the current method seems to be failing, and the editor professes a strong language barrier.- Sinneed 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in the Korean article in question but a cursory glance at the history of that article shows that you, 660gd4qo are the cause of the problems there. I am not sure whether it is simply you poor understanding of the English language that is your problem or your unwillingness to abide by the conventions of Wikipedia or a combination of both but it is apparent that you are the architect of this entire mess. I recommend you stop editing the English Wikipedia until your grasp of the language is sufficient for you to properly understand what is going on here. You make personal attacks on other editors and complain that they are therefore somehow at fault. You accuse an editor of stalking you, when in fact all I can see is that editor trying to fix up the incredible mess you have made of the article. If you want to continue to edit the English Wikipedia then please take the advice you have already been given and find yourself a mentor and pay close attention to what he or she tells you. Please cease and desist from your disruptive editing patterns, thay are of such a scale that they themselves are a Wikiquette issue. If you really feel you must make further changes to the article, then please discuss them on the talk page first and then abide by the concensus - and if you can't reach consensus on a particular edit DO NOT MAKE IT. - Nick Thorne talk 22:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur that 660gd4qo edits' have been inappropriate (they're currently) blocked, but looking at the 11 April version of the article (before they started editing) the article was still a mess. An entire section of unsourced POV edits. Gerardw (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Snowded still edit warred. It was not blatant vandalism. All of the talk of seeing the talk page in Snowded's edit summaries but he is was edit warring himselfCptnono (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's not a WQA issue. Frankly I think this case should be closed as "not a WQA issue". If someone wants to report edit warring, this is not the place. - Nick Thorne talk 05:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz "your English sucks"

The fact that your English sucks and you think you can contribute to the English Wikipedia is your problem, not mine". Is it acceptable to talk to another editor this way? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. I've left the editor a note to the effect on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


This, by Guettarda appears to be pigeonholing of another editor. That comment follows one by this editor calling part of the other editor's proposed text, "worthless". These statements don't appear to me to be very conducive to a productive talk page discussion, but I would welcome a second opinion. Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We comment on edits, not editors ... I see a whack of edits that go against policy, and Guettarda called him on it by commenting on those edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't see anything particularly wrong with either diff given. Gerardw (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
"Worthless" was a poorly chosen word. It's not nice to have your effort described as "worthless". Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
True that ... but without prior attempts to discuss, a lack of negative history regarding the editor, a WQA filing is also somewhat premature. Calling it "pigeonholing" has WP:ABF all over it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WP Talkpage being used to discuss editor; canvassing

An editor seems to be using the Israel-Palestine Collaboration talk page to launch personal complaints about another editor. While some level of user commentary can be expected on talk pages, saying you are posting to "warn" other editors about a specific user is, in my opinion, misuse of a Wikiproject talk page. I would appreciate it if another editor could take a look and chime in. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 08:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the comments belong in a user WP:RFC, not an article talk page, as already pointed out by other editors on the talk page. Gerardw (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would add that the below reflects further contemporaneous canvassing, etc. against me of similar ilk, by the same editor:

--Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't see this as a big deal -- per WP:CANVASS I'd classify the notices as "friendly" Gerardw (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
"Friendly" is limited, among other things, to messages that are neutral. It is also limited to messages that do not appear to be attempts to influence a discussion.
The above messages are clearly not neutral, and are obviously attempts to influence a discussion. Precisely the type of canvassing we see here is described at wp:canvass as improper Votestacking and Campaigning.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
All I've done is what I felt was a biased editing pattern of Epeefleche on a particular messageboard. I don't see how I've defamed epeefleche in any way. I simply wanted to bring the issue to like minded editors.
As for the canvassing charge it is plain false. All the editors above had made prior contributions to the articles in question, I didn't select them at random. Epeefleche has shown a pattern on the Steve Emerson article of ignoring the rules of trying to reach a consensus and simply reverting my edits even though another editor John Z said he agreed with my edits. annoynmous 09:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Sense Epeefleche won't let this go I'll address them once again. John Z contibuted to the article and talk page before I ever posted on his page. He agreed with my edits and I simply asked him to perserve my edits when I went to asleep. Epeefleche also continually refuses to mention that one of those posts was in response to intimidating posts he left on my talk page.
As for Carelmooredc, for proper contect here are the intial edits I made to his page:
I don't know if you've checked in on this article lately, but it's now highly slanted against Arian. This is due largely to the editor Epeefleche. I thought about making edits to it, but I've been involved in some nasty edit wars recently and don't feel like getting into another long drawn out fight at this moment. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. annoynmous 04:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't feel like a fight either - except I'm the fighting Irish so I probably won't be able to control myself... :-) Also will alert some folks if you haven't on a couple relevant pages. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It was after these edits that I made the comments above that epeefleche listed. As you see it was carelmooredc who intially suggested the idea of contacting other people, not me. annoynmous 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I clearly feel these are canvassing based on WP:CANVASS which says "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." Annoynmous clearly has a view of what he considers a preferred outcome, and was attempting to get others to "make sure no one reverts," to "restore" his edits, and to try and find like-minded individuals to edit the page(s). This of course is an effort to edit the article via tagteam to assure his POV is maintained, and to develop consensus by other means. Not good, in my view.

Would like to add that I was offended by the original post put up at I-P collab both in connection with Epeefleche and with Jayjg, whom he also felt fit to insult. However, it is unsurprising that he did attempt to put them up at I-P collab, for while it claims to be collaborative, or should I say pretends to be, it is in fact a group that comes down heavily on one side only. Stellarkid (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The examples provided show canvassing or attempted tagteaming. The "like minded editors" comment reeks of bad form. A warning that such comments are not acceptable would be completely justified if he is not already aware of the standards.Cptnono (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Once again I only left messages on John Z's page after he contributed to the article and talk page. I merely informed him that epeefleche had reverted my edits and that he was intimidating me on my talk page. Same thing for Carelmooredc, I merely asked him if he wanted to contribute to the article. Canvassing is posting messages on random editors pages who have nothing to do with the article and attempting to sway there opinion. If people have contributed to the article in the past, Canvassing guidelines allow you to post on there talk pages as long as you aren't trying to convince them of something. If you look at both John Z and carelmooredcs talk pages you will see I didn't need to convince them of anything.
As for the noticeboard, I'm sorry I used the jayjg comparison intially and have removed that from the article heading. However, once again I wasn't advocating any ban or discipline against epeefleche, I was just alerting people to what I felt was a biased editing pattern. I didn't call him names or make any accusations about him, I just expressed my opinion of his edits.
Also I must say it's pretty rich for stellarkid to go off on the I/P noticeboard after his and epeefleches antics on the steve merson article. Epeefleche refused to discuss a consensus and arbitrally removed both tags and edits without discussion on the talk page. Epeefleche recently engaged in a failed attempt to ban me by falsely claiming I violated the 3rr. Stellarkid contributed to this by claiming that an edit I made was a revert when it wasn't. As I said on the Emerson talk page it seemed like both editors were less interested in reaching a consensus than they were looking for a reason to get me banned so I would go away. annoynmous 04:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
To Clear up this matter with John Z in particular here are some posts from my talk page:
Sami Al-Arian‎
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how, no 3rr violations, and he has been quite forthcoming in discussion. He has hardly edited the article except for the tag, which I also support. Ism, please stop making gigantic changes without consensus. Like declaring disputes over unilaterally, that is not normal procedure. I strongly oppose the changes. Epee is neutral, and annoynmous hasn't weighed in. John Z (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Steven Emerson
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steven Emerson‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You are tag-bombing the article, and edit warring. It is not sufficient to say "I don't like" this book by MacMillan, but I like and will shove in this non-RS piece. That's not even consistent. And your tag needs legitimate reasons behind it -- you aren't supplying any. You are forcing in wildly non-RS material, while deleting RS material. Please stop. Conversation on the talk page seems not to affect your editing. Epeefleche (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As it has continued, I've now raised the issue of your behavior here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As you can see John Z agreed that the editor Ism Schism was abusing me when I hadn't violated any rules. When Epeefleche tried the same thing I alerted John Z hoping he would speak on my behalf. When epeefleche falsely claimed I violated the 3rr I again asked John Z to speak on my behalf because he agreed with my edits to the article and I wanted to show that epeefleche was the real edit warrior, not me. annoynmous 04:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

anti-masonry author

Resolved: Filing party will not pursue the matter.

I am reporting behaviour by Blueboar on the discussion page of Anti-Masonry which violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. His comments are disrespectful at best, include obscenities, a personal attack, and a personal view point. --BlueRider12 19:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please post diffs, notify the user, and correct your custom signature per WP:CUSTOMSIG. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No need to notify me... as for diffs... just take a quick look at Talk:Anti-Masonry and you will see the situation. Not sure why "BlueRider12" insists on removing the fact that his normal user page is Bpell (talkcontribs). I assume he wishes to change his user name and does not know how to do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My view is that Blueboar has not breached Wikipedia’s code of conduct.

Bpell (also known as BlueRider12) displays strong views, perhaps extreme views, that are not compatible with an encyclopedia. Such views are always likely to arouse strong passions on Wikipedia. Bpell should practise objective thinking, focussing on what is factual or what can be supported by sound evidence, rather than focussing on opinions that are either strongly-expressed or attractive.

All Users should sign their names on Talk pages using four tildes. Bpell is not doing so. If he wants to change username to BlueRider12 this can be done. See WP:Changing username.

These two Users are managing to antagonise each other very successfully. It would be in everyone’s interests if they both took a rest from Anti-Masonry for a while.

Blueboar has written Actually, Wikipedia does not have a 'No obscenities' policy. (See diff) In fact, Wikipedia does have WP:PROFANITY. Also see Should Wikipedia Use Profanity? The Wikipedia community is an extremely diverse one, with a broad spectrum of acceptable behaviours. Behaviour that is acceptable to one small group of Users won’t always be acceptable to the general Wikipedia community. Obscenities don’t constitute objective language so they don’t promote good content on Wikipedia and they don’t help explain what Users are trying to say. In an encyclopedia it is much more effective for Users to demonstrate they have the skill to say what they mean without having to resort to meaningless obscenities. Dolphin (t) 23:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:PROFANITY really refers to article content and not talk page content... but the point is taken and accepted. Next time I will use a less "obscene" word. thank you for taking the time to look into this, Dolphin. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Consult WP:CIVIL for the specifics of using profanity on a talkpage. --King Öomie 03:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I went and looked at that page, and it talks about profanity directed at another contributor, not profanity directed at theories. BS is a common shorthand for patently false material that hasn't a leg to stand on, not a directed insult. As we are here on wikipedia to discuss and improve content, and not to comment on personalities, calling the idea that are supported by the Taxil Hoax BS seems to be in keeping with commenting on content.--Vidkun (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moderate views, contrary to certain other people, and I am more objective than the average person, and such views are compatible with an encyclopedia. I find Dolphin's views to be very subjective. My views are based on facts as I have shown already but there are other facts, too, to back up my claim, but this will only arouse more opposition from biased people who like to deny the evidence and who use straw man arguments. I am not on Wikiqette alerts to debate that point. And I have no intention of continuing any debate on the articles talk page because I made my point already. It is not the point on this page and is irrelevant. It is a matter of civility. Also I do sign my name. Why is Dolphin saying I'm not?--BlueRider12 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am non-practising, secular, and atheistic, so I don't have a bias. And it is Dolphin who should learn objective thinking.

I see that this is not going anywhere so I am taking the matter to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, nonetheless, to all of you for your input. --BlueRider12 14:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

As the incivility was responded to on the article's discussion page and the discussion will not be continued I will not pursue the matter.--BlueRider12 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talkcontribs) 21:45, 3 May 2010

Ludwigs2's personal attacks on WP:ANI

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: Already at ANI. Both parties conduct not up to par; advised accordingly.

I am submitting this report on the advice of an administrator.

Ludwigs2 has been behaving disruptively on WP:ANI. During e failed attempt by Ludwigs2 to generate a topic ban on me, which has nosupport from the community or administrators, he made a series of personal attacks in the following thread:


This involved swearing, using the phrase "if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you", calling me an "inveterate ass", using the word "bitch-fest", and then writing, "Somehow I suspect the answers to those questions will always be the same... Also, they have some marvelous new therapies available for clinical manifestations of paranoia. How frequently do you have these fears that people are conspiring against you?"

Two administrators GeorgeWilliamHerbert [11] and Fences&Windows [12] gave Ludwigs2 some kind of warning. I requested that he redact his remarks and apologise. Ludwigs2 paid no attention to any of these remarks.

Comments of this type seem to be personal attacks, intended to cause offense, and are unacceptable on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm debating whether to
  1. to post diffs of the dozens of times that Mathsci has called me a POV-pusher (or worse), asserted that I was conspiring with others against him, launched all-out assaults on my character, and/or tried to get me banned from wikipedia, or
  2. let this silliness slide.
all of his claims above are taken out of context, except for the fact that I called him an inveterate ass, which strikes me as a factual assessment of his behavior rather than a personal attack.
If anyone is interested, I can easily justify any comment that Mathsci might have a problem with, and I will certainly apologize for any comment that I cannot justify. get him to post a diff of something he objects to, let me know, and we'll discuss the matter. --Ludwigs2 18:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
1 - So if Ludwigs2 assumes that he can justify his incivility, it's fine?
2 - Wow! Ludwigs2 justifies his own incivility. RfCU anyone?
Justifying your incivility does not excuse your incivility. If you cannot behave in a civil manner, take a break from Wikipedia until you can control your behavior.
WP:CIVIL states, "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment." --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this has any bearing on this report ( I don't frequent WQA ), but Ludwigs2 was recently blocked, then unblocked, seemingly in relation to comments wrt Mathsci. See [13]. –xenotalk 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Shit happens. It's of little consequence.
The way I see it, this is a great opportunity for Mathsci and I to settle our differences. If he's willing to engage the issue, we might be able to do that in a couple of different ways. I have an idea about that, which I'll float out if he asks. Or we can just discuss things and come to some type of mutual understanding. The operative question, of course, is whether he's willing to meet me half-way. that's up to him. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
[statement completely refactored as requested and resubmitted below] Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I admire Ludwigs2's responses here and on his talk.
Mathsci's response above is shockingly incivil. I hope he'll take some time to gather himself, then refactor it while providing diffs. --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned by Ludwigs2's behavior in this matter too, but I agree that Mathsci's response above was inappropriate. Mathsci, please strike your comment; it's an inappropriate personal attack. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. Mathsci (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If any progress is to be made on Mathsci’s complaint it is essential that he or she provide diffs to illustrate his complaint clearly. Here is an example of a diff. The links Mathsci provided above do not illustrate his complaint adequately to allow it to be considered seriously.

To find out about diffs and how to produce them, see WP:CDLG#How to harvest a diff and WP:DIFF . Dolphin (t) 00:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I provided the time-frozen passage from WP:ANI and two other admin diffs. But here are some of the diffs [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
that probably contributed to Ludwigs2's block. It's easier to read the whole passage in this case. As the diff I cited by Fences&Windows pointed out, Ludwigs2's edits involved hyperbole, swearing and and personal insults. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd welcome diffs as well. If Mathsci provides them, with an explanation of how the particular diffs have offended him, that will allow us to discuss them and reach some kind of understanding. I feel confident that anything I said is justifiable (or at least excusable), but I'm willing to keep an open mind about it and redress anything that needs to be redressed.
I'm not a liar, and while I might not be up to Mathsci's rather extensive level of contributions, I do enough. I'll add that it's hard for me to amass contributions when I find myself dragged through wikiquette, ANI, or other procedural headaches every time I do try and edit productively on some of the topics that interest me. hopefully that unfortunate circumstance will be resolved (in part, at least) here. But as I said, that is up to Mathsci: if he is willing to meet me half-way on this, we can move forward; if not... As Ronz suggested in my talk, I'd like it if Mathsci would do some refactoring to his post above, as well as providing appropriate diffs. Mathsci, would that be possible? --Ludwigs2 04:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
As someone who’s had to deal with the same behavior from Mathsci that Ludwig is describing here, I’d like to second the request that this be resolved somehow, although I’m also somewhat skeptical of whether Mathsci will be willing to put forth the effort necessary for that. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Diffs have been provided above. Strict adherence to wikipedia core policies seems to be the appropriate way to discuss civil POV-pushing edits by single purpose accounts editing only race-related articles. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

[refactored statement] Ludwigs2 's statements consistently misrepresent my own actions and statements. At the moment he appears to be enabling a series of single purpose POV-pushing accounts. He consistently describes phrases like that as uncivil, arrogant or even screaming, etc, etc. In the above passage on WP:ANI he was extremely abusive, without reason. He has claimed apparently that this abuse was somehow justified, but that seems to be a misrepresentation of events. His content editing record is meagre; for some reason he seems to have singled out a more experienced content editor for abusive comments. This unfortunately is not an isolated incident. Here is an example on wikipedia where I asked for help about an article on WP:NPOVN. He has never edited this article or its talk page and was not mentioned in any way in the request. But again the tone used in the edit is unmeasured and insulting: he swears and uses the word "paranoid grandstanding". These kinds of interruption, like the subthread he initiated on WP:ANI, usually have the effect of preventing a properly reasoned discussion and diverting attention from the real problem (the editing by the SPAs) as several administrators have pointed out. If Ludwigs2 disagrees with the analysis by myself and various administrators of the editing patterns of a small group of users, that is certainly no reason for him to make edits describing me as "paranoid" or "arrogant" or other forms of extreme and insulting rhetoric. In that sense, as here, whenever this small group of single purpose accounts has come under discussion, Ludwigs2's edits seems to have been consistently misrepresenting my own editing record. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC) rewritten by Mathsci Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither Ludwigs2 nor Mathsci has been entirely civil, but Mathsci's attempt to portray Ludwigs2 as having made gross attacks is completely unrealistic. I do not intend to go through each of Mathsci's claims one by one and analyse them, but by way of illustration I will deal with one of them. Mathsci says that Ludwigs2 said "if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you". Yes, that is true. The context in which it was said was an attempt to convey the message "some editors are so determined to support Mathsci that they would oppose a topic ban no matter how unreasonable Mathsci might be, if Mathsci physically threatened to kill you". This is a rhetorical exaggeration, and in its context could not reasonably be taken literally. Furthermore, it is a criticism not of Mathsci but of other editors. Mathsci has (both in this discussion and elsewhere) taken this quotation out of context, and tried to make it look like an attack on him/her. Having read through many of Mathsci's comments in various places I do not think that the misrepresentation by Mathsci is malicious, but rather he/she seems to have difficulty understanding the way other people communicate and a great difficulty understanding metaphor and other non-literal use of language. He/she has a strong tendency to see more malice than is intended. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have examined the six diffs provided by Mathsci to support his complaint against Ludwigs2. I have seen no evidence that Ludwigs2 has breached Wikipedia's WP:Code of conduct. I agree that some of Ludwigs2's statements have been a little aggressive, but clearly there is a lot of aggression, from all directions, on the Talk pages visited by these two Users. I think it will be in everyone's interests if both Mathsci and Ludwigs2 take a break from these particular articles for a while, and return ready to focus on content and not on personalities. If, at some time in the future, either Mathsci or Ludwigs2 perceives the other to be behaving unreasonably he should remain perfectly civil and report the behaviour, supported by the diff, at WP:WQA. Dolphin (t) 12:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Dolphin: the funny thing is, I don't want to take a break from the article (in part) for exactly the same reason that Mathsci doesn't. The article is a bit too pro-hereditarian, and both he and I would like to see it pull back towards a mainstream science perspective. he is calling for more extreme revisions than I currently think are necessary, of course, but that's incidental; the problem he and I are having is interpersonal and behavioral, not content-oriented. As I said at ANI, the main reason I would have liked Mathsci to be barred from the page was so that I could argue for NPOV revisions he would approve of without getting into fights with him (or anyone) about it. I communicate well with the other participants on the page, and if Mathsci would cease being uncivil to me and others on the page, we could make a lot of progress
Also, I would prefer to resolve this issue now, since it's already been going on for a month. It started when Mathsci took over a more-or-less justified ANI complaint about user TechnoFaye, and morphed it into an attack on me. Diffs:
  • [20] - Mathsci co-opts the thread to start attacking the mediation (note that at this time I had been clearly listed and active as mediator for something like a month)
  • [21] general complaint about the article itself, plus claim that there 'is no neutral mediator'
  • [22] my response (a bit belated - I hadn't been notified of the thread)
  • [23] - Mathsci's response: basically a string of misrepresentations and personal attacks capped by a suggestion that I should be blocked. Note that (in fact) Mathsci was a mediation participant when I volunteered to take over the mediation a month earlier, and had copious time and opportunity to object on the mediation page if he had chosen to do so.
  • [24] My response (mostly I passed on his comments, except to comment that he himself had not removed a passage he objected to
  • [25] Mathsci's response (after my comment on Faye, starting at line 600), in which he compares me to GoRight (talk · contribs) (whoever that is), indulges in more personal attacks, and claims not to have any interest in editing the article at all.
  • [26] my responses (including a correction Mathsci made to his post)
  • [27] Mathsci's response, in which he makes a vague assertion about violating core policies (note that he has changed the heading to be more defamatory - this is an ongoing process, where the heading becomes increasingly more persoanl and insulting)
  • [28] my response, where I ask for clarification
  • [29] Mathsci's response, where he calls me clueless and accusses me of trolling.
It goes on from there, getting progressively worse, and continues for the next month - that's easily hundreds of edits in which Mathsci launches some kind of insulting commentary at me (and yeah, I'll go through and dig out all of the hundreds of diffs, if you'd like, but I think this gives you the idea). I think I have been admirably self-possessed in the face of this kind of onslaught, but I am understandably tired of dealing with it. since he started this wikiquette against me (as he has started so many other proceedings against me), I want to make sure we finish it now, because I don't want to put up with this hostility for the rest of my time on wikipedia. can you sympathize with that? --Ludwigs2 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Responding to diffs from Mathsci and Dolphin's response:
I've examined the diffs as well. (The third and fifth are the same comment.) I see incivility and personal attacks, in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS. I can provide specifics, especially for those that disagree. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How about me? What exactly have I done that was so incivil that I deserved [30] "and Hipocrite, save your breath - threatening me isn't going to do you any good, and you've never given me a reason to give a shit about what you think?" Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I've read through a few of the relevant ANIs to this, as well as some of the comments thrown around here. I think it needs to be said: Mathsci and Ludwig2, there is no doubt in mind that both of you are at fault, and if both of you don't find a way to bury your forks and spades, this is going to end badly. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how comments from both sides are inflammatory, assassinating one anothers character, and sometimes treating each other as utterly incompetent. If anything, I should only have to say "work it out" but it appears I need to say more: behave, be respectful to one another, and work it out collegially. Some people can crow all they like that I need to pick diffs out to show how either of you are specifically acting inappropriately, but it won't change the bare effect of my comment. If necessary, Mathsci, reread JamesBWatson's comment 3 times and Ludwig2, some of your comments have also not been reasonable at all, so reread his comment as if it is addressed to you. Dolphin is absolutely correct - if this dispute is to have any chance of being resolved, be it voluntarily or even if it is involuntarily, Mathsci and Ludwig2 need to take a break now! To summarise: both of you - if you both don't want this to end badly, take a break, and when you come back, proceed with the strict goal of working it out collegially and respectfully. That's all for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Also noting my agreement with Gerardw's comment (18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)) below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Neither editor's contributions seem to indicate an understanding and internalization of the pillars of Wikipedia. As examples of Mathsci's have already been documented, I'll note that this sample edit from Ludwigs2 [[31]] is an example of inappropriate post from that editor. The bigger issue is a recurring theme in the threads here and elsewhere indicate the misconception that another editor's action justifies inappropriate behavior, as indicated by:
1. Ludwigs2's contention that his contributions can be justified.
2. Mathsci's reference to the number of Ludwigs2 edits as some sort of metric to anything. WP is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, remember?
3. Hippocrite's query as to what he did to deserve an intemperate remark (answer: nothing, because nothing you can do changes the standards of how other editors are supposed to behave.)
The first fallacy here is that either editor's contributions justify third party editors parsing through diffs to ascertain which editor's contributions indicate less jerky behavior.
It also seems to me that it is not realistic to refer an unresolved WP:ANI dispute here. As an informal non binding mechanism, it really only works well to resolve minor disputes caused by miscommunication or when editors who are willing to respond to community consensus are involved. The evidence I have skimmed indicates both editors are more interested in being right that in putting the best interests of Wikipedia first.Gerardw (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC
I'm fine with letting this go (despite comments to the contrary, I have no invested perspective here; I just want to stop getting kicked in the teeth). If I do, however, please tell me how I should respond the next time Mathsci calls me or some other editor we're working with a 'Scum-Sucking POV-Pusher' (or similar name-calling, or threatens people with blocks/bans, or other crapulence like that - there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of examples of him doing so on ANI and the R&I talk and mediation pages). I am not inclined to put up with abuse of that sort indefinitely, whether directed at me or at others, and I do not believe anyone is justified in asking me to do so (if that's what you're asking). I'm looking for a solution here, but that solution is not going to involve Mathsci being allowed to spit on me any time he damned well pleases. --Ludwigs2 23:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, thanks for your ten diffs. I have read them all carefully. You asked if I can sympathise with that? Yes, I can. I see that an environment of provocation and aggression has existed for a significant time, and I understand that both of you want to see a major improvement.

Your role on this occasion is to defend yourself against the complaint made by Mathsci. I think you have done that and, considering the environment of provocation and aggression, my view is that you have not breached Wikipedia’s WP:Code of conduct, at least not to the point that action needs to be taken against you.

You have not made a complaint at WP:WQA against Mathsci so, apart from noting that Mathsci seems to be giving as good as he gets, this is not an exercise in assessing Mathsci’s behaviour. You have endured what you perceive to be inappropriate behaviour from Mathsci for what you claim to be hundreds of edits. In that time you have attempted to defend yourself against Mathsci by matching aggression with aggression. From the perspective of the WQA community this is not a good strategy. It is more effective to respond to perceived aggression by being perfectly civil; then if the perceived aggression continues until tolerance is exhausted, put the facts before the WQA community. It is almost impossible for the WQA or ANI community to achieve a satisfactory outcome in a long-running dispute in which both complainant and defendant have been slugging it out, blow for blow, for a long time. For this reason, Mathsci’s complaint against you is unlikely to result in any action towards either of you, although as Ncmvocalist has written, it could end badly for both of you.

Seeing you wish to resolve the situation constructively and amicably, I wish you well. Extend the olive branch and remain perfectly civil. If anyone ever displays persistent incivility to the point that your tolerance is exhausted, either walk away or put the facts before the WQA community. Best wishes. Dolphin (t) 23:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Admin Fences&Windows advised me to make this WQA request. In the WP:ANI diff this administrator wrote, "I suggest that Ludwigs2 find some other articles to spend their time on. Their involvement as mediator helped sink the mediation (due to partisanship), and their input into this thread has merely been disruptive, including swearing, hyperbole, and this proposal to ban a long-time respected editor while enabling the POV-pushing from a series of single-purpose accounts." After the subsequent personal attack, Ludwigs2 was blocked by BozMo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). On WP:ANI multiple administrators support my editing and they completely disagree with Ludwigs2's point of view. The diffs produced by Ludwigs2 above all come from over a month ago on the mediation talk page, where many of Ludwigs2's edits were inappropriate - that is what I think Fences&Windows meant by "helped sink the mediation (due to partisanship)". On that page he essentially created his own set of rules as would-be mediator. At the time Ludwigs2 was advised by Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), chair of MedCom, not to drive a good editor from the article. Now Ludwigs2 seems to be ignoring all the feedback he has had from multiple administrators who have disagreed with the point he is expressing here. If he continues in the same way, that will presumably lead to further blocks of this kind or possibly becoming one of the particpants in an ArbCom case. Ludwigs2 made blatant personal attacks and was blocked. Contributors are presumably aware that none of my edits in the diffs produced by Ludwigs2 from last month would come even vaguely close to warranting even a mild warning from an administrator. Nor are diffs a month old any justification for the swearing, hyperbole and personal attack that now seem to be a feature of Ludwigs2's edits. Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Another editor (not Ludwigs2) classified one of your edits in this thread as a personal attack. Claims that your comments about your posts are stale are unreasonable. Gerardw (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, Mathsci, you appear to be ignoring the feedback given to you here. Hint: do not respond further, at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The overwhelming feedback from the community and administrators on Ludwigs2's attempt to topic ban me was very loud and clear: it was strongly opposed to Ludwigs2's suggestions and some administrators criticized his actions. And again Ludwigs2 was blocked for making personal attacks. I redacted one unguarded edit here as soon as requested. Ludwigs2 will indeed incur similar blocks if he continues on the same tack. What he has written below is not in the least bit encouraging. It shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude from an editor whose primary purpose on wikipedia does not appear, from his contribution history, to be about adding content. He should take more notice of what administrators like Regents Park, Fences&Windows, dougweller, etc, have been writing and step away from these race-related articles. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me be unambiguously clear: you chose to bring this complaint here...and you're expected to be receptive to the feedback that you receive here (and you're expected to know this if you're an established contributor) - whether you're a subject or a filing party. JamesBWatson, Dolphin, Gerardw, and I (who have referred to every one of these opinions) have stated in no uncertain terms that your behaviour is not up to par and needs to change. In response to this, you keep battling. Each of those admins you allude to are welcome to review this situation and explain why their comments give you a license to abuse dispute resolution as a means of forumshopping for the feedback that you find most convenient for you. And another thing, in case you didn't catch the hint, that the community does not indef ban you (1 individual) from the topic does not mean that a temporary general break isn't overdue for the BOTH of you, and OTHER HEAVILY INVOLVED editors (that is, I think, what all 4 of us have suggested). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said, Mathsci, that was just the beginning of the problem. you're behavior has continued unabated over the last month, up to and including your second post here (the one which several administrators and editors informed you was deeply uncivil, and that you consequently redacted). enough said.
Now, the only question remaining is whether you are willing to discuss the matter and resolve the issue. I'd like it if you did (because that would end the issue) but if you choose not to that's fine as well, because the more you refuse to work with me to end this squabble, the more obvious it becomes to all that you are acting out of some sort of personal spite. You have three choices now:
  1. you can try to resolve the problem with me
  2. you can post another personal attack against me
  3. you can drop the issue in silence
If you decide on either of the last two options, I think that will be a clear enough statement that you are not operating with any form of good faith, and I can work with that. If you decide on the first option, I can work with that as well. choose. --Ludwigs2 02:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with that analysis... dropping the issue in silence would be an excellent idea for either or both editor. Gerardw (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, Ludwig2, you appear to be ignoring the feedback given to you here. Hint: do not respond further, at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Filer did not discuss issue with subject; but resolved as subject made assurances.

Mikemikev has accused me three times now of being a Marxist or having a Marxist agenda. He has misrepresented me as having having tried to sully a living person's reputation. His statements seem to have no basis in fact, but he continues to repeat them. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

These kinds of comment don't seem very different from this diff of Koalorka (talk · contribs), now indefinitely blocked. [37] Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Mathsci, when you made this ANI topic ban proposal, the community did not come to a consensus, and in doing so, gave you feedback that you need to provide diffs to justify your position. Clearly, this has not sunk into your head because since then, you've made another ANI posting about tag-team editing by a set of individuals without providing diffs - and have named Mikemikev (the subject) as one of those individuals. I'm not sure how many times or ways in which you are going to be whacked with the following fact, but here we go again: you are not being receptive to community feedback - please address that issue. In the meantime, the amount of dispute resolution between you and Mikemikev appears to be insufficient - I see little evidence of you trying to clarify your position to Mikemikev personally. Without attempting to resolve it yourself, expecting others to look at and intervene in every squabble you get yourself into is unreasonable. Finally, WQA is not the venue to seek blocks, nor does it mediate disputes that are being discussed at ANI - please take your issue up with an administrator responding at the relevant thread. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, what you have written, as when in the past you have commented in place of clerks on ArbCom pages, seems inaccurate and ill-informed. What you have written bears no relation to reality - multiple administrators have stated quite the contrary on the current ANI thread, which you appear not to have read. Anyway, that is beside the point. There is no other venue to discuss repeated personal insults like this and attempted misrepresentation. My content editing contributions - and. yes folks, there are many of them, in many topics, including 5 new articles this month - show rather clearly that I have no point of view in the articles I edit, except adhering to wikipedia policy about the use of sources. There is certainly no Marxist POV. I should point out that Koalorka's personal attack, "butthurt Marxist foaming at the mouth", was redacted by WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) a week later - he wrote that he would have blocked him if he'd seen it earlier - and that he was topic banned by Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) from making anti-Turkish edits under an ArbCom ruling. He reacted in this way after I and others had reinstated Turkic groups on Ethnic groups of Europe. The use of the word Marxist as an insult, perhaps common among youngsters with leanings to the far right, does not seem in any way different from what keeps appearing in Mikemikev's edits. It appears to break the normal rules of editing on wikipedia, whatever the context. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Should I respond to this? mikemikev (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I suggest you avoid using the word Marxist to describe another persons position when they say that it isn't their position - that might resolve the issue. Other than a brief assurance, no other response from you is necessary because it is appears to be clear that Mathsci is otherwise using this venue as a battleground. It's his choice if he is going to abuse dispute resolution by stubbornly refusing to follow the norms (What WQA CANNOT do is Impose/enforce blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures, nor can it Intervene in content disputes, extreme personal attacks, vandalism or edit war incidents, nor can it Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Understood. mikemikev (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Network of Buddhist Organisations

Stale: No evidence provided.

Hostile editors repeatedly attempting to obtain other editors personal details, removing content from main and talk page. Aggressive allegations, using personally belittling language. I have asked that good faith be assumed and explained ad hominems but small minded personal jibes and deceptive tactics such as removing information and then claiming the other editor removed it for tactical reasons continue. (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In order to see your evidence for this complaint it is necessary that you provide diffs to illustrate the offending messages. Here is an example of a diff.
To find out about diffs and how to produce them, see WP:CDLG#How to harvest a diff and WP:DIFF. Dolphin (t) 11:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone do this?

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere: Taken to ANI and resolved.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:DIREKTOR has been deleting messages that I had receved from another editor on my talk page. To make things worste, I had olready told several times to direktor not to post on my talk page (I supose that also means, not to delete nothing...). Here are some usefull diffs:

  • 1) The deleting by direktors of posts on my talk page: [38]. Until this moment, he has donne it 3 times (only today, not counting the numerous previos violations).
  • 2) One of the ocasions where I had directly expressed that wish to him: [39] (the edit itself, see last comment), or [40], here you can see it in context.
  • 3) As seen in previos exemple, he had disrespected me on that in other ocasions, as well.
  • 4) One exemple of his clear acknolledge of that fact (knowing that I don´t want him posting on my talk page) is found here [41] where you can see him saying that he didn´t noticed me about a ANY report doing on me, because, in his words: "the user instructed me not to address him".

This user has been extremely disruptive in several articles, and as response, he has irritated quite a number of other editors. If some of them decide to contact me on my talk page, he can report it if there is anything to be reported, but he can´t remove the posts from my talk page, specially if I had expressed him several times before not to intervene there. Can you please do something to prevent this disrupting behavior and prevent him further disrespecting a rightfull wish that I have in him not interfering with my talk page any more? Thanking in advance, FkpCascais (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please I have to notice the same problem with my talk page, and several more talk page related to articles which seems to be "owned" by User:DIREKTOR. His automatism is so much dangerous than easy to describe: when I add a contribute to any pages in his interest area, and he doesn't approve that contribute, he immediately revert to his version, accusing me to be a sockpuppet of someone banned: a behaviour which made me scared. I already advice him (with this message) not to perseverate accusing me. Look for example at history of the talk page of the article House of Crijević an incredibly different version of House of Cerva, article never existing before and today created by me. Tanks for help to solve this situation.--Theirrulez (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Two things old FkpCascais accidentally forgot to mention:
  • 1. Here's the post I removed:
    • "i met the same problem as you with the same user:DIREKTOR, but on another side of his influenced area of wikipedia. His making the wikipedia project dangerously drifting away on the articles regarding his political position. Look to set a dialogue on his discussion page. I'm with you." WP:CLIQUE? WP:CANVASS?
  • 2. The guy who posted it - is a sock. The latest sock (created two days ago) by the same bunch of banned sockpuppeteering users that are together fast approaching the amazing number of one hundred socks on enWiki. The same bunch I am continuously harassed by in every way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you (DIREKTOR) claiming the edits are a personal attack? In any event, it appears you are 3RR on the talk page. If you believe someone is a sock, the appropriate response is not to delete their contributions but rather file a report at WP:SSP. Gerardw (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What's interesting here is the sheer number of socks. I'd have to hire a secretary to write-up WP:SPI reports on each and every one of them (I'm not joking :(). They're usually just blocked as DUCKS, what I tried to do today was a article repairs and removal of the "usual" sock edits. As for the 3RR, it does not apply to reverting socks so I didn't pay much heed.
At any rate, User:Salvio giuliano had told me just a while back that he "thinks the account is the same user from, because he talked to some it.admin about stuff from" So now I'm thinking, did I commit a "big mistake", in the words of Theirrulez. For the time being I won't revert the guy, I have to find out if I ought to start apologizing. What I must emphasize once more is that this would be the first time a user edited these articles, pushed the same POV edits as the group of (confirmed) sockpuppeteers, and was actually NOT a sock (that's not all the facts that support my sock assumption, but this as you say is not WP:SPI). On the other hand, this would be somewhere like the 50th time (again, I'm not exaggerating) that such an account would be a sock. Its like I said, there's so many of them they're just blocked as DUCKS by admins. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I've already said this, but I think that both users (User:Theirrulez and User:DIREKTOR) are at fault here.
The former came out of the blue and started editing highly controversial articles, without first trying to assess what consensus regarding them was. This would not have started such a mess if the articles he edited had not been being targeted by sockpuppets over and over again.
The latter, knowing that those articles are a socks' playground, immediately assumed bad faith — I'm sure he did that in good faith, I mean he really believed that this user was a sock of another blocked editor —. As a consequence, he reverted and ignored the user (per WP:RBI). His actions were undestandable, I think.
Anyway, I'd conclude that this incident was caused by a major misunderstanding and is, in my opinion now solved. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I´m sorry Salvio, but the report I made has to do with me and my user page. User Direktor has broke the 3RR rule and has removed comments from my talk page while knowing that I forbiten him to intervene in my talk page. FkpCascais (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I am sorry for getting things messed up in my mind!
Anyway, if you wish to report him for WP:3-RR, you may wish to go to WP:AN3, where he will be, at worst, warned, because his edit warring has now ceased, or to WP:ANI, to report the incident to the administrators. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I followed your advice. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Any POV problems?

User:DIREKTOR accused me to be a sockpuppet every time I contribute to an article already edited by him. I tried to explain him that he shouldn't offend me any more and he must not discredit me saying that.
I also add many reliable source about my contributes with notes, bibliography, pictures too... everything reverted, everything cancelled (my trial to have a dialogue on his talk page too), articles brand new, just written by me (House of Cerva), deliberately moved by him and changed in another version completely different! Now he his accusing me to "push POV edits"!
I consider it as a personal attack, and I decided to notice it here.
Anyways, what's the theorem? I'm a sockpuppet, but if I'm not, my edits are POV!
I think there's something politically not too correct in this. I think Direktor should adopt a most modest profile and a most correct behaviour: stop complaining about socks, stop accusing me and others, but begin to accept different sourcing and contribution on the articles.
If he'll be not able to do that how can be help the Project?
--Theirrulez (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Sincerely,

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

Is this acceptable Wikiquette?

Resolved: Filing party advised.

Per definition below, are the details following a matter of concern?

Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

Editor Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has taken the following actions against my edits within a 24 hr. period, and are worrisome:

  • Deleted large section of article: Democracy
  • Deleted another, larger section (9,300KB), 2 minutes later, from Moses
  • 7 minutes later, posts a notice to the Fringe noticeboard: Fringe
  • Begins filing a series of Speedy deletion requests of images I uploaded and used in 4 different, and unrelated articles: Einstein], Denis Avey, Yoni 1, Yoni 2, Halpern

Note also that multiple talk page discussions were opened regarding the above deletions, including RfCs on both, and the editor has made absolutely no comments there. It's obvious that when an editor's material is being deleted in such manner, and RfCs and Talk page discussions are ongoing, that posting speedies on the editor's unrelated image files, en masse, creates a distraction of attention and cannot reasonably be responded to. Should I assume the users sudden attention to my edits and images is a coincidence? If not, any other suggestions besides posting the question here? Any comments would be appreciated. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course it is not a coincidence. I came across your dispute with Athenean because I was following certain other disputes Athenean was involved in, so I took a look at his edit history. I didn't comment on the RfC, because before I had an opportunity for it, other editors had already expressed my views better than I could have done. I then had a look at your edit history, as I always do when I find myself in a dispute, to see what kind of fellow Wikipedian I am dealing with. It so happened that my eye was caught by an image upload that I found questionable. Whenever I find somebody making questionable image uploads, I check their log to see if there are more of the same that need cleanup. I'm honestly sorry if you feel stressed by that, but it's just routine. That's what we have contribution logs for. Fut.Perf. 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the teardrop. I like to hope that common sense and common courtesy are also burried somewhere in the WP policies. Removing your speedy-blitz until I can deal with them would be nice. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a mere four images, two of them representing essentially the same issue, the other two extremely straightforward deletion cases that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of not getting deleted, for all I can see. The only complex one that will need some serious scrutiny is the PUI of the Einstein photograph, but the process gives us two weeks for that. About the others, during the time you took to file this complaint you could easily have given your arguments about why you feel they should be kept instead. Fut.Perf. 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As Future admits, he is certainly following you, which is a necessary but not sufficient element of wikihounding. The question is whether his edits are disruptive -- I'll let someone with better expertise than I pretend to have make that call. See WP:WIKIHOUNDING for more information on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Echo Fut.Perf.'s explanation. If an editor finds another user's edit problematic it is quite customary to go through the user's contribution history to check for similar/other problems. --NeilN talk to me 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not Wikihounding. Future Perfect at Sunrise found and reversed an edit that represented a fringe view and was not even balanced by mainstream views, deleted the same edit that had been made to another article and then posted a message about it on the Fringe Theory noticeboard. That is good editing - removing material that does not conform to WP policy and raising the issue using appropriate dispute resolution. Wikihounding otoh is arbitrarily reversing someone's work. TFD (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Image dispute

Resolved: Closed to avoid possible PAs

It appears that me and another editor GageSkidmore are having a dispute over the image for the Family Guy episode Brian & Stewie, File:Brian & Stewie - Family Guy promo.png. The image they uploaded is a simple screenshot, while the image I uploaded is the official promotional poster. It was my understanding that a official poster was preferred over a screen shot. So I've insisted that my upload be in the infobox. Yet they have insisted that their upload is preferred, so we have be reverting back and forth. But I don't see why their upload is so much better than mine. This maybe bad faith on my part, but they are coming off as they're reverting the file because they upload it. Just because you uploaded something doesn't make it any better. Their recent revert was over a image size compliance failure. Which I said if the image size is a problem, then resize it. Their revert response was a simple "no". So what should be done? Sarujo (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should an image that does not comply with the fair use rationale found on the image page be used? If you would like for the "promotional poster" to be used in place of the screenshot, you can reduce the size of the image. Gage (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
If the issue is photo size on the article then that can be easily changed by simply adding a specific pixel size to the file link. --A3RO (mailbox) 03:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It isn't. Gage (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, this may be bad faith for me, but, I don't believe that your revert is on the ground of size compliance. As you simply did not address this in each of you previous revert. Then you just go and dispute A3RO here when he suggests to just make the image smaller with "It isn't". That sends a message to me that your just merely using a guideline as an excuse to to make you upload the default image for bragging rights. See, anybody else would have just taken a copy and reduced and made the necessary mods. But instead all you've done is reverted it to your upload. So what so special about your upload, and don't say because it's smaller. Sarujo (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I just find it laughable that this is how you try to get involved with articles relating to Family Guy. Gage (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
And what "laughable" way would that be? Calling out some who appears to be GAME? I'm glad somebody's having a good time. I appears that I'm dealing with another one of "those" editor again. Sarujo (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys seem to be fighting over this like it's a hot girl. However, there might be some tough feelings involving that specific article based on the editing history; the good news is since it's an image that's at the root of this problem(hopefully...) then this is a good place to take it to the discussion page and see how popular vote works. Until then, just let the image be. Guys, just chill... alright? Cool. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 17:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Incivility on my talk page

Resolved: Editor warned

I would appreciate someone taking a look at a recent uncivil post on my talk page and give me some idea how I should proceed.Hi540 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested a possible way to proceed on your talk page. DVdm (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Level three warning left for editor. Obvious personal attack; if they continue I will block them. Tan | 39 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
What is a dolt anyways? --A3RO (mailbox) 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Synonyms: "idiot, fool, clod, nitwit, dummy" - DVdm (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Old people language. Ah. Ok. --A3RO (mailbox) 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Offensive inflammatory perhaps defamatory remark.

Wikipedia at the moment states the KKK is extreme right wing.
I debated the point and would like to see at the very least a neutral point on this.
jpgordon on 15:45, 29 April 2010 stated:
” You seem to be confusing this talk page for a Klan application form.”

I would like some advice on this offensive and inflammatory remark.
Before you say, ‘just ignore it’ this is a statement that I am a racist.
This is defamatory and I would like some advice on how to proceed.

Thank you
--OxAO (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You should proceed by posting a specific WP:DIFF to the comment and notifying the editor there is a discussion here...please post {{subst:WQA-notice}} on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thank you very much
--OxAO (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The complaining editor originally posted this: "The republicans haven’t changed one Iota they have always been for equal rights all the way down the line. The democrats went from being Anti-black to giving away the farm which started under the new deal Democrat party went from the party of wanting nothing to do with blacks to the party of pity for blacks. Democrats call that being liberal"[42], [43]. That is what jpgordon was responding too. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thank you Niteshift36. This clearly shows I made no remarks denigrating blacks or any other race.
--OxAO (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
JPGordon's remark does strike me as an unnecessary personal attack. It's not clear the discussion regarding democrats/republicans has to do with Wikipedia; please see WP:SOAPBOX. Gerardw (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
it really has to do with the first page saying the KKK is extreme conservative which it never was. He is saying the democrats were conservative and the republicans were liberals. I believe I disputed that point fairly well.
I believe we do need to establish party affiliation in order to determine if they were right or left wing in this case since the KKK targeted and attacked Republicans. Or are you suggesting we can simply dispense from using political affiliation all together (right or left wing)?
Thank you but how do I deal with him now?
--OxAO (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • How do you deal with it? Have you considered that the current wording is consensus and that you've argued the consensus with a lot of personal observations and links to wikipedia articles (which aren't valid references)? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry did you want more references that the Democrats which the KKK was the militant arm of the party, have always been the progressives since near the turn of the previous century? Or are you saying there is already a consensus that the Democrat party and the KKK were progressive? If there is already a consensus why is the KKK referred to as being extreme conservative when progressive ideology is left wing?
--OxAO (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second please Niteshift36. I didn't read the title of this page when I wrote the last line. I am here because jpgordon inexcusable statement against me personally. not to debate this issue here, but if that is what you wish that is fine by me.
--OxAO (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A dispute between myself and William M. Connolley on "Climate_sensitivity."

Stale: 9 months old and only being dredged up now.

A simplified history of our dispute runs like this...

Me: I think this published paper X should be mentioned in the main article for reason A.
Him: I dispute the validity of reason A.
Me: Oops, I'm not very confident of reason A because of my, freely admitted, lack of expertise in this area, but here's reason B which is much better.
Him: Ha ha, look how stupid you are for having put forth reason A.
Me: I'd like to retract A because B is a much stronger argument. If B is valid then A is irrelevant and requires no further discussion.
Him: Ha ha, look how stupid you are for having put forth reason A, lets talk about it in detail so I can humiliate you.
Me: Please let me retract all mention of A... look I'm deleting it.
Him: I'm un-deleting it so I can humiliate you some more.
Me: I made a mistake proposing reason A, reason B removes the need to even discuss A.
Him: no, I'm not letting people consider published article X unless you publicly declare how stupid you were putting forth reason A.

Discussions of the published paper X is now hidden inside a box saying "Went nowhere" on the discussion page.

I would like all mention of reason A and our subsequent flame to be deleted and the rest of the discussion of paper X left for all to see and not rolled up inside a "went nowhere" headline. Reissgo (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is from seven months ago? Ravensfire (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I had left it alone for a while because I had thought to myself "well at least the paper and some excerpts were discussed on the discussions page so people may take a look at it". I only noticed that the entire thread had been rolled up into a one line comment "Went nowhere" a couple of days ago. I am not a frequent wikipedia user. The arguments are all still valid, I don't believe the issues involved have dated in any way. Reissgo (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps just reopening the matter on the article talk page, starting over with presenting reasons for inclusion and seeing what happens might be a good approach? If you still see the same responses then perhaps come back here? But if not, if the article improves, we all win. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not about to put myself through all that stress again. Besides adding more flames just distracts from the paper I was trying to have considered. What I'd like to do is *remove* discussions, but If I do that, I'm afraid WMC will simply re-instate it and add *additional* flames. But don't worry - a solution is on its way - see my talk page for details. Reissgo (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's contrary to WP policy to remove old discussions except under specific circumstances. However, I've archived the old content so it's less visible. Gerardw (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Meg Whitman link vandalism

Reporting a VIOLATION of Wikipedia Etiquette, by JP Gordon specifically ad hominem commentary aimed against me with regard to link vandalism at the Meg Whitman listing (please see Whitman discussion page).

It is inappropriate to aim such an ad hominem accusation against me rather than address the issue reported, specifically yet another instance of link vandalism at this listing, specifically links revealing Whitman's Goldman Sachs business associations. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly did they say? I don't see any messages or anything in the diffs. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This?[[44]] While perhaps a bit snarky it's not an ad hominem attack. Incidentally, in Wikipedia the term "vandalism" is intentional degradation of the encyclopedia not content disputes. Gerardw (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw that, but I wouldn't considor that an attack; perhaps you misunderstood his point; the edit was POV. See comment above. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate some assistance with incivility

I'd appreciate help regarding remarks KillerChihuahua is posting about me. There's a dispute at NPOV regarding whether two of the sections are appropriate. I posted an RfC about it on May 1, which is ongoing. KC wants the sections to remain, and has several times in edit summaries and posts called me dishonest, or said that I am lying, in relation to my wording of the RfC.

I realize that feelings can run high, and I wouldn't have posted this over one remark. But an admin or experienced editor repeatedly alleging that someone is lying is not appropriate. We should be able to disagree with each other without that. Examples:

  • "No, you're not going to frame this as a lie ..." (May 2). [45]
  • "No, you're not going to frame this dishonestly..." (May 2). [46]
  • "...But don't lie any more about the policy getting 'longer' ..." (May 2). [47]
  • "Stop being dishonest, and I'll stop calling you on it" (May 4). [48]

I asked her to stop here, but the last post above was her response. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to share your recent email, Slim? Seriously? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have not sent you any emails, KC, and I find your response and behavior here really quite bizarre. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No, you sent one to four other people, lying about me, and one of them was decent enough to tell me, as you well know. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I wrote about you was: "That was followed by Killer Chihuahua accusing me of lying and dishonesty in edit summaries, then asking on my talk page whether I'm still an admin. I'm unsure what to do about this ..." There is no lie there, or anywhere else. You should be able to disagree with people without having to resort to these kinds of claims. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What are you, five? This is turning into a "she said, she said" whinefest. You've twisted what I posted completely out of meaning, and you did so intentionally. I asked if you were still an admin, and if so why was your page protected (for a year!!!). which I discovered when I went to edit your talk page for the *other* post, in which I suggested you and Blueboar read WP:CONLIMITED, since you were presenting 3 views (2 yes, 1 no) as consensus to make a major change to policy, which is just laughable . The question involves your page protection, which is inappropriate for an admin - you don't even have a sub-page for IPs to post on! If you're going to be an admin, you need to be accessible. You not only ignored me but you actually removed my question - with a misleading edit summary[49] and then you emailed that absurd "concern" as part of something I'm not even going to touch. I am done here. This is turning into a mudfest. Post whatever complaints you want, SV, its still just you spinning things to try to start a cat-fight. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Look, you claim three views on an Rfc to make a major policy change is consensus, with what, six years on this project? and I'm going to say that's dishonest. You can complain all you want, but that's just silly - that's not close to consensus even for a standard Afd, let alone for a major policy change. You're just trying to change the venue here. What exactly are you looking for? I told you if you stop being dishonest, I'll stop saying it - so are you admitting that two Yes and one NO view on an Rfc is not enough community input for a policy change, or are you sticking with that story? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The section head was misleading. Classifying it as a lie was rude. The two of you are sysops. I am amazingly disappointed.- Sinneed 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've noticed many civility problems start with an over-optimistic view of what constitutes a consensus, so I've even written a short section here discussing consensus. As KillerChihuahua says, the RfC was not sufficient on its own for a permanent policy page change. It was inevitable that more people would be brought in sooner rather than later to tidy up the loose ends, so this does not overly concern me. There is no need to be rude to each other. In particular, the sentiment behind WP:PEACOCK is relevant here: simply illustrating the position should allow editors to deduce the true situation for themselves. Each can decide a course of action for themselves. Personal criticism of other editors and their motives is unnecessary. I remember even four years ago when I joined, SlimVirgin was controversial, and although she comes from a different perspective to me, one of WIkipedia's strengths is its diversity. So I suggest that KillerChihuahua refactor her comments to soften her tone, stating facts rather than interpretations, and SlimVirgin apologise for any offence caused in off wiki emails - and both temporarily restrict the debate to the improvement of the policy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the word "lie" was poorly chosen, which is why I used "dishonest" afterwards. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Which section head was misleading, Sinneed? SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?" - I did not review it because I did not understand it was a proposed removal... I read it as a proposed addition. Thus I did not look at it.- Sinneed 21:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
"dishonest" I don't find any less offensive than "a lie" - misleading simply means the words mislead some readers: a reality of writing for 3 billion potential readers. "lie" and "dishonest" fail wp:AGF.- Sinneed 21:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I assume SV did not realize that three views was insufficient to support a major change in policy? That's not AGF, that's turning off my brain. I'm sorry, but AGF is not meant to force rational people to believe impossible things (not even six before breakfast.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Not suggesting anything at all. The entire content of my statement is included in the words... nothing is implied... any inferences are entirely the reader's.- Sinneed 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Then I confess to confusion regarding your meaning, which is unclear to me. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
This edit summary was rude. That is all. At this point I am going to shut up. I am not helping.- Sinneed 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I would point out that my mentioning the section head here may be misleading... this is not a problem... just a reality.- Sinneed 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I worded the RfC that way because the sections had been removed in April by Blueboar after a long discussion (not simply because three people wanted it as KC says). Then an old version of those sections (not the version that was removed) was restored on or around May 1. To avoid these ins and outs in the RfC title, I asked "should the policy contain these sections," and I explained the details in the comment. People can disagree with that wording, and might have worded it differently themselves, but it's the assumption of dishonesty that crosses the line. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense to me.- Sinneed 21:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The section was moved, not removed, and it did have other discussions as SlimVirgin (and Blue Boar) have stated. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Stephen, was the religion section moved? Maurreen (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly the religion description is somewhat abbreviated in WP:FRINGE, and given as an example rather than a section on its own. Stephen B Streater (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
And yet, she's mistaken about what I said. I didn't say "just three people" - I said there were three views on the Rfc, which was titled "Should topic specific issues be discussed in a general policy". There were 3. Only two supported. I'm saying that's not consensus, certainly not enough for a major policy change, and elsewhere have suggested that attempts should have been made to get further input rather than closing as though consensus had been found. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) SlimVirgin, I am requesting you strike your misunderstanding that "not simply because three people wanted it as KC says" - which is something I never said. Please correct this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't open the first RfC, I didn't close it, I didn't remove the pseudoscience section (in fact I restored it in March when it was moved too early), and I didn't move it to FRINGE, though I did agree with that move. And there was plenty of discussion before the first RfC. My focus is only on the second RfC on May 1, which I did post. and which is entirely factual. And you are missing the point here. The point is not to accuse people of lying. Of mistakes, yes, if that's what you see. Dishonesty, no. Please stop thinking you can call people whatever names you fancy, but if they defend themselves, they're whining or attacking you. SlimVirgin talk contribs 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop pretending you know what I think. You are dead wrong. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter whether you label what an editor said as a lie, or claim that editor is being dishonest - there is no difference in the end outcome because that conduct is not compatible with that expected of any administrator. In other words, if an administrator is engaging in that sort of conduct, they are gambling their tools. The whole "what are you, five?" question and the "you twisted my words intentionally" is simply continuing the uncivil conduct. I am mystified as to whether this is a problem of inability to be civil, or a problem of unwillingness to be civil. One does not have to turn their brain off in order to be civil. Comment on content, and if someone is misstating something, then raise the concern civilly instead of making flagrant uncivil accusations about the contributor. That's all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Five pillars seems to put it quite well: Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. I think that is irrespective of the way others behave. This is not optional. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have found reading the above surprising. KillerChihuahua is accused of being uncivil, and comes here and posts numerous comments, evidently intended as defense against the charge, but themselves very uncivil. I have come across worse in the past, but that this comes from an administrator who has been a regular editor for nearly six years I do find surprising. I strongly suggest that KillerChihuahua should stand back a little, and try to imagine what the above comments look like to an impartial outsider. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought KillerChihuahua's RfA put it rather well: In that time she has shown herself to be a solid contributor with a good sense of humour. At the same time, she has shown herself to be polite and thoughtful, even in difficult situations. NPOV is being sorted, so everyone can relax a little and enjoy life a little more. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have been perfectly civil. Explain to me how to address dishonesty without using the word. Calling it "misunderstanding" or "mistake" or "error" when it is none of those things is equivocating. There comes a point when one must call a spade a spade, (or lie and say its a daisy?). I have not called SV any names - you see me making no personal attacks. I am commenting on the behavior, not the editor. Otherwise you would see, for example me calling her a "manipulative lying bitch" or somesuch. You see no such thing. You see me attempting to address, with her, her egregious behavior. I am sorry you are all distressed. I am distressed as well. But I will not alsobe dishonest because you are all uncomfortable with the word. If someone murders, do you argue it is uncivil and rude to call it murder? You're not being logical, and you're merely chastising me without addressing the core problem, or suggesting any alternative phrasing which is not also dishonest. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Stop and think: you're claiming that everyone but you isn't being logical? I already explained to you how to approach such a situation - evidently from your 3 examples, you did not absorb the example or what I said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I have responded to your generalizations, which I did not find as helpful as perhaps you intended. Perhaps you could be more specific, and address my concerns raised in the post immediately preceding this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Compare the following. (zz) "You've been here for over 6 years and your acting like a school kid newbie - you're intentionally twisting my words; enough with your lies and dishonesty and I'll stop calling you on it". (yy) my original example: "Please don't misstate my position. My position is...." or "You appear to be mischaracterising what x actually says. 2 yes and 1 no does not constitute a consensus...." "Please stop it; you are repeatedly mischaracterising...." In one of these examples, there is no comment about a relatively unprovable intention, but it focuses solely on the content of the matter, as neutrally as possible. It doesn't matter how long people are here or how many contributions they make; people can do or say things they aren't expected to, be it out of foolishness, lack of clue, burn-out, misreading, mistake, experience/inexperience, an ulterior motive, or otherwise - avoid choosing what it might be, even if you're sure that it must be one of these, so that you can avoid excessive confrontation. No one is perfect in following this, as some of us can see through smokescreens and other crap and we have an urge to be blunt (yes, something that we appear to share) - but consider how it might be taken by someone else and what would be achieved. Also, many other users are intelligent and the fact that another user might be mischaracterising something should be enough for others to be wary; let them come to their own conclusions. I've been more specific this time in my examples, and I hope the contrast+explanation proves to be more helpful for you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
      • By using the word dishonest, you are assigning motive to someone else's action, but you haven't proved that motive - it is mere conjecture. That is part of the issue. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
So what word(s) would you use to discuss the issue with claiming "consensus" given three views (one No, two Yes) in an Rfc, by an editor of over 6 years on this project? That's what, an error in judgment? An honest mistake? And above, she continues to mis-characterize what I say, claiming falsely that I said something I did not, and ignoring my request she correct it. Everyone seems fine with that. So basically you're attitude is that its ok if SV lies about what I said, but if I dare say anything about it, the civility police chastise not the one who is being deceptive and dishonest, but the one honest enough to try to address the issue? I find this outrageous and ridiculous. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
SlimVirgin asked for assistance with your incivility. That is why we are discussing that here. That doesn't mean that SlimVirgin has or hasn't behaved appropriately herself. If you want to make a separate complaint about her behaviour, you can do so. But if editors believe bad behaviour from others excuses their own bad behaviour, we will spiral downwards. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
And again I state, if someone is dishonest and the second says "hey, that's dishonest! don't do that!" it is a very different matter than if the first were not being dishonest to begin with. You may believe that it has no bearing; I beg to differ. I am attempting to address a very serious issue in the most civil way possible. Pretending my words float in an unjustified vacuum is not addressing the situation. Again, follow the example: if a person commits a murder, is it uncivil to say "that is wrong, please stop killing people"? At any rate this is all in the past, except for SV's continued statements about what I think, in which she is completely wrong, and apparently intends to ignore my requests to correct said statements. I do not see that any useful purpose can be achieved here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As for interpretation of consensus, I have seen people of all experiences in many articles claiming consensus when what they have is a low level of dissent. The correct way to fix this is to remind each person gently of the way things are done here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you failed to absorb that I had done precisely that, and it affected her framing of the issue not at all. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes - I noticed you hadn't persuaded her to change her framing of the issue. But if your explanation is clear enough, then everyone else will understand it, it she can work it out later. Perhaps she has other things on her mind, or perhaps she thinks her explanation of not changing things is sufficient. Perhaps she thinks that the context of the RfC - namely a long discussion - showed that the RfC was actually unnecessary, and this was the reason so few people responded. Not every detail requires enormous debate. Perhaps the low level of interest in the RfC, which was watched by 1000 editors, indicated to her no one was really that concerned. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I find this appalling, so I'm not going to comment again except to ask KC to stop making remarks like that about any editor, no matter the situation, whether it's calling them liars or asking whether they're five. I'm posting below the post of mine that triggered this. If Wikipedians can't post RfCs about policy without kicking off this kind of response from an administrator something has gone wrong. That's all I want to say about it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion? The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [50] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated to decide whether to restore or remove the sections.

Just one final comment: anyone who disagreed with any part of that wording only had to drop a note on my talk page: "Slim, would you mind tweaking the RfC to clarify X?" I'd have no problem tweaking it in whatever direction, because my only aim was to ask the wider community: should those sections be included or not. SlimVirgin talk contribs 19:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We discussed the issue and we've tried explaining the issue in a manner that persuades KC to voluntarily adjust her approach with respect to all editors. I think we've unanimously stated that her conduct was not acceptable in this situation. Beyond that, I don't know why you consider it appalling - there's only so much we can do. But if problems persist, the next step would be RfC/U, though I hope it can be resolved short of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"appalling" - well...I was shutting up, but now I am not, and I hope that is not unwise... I feel as if I am watching a train wreck. No idea about Slim's reason, but that is mine. This seems to be a simple wp:content dispute gone wrong. The incivil editor has been warned and is unrepentant (reading wp:NOTTHEM would be good) and is not de-escalating. The content dispute itself is being reviewed by interested members of the community and will reach whatever end it reaches. I think that wp:WQA readers and editors have done all that can reasonably be done in this forum. Either things will escalate further or not. - Sinneed 21:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Erk... the reason it is appalling to me is that it is between admins, regardless of right, wrong, whose-fault, nobody's-fault, it damages the reputation of the incivil editor, the editor being accused of dishonesty (regardless of validity), and by "contagion" all admins and further of the WP community as a whole. Thus: train wreck.- Sinneed 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I'm grateful for the input here, and hopefully that'll put the matter to rest. SlimVirgin talk contribs 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, KillerChihuahua's contributions on this matter have been over the top hostile. Alternate phrasing, e.g. It's not reasonable to say there's a consensus when only three people have made comments is readily available. As noted above already by other third party editors, "lying" and "dishonest" are commenting on the motivation of the contributor, not that contribution. Gerardw (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not that ridicuously overly quoted out of context "comment on the contribution" thing again. This taken to its limits would prevent anyone ever commenting on a contributor which is just ridiculous and is not the intent of the phrase if you read WP:PA. Polargeo (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
No. The "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" part. The "Comment on content, not on the contributor." bit is a technique to avoid wp:personal attacks.- Sinneed 14:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor

I am currently engaged in a dispute with this user over his persitent insertion of a whole section on the subject of tabloid newpaper relevations about the private life of a Scottish politician (Nigel Griffiths) on his biography page.

This user has used a variety of tactics which I believe are not in the spirit of WP:Civility and WP:NPOV. My concerns are detailed at: [[51]]

It is my impression that he is attempting to dictate what appears in the article rather than engage in discussion or properly follow WP:DR to reach consensus. By his actions, it is apparent that he has POV and a possible COI of his own.

I seek to redress this issue in line with WP:Civility.B626mrk (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

45g, Michaeldsuarez, and Snaisybelle

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#45g.2C_Michaeldsuarez.2C_and_Snaisybelle. The discussion was archived without being revolved, and the conflict hasn't ended. The conflict is mostly between 45g and Snaisybelle, but 45g has made attempts to involve me in the conflict as well. This conflict is rooted in Encyclopedia Dramatica's "Grace Saunders" article and has unfortunately spread to Wikipedia. The conflict involves uncivil behavior and passing out of personal information.

User:45g is the subject of the "Grace Saunders" article and User:Snaisybelle rewrote that article in the February of 2010. Snaisybelle is presently a sysop at ED. In February, 45g vandalized Snaisybelle's user page and talk page with personal attacks. User:DMacks then deleted those pages and gave 45g a warning.

I'm also a ED user, so I left a welcome message for Snaisybelle on April 1, 2010. This is probably why 45g decided to target me later in the month. ON April 19, 45g left the first of a series of messages for me. 45g proceed to made demands and such.

45g told a sysop that I was vandalizing his talk page, despite the fact that I never vandalized his page. I believe that 45g was attempting to "false flag" me in order to get me blocked.

45g acts uncivil and breaks several policies. As seen in this revision, 45g says Snaisybelle's last name. 45g has also made legal threats, which is against WP:LEGAL. As seen on User_talk:Snaisybelle, 45g has also made personal attacks. 45g has also falsely accused me of being a vandal.

Snaisybelle has also made personal attacks, as seen in this reference.

I came here, since 45g is "false flagging" once again. Instead, of following WP:Conflict resolution, 45g is continuously seeking to get Snaisybelle and me banned. 45g false flagged Snaisybelle, and called her a "crazy English user".

If I can't resolve the conflict here, I'll seek WP:Arbitration.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that User:45g has recently removed my comment to User:ThinkBlue. I believe that it's an attempt to hide this discussion from ThinkBlue in order to get Snaisybelle blocked. I don't think that 45g should be allowed to continue "false flagging" users. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I blanked the pages so they would stop accusing me of adding crap. They've been "plotting" all this on other pages. They egg me on because they want 'me' banned. Not the other way around. Anyway, I'll be ignoring these pair. They both spend hours of their life editing on ED and then revert the edits when the people discover it later on, because they have no lives and seem to enjoy harassing people they don't even know. Even Australia is trying to sue that site for the aforementioned slander, so I'm not alone. Would you really want to trust a mod from a site like that? I've been a contributor on Wikipedia and many forums for years. I've never argued or went out of line once, and I've never been bothered by anyone or been accused of being a nuisance, 'til now. Just go to ED and type in Grace Saunders, September 11, Heath Ledger or Michael Jackson and you'll see the sick pages they keep under lock and key.45g (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
    • 45g, we're not here to discuss the content and the quality of ED articles; we're here to discuss your behavior. Snaisybelle and I aren't plotting against you. We simply want you to stop harassing us on Wikipedia. There isn't some anti-45g conspiracy or cabal. If you believe that we're plotting against you, then you should provide evidence. In addition, I believe that you're the one who's trying to get Snaisybelle and me banned, which can be seen here and here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The diffs you provide above show 45g's complaints not going anywhere. Your responses are merely escalating the situation. Would it be possible to just ignore them? Gerardw (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
How will ignorance solve anything? Should we ignore the elephant in the room? Leaving a problem unresolved doesn't fix the problem. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Consider this matter dropped. Do not put any further comments about this on my talk pages ANYWHERE.45g (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I see you're still up to your crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 45g (talkcontribs) 21:43, 30 April 2010

I'm guessing that you've meant to link to this comment: [52]. I'm not sure of what crap you're accusing us of doing. Are you accusing me of impersonating you on that blog? That isn't me. I don't impersonate other users. I'm not a cyberbully. Nevertheless, someone is impersonating you on Wikipedia. An anonymous user left a threat on my talk page, but I doubt that it's the real Grace Saunders. Grace is from the UK, while the anonymous user is from the US. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
45g, 1) please don't make personal attacks 2) off wikipedia behavior is not relevant. Gerardw (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

45g has tried to get me banned for the third time now. He continues to call me a vandal. 45g also continues to ignore this thread and go straight to the sysops. In fact, 45g told a sysop not to notify me or the other parties involved, and he is using Emails instead of addressing his concerns in an open environment. I feel that 45g is trying to keep Snaisybelle and me out of the loop by creating a private Email discussion. 45g may attempt to ban us without us having a say. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi. I don't even know these two jokers personally. I only know them because of ED. They are adding sockpuppet tags to old Wikipedia accounts I've not used in years. They found them by stalking my IP address. I've also made many edits to articles using my IP but without logging in. I either forgot to log in or a log in was not required to edit whatever it was I was editing. Also, they are apparently trying to keep Wikipedia from being mentioned on ED in order to hide the fact they are stalking me. Yet they constantly put my photos, dead links and e-mail messages on it without my permission. That's called harassment. Also, they add nothing to Wikipedia. Absolutely nothing. They're only here due to their obsessed methods of hassling me.45g (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I contribute to Wikipedia. I would also like to draw all your attention towards this revision by Snaisybelle. I believe that 45g attempted to hack into Snaisybelle's account, and he accidentally clicked the "Email new password" button in the process. I would like 45g to stop harassing Snaisybelle and me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
      • You mean "crack", not "hack". And honestly, if this farce continues I'd be inclined to block the lot of you. Off-wiki behavior is inadmissible until it starts affecting Wikipedia here, and since you all are turning venues into battlegrounds, I suggest you all disengage, or at the least take your fight elsewhere. Snaisybelle and Michaeldsuarez: stop posting on 45g's talk page, and vice versa. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

45g has recently used a sockpuppet in order to get Snaisybelle and me banned behind our backs. He continues to ignore this thread and asking for sysops unaware of this thread to ban us. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And guess what: I'm ready to. So cease and desist the mutual badgering, or you'll all have to go to some other venue for your pathetic internet spat. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'm stopping. I've also asked my colleague Snaisybelle to stop as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikireader41 continues personal attacks

Background to incidents

  • In an attempt to reach consensus with the wikireader about the joining of two paragraphs in the introduction.
  • I explained some reason for justification for the joining as both Paragraph had similar info about Pak support of non state actors Then ask what does he/her think,
  • He was cooperative at first and ask for clarification of what i was trying to say .
  • Then after that ,I try to give additional clarification .
  • He then started to go of on a tangent about saying same groups attacking in Pak.(attempt at a personal attack because the user think i am this nationality , i believe this because of his history)
  • Also saying that he is dyslexic and purposely writing incorrectly.But i interpreted this as a blatant attempt to commit another personal attack.(As i am dyslexic as a result this i un-subconsciously misplaced/missing sentence structure and words) I have told him that I am dyslexic before .As a result he uses it at a another chance to launch another personal attack .To prove this accusation just look at the links of his/her history.
  • i have worked with other editors whether they be Jewish, Hindu Etc, on controversial pages and have reached consensus on many occasions .But this users has an agenda against me for his own personal reason. This is the 3rd of many personal attacks , Harassment and also a possible attempt of baiting respond to him/her .

Mughalnz (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How would i proceed from here.

You ought to notify the user, placing this tag {{subst:WQA-notice}} on his talk page: since this noticeboard is only a means to provide a feedback on someone's behaviour — and not for issuing sanctions —, User:Wikireader41 needs to know that someone's complaining about his. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, this edit might seem to be aimed at poking fun at you, because User:Wikireader41 appears to be able to write just fine elsewhere. But, for the moment, I prefer to stick to WP:AGF. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
so how would i actually go about stopping the user behaving in this mannerMughalnz (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
this is extra info Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable Note, the content in this link was previously pasted verbatim by Mughalnz without a link to the actual page, but as can be seen from this, I have removed the pasted content and provided a link instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
wikireader is engaging in behavior that impersonates Mughalnz (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What would you recommend i do to prevent the behavior with the new information i added Mughalnz (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

shows previous decision made on similar matter,where the user was temporarily blocked and promised not engage in an sarcastic abusive manner.Mughalnz (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  • What would you recommend i do to prevent the behavior Mughalnz (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
For the moment, I would like to see how User:Wikireader41 responds to your concerns. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Mughalnz is the one who is violating WP:NPA here. the real reason he is running around forum shopping here is that I prevented him from POV pushing on Kashmir Conflict article so he is making complaints everywhere in violation of WP:FORUMSHOP as the admin did not feel it necessary to respond to him he came here.[53]

  • Impersonation: I am not even sure what he means here. I would like to point out to everyone that mughalnz has a habit of not taking the time and writing very cryptic hard to understand edits and has been warned about it. he himself volunteered that he is dyslexic in his own posts but yet consistents refuses to take extra time to make sure his posts are understandable in spite of being told by an admin here[54]. I myself am dyslexic but take the time to make sure my edits are correct and legible.
  • 'Do not claim to be admin' again I dont know where this comes from. even if somebody claims to be admin it is usually very easy to verify who is admin and who is not. perhaps somebody can point out to mughalnz how this can be done.
  • Do not ask for any personal details: I agree and I would never do that. even if someone did how would it require a response. again mughalnz's comments make little sense to me.
  • for those of who that do not know Mughalnz is doing this all on behalf of banned user User:Nangparbat with whom he shares his POV & who I actively work with various admins to keep at bay. Nangparbat incited him against me here. it would help if mughalnz read this Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users and WP:CIR
  • He is also accusing me of sock puppetry here. I would ask the community to tell mughalnz not to make such baseless charges. If he really thinks that I have indulged in sock puppetry he should open a proper investigation and I challenge him to do so.
  • also he should be told to take some time and make sure his edits are understandable so that he can interact usefully here on WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


WP:RFC and/or WP:ANI perhaps? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you slavio for your cooperation. I will give him additional info now and also think for while before i undertake an response.Mughalnz (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Please, do not get me wrong. I do not wish to offend you, but this thread is extremely chaotic, I find it hard to understand what's happening now and what happened in the past.
A suggestion for the future: if you wish to link to an edit by a given editor, you should use diffs and not copy chunks of text. That said, from what I've seen, there were no attempts at impersonating you. Wikireader simply wrote an edit that might have seemed aimed at poking fun at you. He has explained his behaviour though and, aassuming good faith, I believe him. To avoid further clash between you, I would kindly urge both of you to proofread your edits, before posting them, to make sure that they are easily understandble and that do not seem to be personal attacks. That's no big deal, though: you both have shown to be willing to do that.
As for the sock accusations, if you think that the other is a sock, you should report him to WP:SPI and not keep on accusing him. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this thread is too chaotic, and I have removed the pasted content and replaced it with a diff in this edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, Cooperation & Civility.

I've been editing a number of pages relating to drug policy recently, and have noticed a lot of conflict between a few of editors and, Minphie. Minphie and I have opposing views on how governments should respond to drug use, which is fine, however Minphie has been not been assuming good faith, not been civil and sometimes making edits that I believe are not in keeping with various wikipedia policy guidelines. I would like to request that someone reiterate to Minphie that consensus, cooperating and civility are important here on wikipedia. It's fine that we disagree on content, but we need to be in agreement about how to resolve this dispute as effective editors.

Examples of Minphie not adhering to wikiquette

  • Threatening to "take it further"
On the Harm reduction talk page, Minphie has multiple times told other editors (Figs Might Ply, Steinberger, Rakkar) that they will be reported for vandalism or inappropriate editing. We have demonstrated multiple times with reference to WP:NOTVAND that our edits are fair. Minphie does not accept this and keeps telling us he is keeping a log of our "infringements" that he will use to report us. User:Rakkar was reported to administrator JohnCD in early april, and received the following response: I have advised Minphie that this is a content dispute, not vandalism, and that if you and s/he cannot reach a WP:Consensus by discussion on talk pages you should follow the process described at WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD
  • Undue weight
Without reigniting the arguments here, I would like to contend that Minphie is trying to unbalance a number of drug policy related articles by adding large amounts of criticism. As per Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, Minphie's versions of the articles listed at the end of this report often contain more criticism than content. I agree that drug policies are a contentious issue, and different people in the community oppose various methods. So it's good and fine for the article to contain information on this, but not so much that most of the article is about this opposition. If I could give the following example, Minphie added so much criticism that the article was about 70% criticism. Steinberger has trimmed it down, and regardless of the exact content, I believe that the article looks a lot easier to read now.
  • Unwillingness to compromise
Minphie believes that they have unquestionable truth on a number of points, and is unwilling to engage in debate about these issues. on the Talk:Harm reduction page, they have made the following comments:
  • Here is the reason I won't tolerate any further deletions on the Sweden issue. - Goes on to claim to have unquestionable information
  • I won't tolerate this clear obstructionism in the future - claiming that because wikipedia policies around WP:Weasel have not been applied to every example of weasel words, his use of weasel words should be exempt.

Articles where disputes take place

I have tagged Minphie's talk page as requested. I hope we can reach an understanding between all editors. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Left a message [[55]]. Please note that WP:DIFFs make it easier for third party editors to respond than quotes. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


I haven't been a very actively editor lately, but I made edits to Indiana Wesleyan University that I considered to be in line with WP:UNIGUIDE and other Wikipedia policies. I was bold, as I might have expected of other editors. I was reported for this while offline, and it was said of me and to me that "he knows that he will face heavy opposition if he attempts to massively edit large university articles. Well, this is one small college article that he will face steep opposition from if he attempts to massively change it again. User:Inquietudeofcharacter, I would highly suggest moving on to another random small college article. Pushing this won't be worth the hassle." I attempted to engage in dialogue upon my return, but was later told that "As I said before and given your past actions, since I am an established editor of this article and have poured in dozens of hours improving it (and since you just noticed it), I will do the edits myself, and we can discuss them here." I was also told to go away and work on other articles. My responses went largely ignored, until I was told that the edits weren't mine to make and that I'd intended to somehow get "widespread backing" with an "urgent plea" -- basically asking for help from an involved editor and over at UNI. I feel bullied here, being ignored and then told to go away by an editor who assumes bad faith and wants to make all the edits him/herself, and no one seems to be responding to my (not urgent, but what I think are valid) pleas for anyone else to comment on how I'm being treated. It's not quite a newcomer situation, but I don't want to start editing again if it's going to be inflammatory. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the "BOLD" edits that User:Inquietudeofcharacter is referring to, consisted of deleting 90% of a large, established article that had several contributors collaborate on it over the course of 2 years, with minimal changes - in one day (he had never contributed to the article before), without one comment on the article's discussion page. Several neutral editors criticized his rash action and one of them restored the article prior to his large-scale edits. He has yet to address this behavior. I was one of several editors who spent hours researching, editing, and removing non-NPOV language from the article, so naturally, when someone deletes almost the entire article with absolutely no explanation on the discussion page, it's going to upset me a bit. I've never seen anyone do that on Wikipedia before. I stated that I was open to compromising with constructive, collaborative editing, and when he listed his suggestions, I went through the article and made the common-sense edits myself, along with additional edits he didn't mention. I told him that I would continue to work on the article over the next few weeks, but he seems to be set on restoring his mass edits immediately. So who is compromising more? Flavius Constantine (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
And I'm sorry if he took my frustration as "bullying." My responses certainly weren't meant to be threatening or intimidating.Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
While i started off as an outsider, i may be seen as being involved here because i began by reverting inquietudeofcharacter's large number of edits, based on a plea by Flavius at WP:ANI. I suggested that Inquietude had been bold, i reverted, and suggested discussion was the next stop. Flavius, while he has responded a couple of times, has done so in a manner that makes it very clear that Inquietude is not welcome, and that he, Flavius, will be deciding what edits to make and when to make them. I have mentioned these concerns to Flavius, but it appears that, while he has seen them he chooses to ignore them. Obviously, though i had never edited IWU previously, i am no longer uninvolved, so i would like to see an uninvolved editor make clear to Flavius a few facts about ownership, attitude, and general civility. Cheers, LindsayHi 03:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
On 30 April inquietudeofcharacter made seven sequential edits of the article in question. See the diffs. As well as a little new text, this editing session involved substantial deletion. I understand Inquietudeofcharacter did not discuss his actions or his intentions on the article's discussion page.
There appears to be a lesson here for both Inquietudeofcharacter and Flavius Constantine. Firstly, Inquietudeofcharacter should now be aware that substantial edits, particularly deletions, without making use of the discussion page are likely to offend other Users and lead to all those substantial edits being reverted. Secondly, Flavius Constantine should now be aware that Wikipedia expects all Users to interact in a respectful and civil manner. That even includes vandals – see WP:Do not insult the vandals. Inquietudeofcharacter has clearly interpreted Flavius’s actions as bullying. A more appropriate way of dealing with Inquietudeofcharacter would probably have been to delete his eight edits and then leave a message on his Talk page, explaining why you deleted and how he can contribute more constructively to Wikipedia in the future. Dolphin (t) 04:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful comments Dolphin. To be honest, I didn't know how to restore the article prior to his edits - that's why I originally posted to the board for assistance (as can be seen in the board history). Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Parties advised to tone it down.

Hello, I'm a neutral 3rd party that was called to mediate a dispute on an article. It became clear to me that one particular party (User: was not communicating in a respectful, collaborative manner, and has a history of doing so. I posted to his talk page, here: [56] (this post is a good summary of the specific problems). His response was to revert it and then post more accusations about one of the users to my talk page. As this person has shown no sign that he "got the point," I think the community needs to show that it thinks his behavior is problematic. I think this is important for two reasons: 1) so that he doesn't think I'm the only person who thinks so; and 2) to create some documentation of intervention in case the behavior continues or escalates. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Who called you to mediate? Gerardw (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
User:E.w.bullock did. I mediate for MEDCAB on occasion, and I'm the project coordinator for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010‎, which the article in question was a part of. However, I'm not acting as a mediator, as it seems to me the bulk of the issue is solved at this point (at least some equilibrium seems to be taking place). I'm here as a concerned editor bringing a pattern of behavior to the attention of Wikiquette Alerts. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Another user (Centpacrr) has been engaged in a knee-jerk edit war on two articles he acts as though he owns. He has repeatedly reverted edits, changing correct spelling to incorrect, changing proper grammar to grammatical mistakes, and more. He was informed about WP:MOS numerous times, but paid no attention. I'm not sure who called Noraft to mediate. Certainly no one apprised me that a mediation had been requested. In any case, Noraft paid no attention whatsoever to Centpacrr's edit warring on the articles. He paid no attention to the rants that Centpacrr had added to my user page, the wikistalking in which he had engaged, or the fact that he had been cited for edit warring numerous times in the past. Noraft neglected my many neutral and inoccuous edit summaries: "formatting," "grammar, clarity," "'in May 6' -> 'on May 6'," "hyphen needed," "removed unnecessary detail; added punctuation," " reflexive not needed; punctuation needed," and many, many more. Instead he chose to look at a select few that were perhaps intemperate, and he looked at them entirely out of context. In one case Noraft criticized me for placing an "Improper use of warning or blocking template" on the page of an editor who had accused me of vandalism for having changed the word "is" to "was" in an article. I find it hard to see this as "mediation." Noraft appears to be PO'd that I removed his lengthy lecture from my user page. It is my user page, isn't it? And don't I have a right to maintain it as I wish? As to posting "more accusations about one of the users to [his] talk page," I simply posted the history of Centpacrr's edit warring, which Noraft had overlooked in his "mediation." (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In no particular order:

  • No, it's not your user page, it's Wikipedia's and there are policies regarding it's use.
  • Part of said policies is that user are entitled to delete content off their talk page and that is considered an appropriate acknowledgment of the content.
  • Describing editing disagreements as vandalism is uncool.
  • Centpacrr has been making invalid ownership style arguments on Talk:LZ 129 Hindenburg which I've addressed here [[57]].
  • Diffs are better than quotes.
  • This is mostly a content dispute. 75 could lower the rhetoric a little, though. Gerardw (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't bring this here as a content dispute. I brought this here because I think 75's behavior is unacceptable, not in one circumstance, but pretty much since he started editing on his current account. Please don't get distracted by one content dispute when the identified issue is the comments he's made to more than a dozen different editors. Posted here:

The tone of the following comments is of concern:

    1. In other words, don't claim to be making "corrections", when what you are actually doing is edit warring about wording that has nothing whatsoever to do with historical accuracy, and don't claim to be making "grammar tweaks" when all you're doing is changing the wording. Professional writers make a distinction between word choice and grammar. (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) (said to a user with 7000 edits and no history of edit warring [58])
    2. The first sentence refers to a time period in the past; hence it uses the past tense. The second sentence refers to a time period in the present; hence it uses the present tense. I can recommend a couple of good grammar books, if you like. It seems to me that your time reverting such changes and issuing vandalism warnings about them is not well spent. And you obviously haven't learned to avoid discussion about such things. Perhaps 90% of the vandalism you identify comes from IP addresses. Whether the edits you revert are actual vandalism or false positives is another matter. Further, it doesn't mean that 90% of all vandalism comes from anonymous editors, just that 90% of your reverts are of IP addresses. This could just be a reflection of your bias. I can also recommend some good books on statistics and logic. (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (said to a user with almost 35,000 edits [59])
    3. Read, and read carefully. You really need to pay attention to what you're doing and to what you claim others are doing. I do not "keep speedying it." It was speedily deleted once by someone else, recreated by the original editor once, and then I requested a speedy delete, based on the reasoning of the first administrator. Sheesh! The inconsistencies in the administration of WP give me the heebeejeebees! (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC) (said to a user with over 12,000 edits [60])
  • The following edit summaries are also of concern:
    1. (→Rankings: enough already!)
    2. (reverting vandalism - User:Centpacrr has repeatedly been warned not to use academic titles per WP:MOS)
    3. (→Inaccuracies: wordy, wordy, wordy, wordy, wordy -or- Why use 10 words when you can use 100?)
    4. (really lousy writing; still needs a lot of work)
    5. (Undid revision 360320341 by Centpacrr (talk)Don't play innocent; you know perfectly well what the problem is.)
    6. (→Inaccuracies: pseudo-sophisticated, pretentious writing)
    7. (→Other sites: unsourced drivel)
    8. (executive produced?? learn some English)
    9. (→Nature vs. nurture: huh?? this is gibberish)
    10. (now that's a short attention span - by the time you've gotten to the end of the sentence you've already forgotten the first two words of the senttence)

...and those are just in the last two and a half weeks.

I think Wikimedia Foundation volunteers (which is what editors are) deserve better. Regarding deletion of material off of one's userpage, don't buy into 75's attribution that I "seem to be PO'd" about it. I'm not, and have given no indication that I am. I simply said that I noticed he had deleted it, which tells me that he saw it, which is what I was commenting on when I said "What about the other 85% of the message? I saw you undid it." Not sure why he thinks I'm PO'd because of that. I was just asking him to address the rest of the comments, which of course he is under no compulsion to do, and I support his right not to.

Simply put, the above is not acceptable. I brought this here because I'm just one editor, and I thought it was important that the community as a whole (with Wikiquette Alerts as its designated representative) make a statement about this pattern of behavior. We're sick of the incivility, and it is driving experienced editors away. Nobody should have to put up with this in order to volunteer their time. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The above seems to me to be speech making rather than addressing issues. As noted, 75's tone could be improved but failure to address the thousands of edits and "ownership" aspects of the other editors' actions makes the intervention seem one sided to me. As there's no value in Noraft and I going back and forth I'm tagging in progress in the hope additional editors' input will be helpful. Gerardw (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not here as a mediator. I was called in to mediate but I have not accepted that role. Each of us is responsible for our own behavior, regardless of the behavior of others. This editor's "intemperate comments" (his words, on my talk page) attracted my attention, and I brought them to Wikiquette Alerts. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that User:Noraft has conveniently pulled some of my talk pages comments out of context. One needs to understand them in the context of the bullying comments from other editors to which they were replies. (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I included the links so people could see the context. People deserve respect even if they do something wrong. Bullying does not give an editor license to treat people badly. And by the way, how many of those edit summaries are "pulled out of context"? Anyway, I brought this here to Wikiquette Alerts, and now here it is. They'll do with it what they think is right, and that will be the last word they have to say on the matter. I think that the information I've presented speaks for itself, and my role here is finished. Good day! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • With one exception, I agree with Gerardw's handling of this. The exception is that I don't agree that 75 should tone it down "a little"; my view is that 75 should tone it down a lot. Good faith criticism is one thing; bad-faith, inflammatory, and/or uncivil commentary in any edit on Wikipedia is another - the latter is unimpressive and will not be tolerated on this project. You are responsible for the edits you make, even in perceived difficult situations, and let's hope that these are isolated incidents so that this dispute can be resolved without further escalation. Should this continue, then it will eventually lead to the revocation of editing privilleges.... That's all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

People who are commenting in this WQA would interested in this interchange that I had with 75. This was in response to a large deletion of text without an edit summary. At the time, it appeared to be an isolated incident. Now, not so much. --I dream of horses (T) @ 17:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I invite you all to look at the complete interaction. You'll notice that it started with me making two perfectly good, constructive edits. The first was the removal of vandalism. The second was the removal of a single outdated, invalid sentence that contradicted other valid information in the article. Following the deletion of those two sentences, I dream of horses slapped a vandalism notice on my talk page. Of course, "large" deletion is in the mind of the beholder. I'll leave it to your judgment as to whether the removal of two sentences constitutes a "large" removal. I'll also leave it to your judgment as to whether the removal of those two sentences constituted vandalism. Finally, I'll ask you to note that I dream of horses's abusive vandalism warning was the third such one I had received within two days, all for making constructive edits.
Where does one report out-of-control vandalism patrollers? (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The alleged "rant" of mine about which anonymous IP User: complains above (and which he/she deleted less that two minutes after it was posted) can be seen here. In it I politely requested that he/she not make changes to the LZ 129 Hindenburg article that introduced false information and/or did not conform to the references which he/she apparently did not consult, and also to please "...respect the many hours of effort that the primary editors of this article have put in over the years to develop it as we will do for the work and effort that you have put in on those articles which you have helped develop." As for his/her charge of "Wikistalking" (whatever he/she means by that) I really have no idea what he/she is accusing me of here. In the last posting that he/she made to my talk page relating to my mentioning the font used as the logotype to display the name on the Hindenburg (a link which he/she actually originally added), he/she opines that "The only purpose I can see to including that information in the Hindenburg article is to inflame anti-German bigotry among those who equate everything German with 'Nazi.' " I really don't know what that is supposed to imply about the reasons for my contributions either.
  • I have never made any claim of ownership of this or any other article, even to those such as this one on which I have been working with others for two years. But when another editor "parachutes in" with no apparent previous interest or background in the subject and begins making wholesale changes which are apparently based on his/her personal views of what is "right "and/or don't conform to the references then I am going to fix them. Centpacrr (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to call a spade a spade here. Centpacrr's comment above is misleading to the point of being dishonest. I once accidentally changed a date in the LZ 129 Hindenburg article. Aside from that, all my changes have been editorial - grammar, spelling, reducing wordiness, etc. Centpacrr also knows perfectly well that he himself has flip-flopped dozens of times on the wording of the article, so his claims that my edits did not "conform to the references" is more than a bit disingenuous, since apparently half his flip-flops didn't either. And even if Centpacrr isn't familiar with the term "wikistalking," he knows perfectly well that he thoroughly checked out my history of edits and hunted down my geographic location from my IP address (or at least he thought he did). He admitted as much in one of his rants. He also knows that editors don't "claim" ownership of articles; they demonstrate it by reverting the perfectly good edits of other users. At least he should know that - he's been warned about it many times ([61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]), and even blocked for it ([69]). As to the quote of mine he took out of context, here's the complete comment:
Fraktur is a font type (not a font), like serif or sans serif. To say that something was written in "Fraktur script letters" makes no sense at all. It's like saying that something that was written longhand was written "in Latin writing letters." Beyond that, it's an absolutely trivial detail to include in an encyclopedia article. It was the typeface used by German language printers for ~150 years. It would be the equivalent of saying that one of the space shuttles had "Atlantis" written on the side in large sans serif letters. The only purpose I can see to including that information in the Hindenburg article is to inflame anti-German bigotry among those who equate everything German with "Nazi."
Centpacrr archived it so the complete comment couldn't be readily seen. I wrote it after he repeatedly inserted the incoherent term "Fraktur script letters" in the LZ_129_Hindenburg article, reverting my edits of it, and ignoring my edit summaries. Since Centpacrr says he didn't understand my comment, I wrote an additional one on his talk page:
It's unfortunate you didn't understand my comment about Fraktur. Basically what I said was: (1.) the term "Fraktur script letters" makes no sense; it's incoherent; and (2.) the font type used to paint a name on the side of an airship seems trivial and pointless (i.e., unencyclopedic). I hope this makes sense to you now.
That's the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • says he did not make any other changes that introduced errors or were inconsistent with the sources which is incorrect. For instance he changed a wikilink to the word "Friedrichshafen" to point instead to the page for the "Friedrichshafen Airport" in the paragraph relating to the first trial flight of the Hindenburg. I revered this because that flight was made from the Zeppelin dockyards which are in fact in Friedrichshafen, not the airport which is located in Löwenthal. Other content changes he made that I reverted were the unexplained removal of sourced facts, detail, and/or context which, when deleted, materially changed the meaning of the entries and rendered them inconsistent with the the sources from which they were drawn. (There were so many of these that I generally changed them back in bulk with the edit summary "corrections" or the like as opposed to making 20 or 30 separate edits.)
Comment This is so blatantly false. Don't you realize that people can actually view my edits and see what I've done? For example, if they viewed the Friedrichshafen issue you complain about, they'll see that I added a link where there previously was none. I guess you expect other editors to read your mind and to know that you really mean the airport at Löwenthal when you used the name Friedrichshafen. (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Reply No it was you who pointed it to the airpot in Löwenthal, not I. I said the flight was from Friedrichshafen which is where the Zeppelin dockyards were located. Centpacrr (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What curiously refers to as "flip flopping" is actually editing, i.e., making changes in which I either corrected inaccuracies or added material as I found new or better sources which I also added to the reference section. This is NOT "flip flopping", it is editing, developing, and building the article which is EXACTLY the process that EVERY article on Wikipedia undergoes as it grows and matures.
Comment Again, they can see your edits just as well as mine. They can see that in some instances in which you complain that my errors introduced inaccuracies I was, in fact, using some of your earlier language. If that language was inaccurate, then why did you use it in the first place? (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Reply As I said it is called "editing" and "developing" an article based on finding better sources and new information. Perhaps you have never changed or updated anything you have ever written in Wikipedia or elsewhere when you found new, better, or more reliable information. If that is the case, then I congratulate you as being absolutely unique! Centpacrr (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • What calls "wikistalking" is no such thing. What I said to (who has no userpage) is that his/her public contributions page indicates that a large percentage of his/her edits were to pages relating to people (such as Stephen Ambrose), places, and institutions from or located in Wisconsin, and that the IP that he/she is editing from is assigned to an ISP with a server located somewhere near Hartford, CT, a piece of public information that anyone can resolve and retrieve in 15 seconds. I looked at his contributions page to see if he had ever edited any article relating to either railroads or aviation (there were none), and to see if his ISP was located anywhere near the grade of the Pacific Railroad, the subject of the Ambrose book. A reading of's posts here reveal that he/she as "wikistalked" my contributions far more than the cursory look I took at his, but this is a public document so this does not bother me in the least. (My userpage also provides a great deal of information about myself which I placed there as a courtesy to other editors in their evaluating my contributions.) If he/she does not want anybody to know where his ISP is located, all he/she has to do is register on Wikipedia, select a username, and the IP he/she uses will disappear.
Comment This speaks for itself. (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Reply As i said this is absolutely public information easily accessible by anyone in seconds and does not personally identify you in any way. Centpacrr (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As for the comment that I "hid" his posting that contained the comment "The only purpose I can see to including that information in the Hindenburg article is to inflame anti-German bigotry among those who equate everything German with 'Nazi.' " this is also untrue. What I did is archive my talk page which I do whenever it gets too long. His full posting can easily be found there. I find this particular complaint curious, however, as's general practice is not to archive (or in his/her words, "hide") such posts, but to immediately delete anything added to his talk page which appears to make him/her at all uneasy.
Comment Your imputing motivation here. Gerardw warned you not to do that. (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Reply It was actually you who claimed that I had "hidden" (which is imputing motivation, by the way) although you could have easily "found" it by looking at my "Talk" page's edit history. All I did was point out that you deleted posts made by myself and others instead of archiving them. This, of course, is your perfect right, but I just found it curious when you accuse others of using their archive pages to "hide" posts when you chose to expunge those on your Talk page altogether.
....And now, alas, I have another railroad history book due to my publisher in nine days so as enjoyable and diverting as this exercise has been, I'll bid you "Adieu" and get back to that project. Centpacrr (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


As background, she's a practitioner of Aesthetic Realism who is currently campaigning to keep the thing the organization is most noted for (its claim that Aesthetic Realism makes gay men straight, because all homosexuality arises from contempt of women) out of the lead of that article. I feel that her most recent edit summary violates WP:civility, and have said so on her talk page, but somehow I think she'll be more likely to believe it coming from someone who is not me. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the above comment. It is not civil to change the lead out of the blue when there is a talk page for discussion prior to making such major changes. What did you expect when you acted in such a manner? Nathan43 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Filthy POV is incivil. Changing the lead is editing, and perfectly fine per WP:BRD. As far as the content, Outerlimits is discussing, LoreMariano is not Talk:Aesthetic_Realism#Restored_lede. Gerardw (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Stale: 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This user has previously been discussed at Wikiquette alerts (Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive45#User:Art4em) but some time has since passed and more recent edits have been limited to a single low-activity article. It's therefore not 100% clear to me how to deal with this as it is more or less an issue of spamming, however this is an established editor so I am starting here. User repeatedly inserts details of his 'workbook' into Gardner's Art Through the Ages as a work-around to keep the content in Wikipedia following deletion of the full article Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages (LG Williams), by the same editor. Due to this editor's editing style and the length of his contributions diffs can be confusing, but a quick review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party Down Scandal (LG Williams) will provide more context. AngoraFish 21:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an element of promotion in the change. Has Art4em had a change to read WP:COI? Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
See, for example, diffs [70] and [71]. Also raised on multiple occasions on the talk pages of articles contributed by Art4em that have now been deleted, such as L.G. Williams - ultimately deleted per G11: Blatant advertising, although not without extensive prior discussion. AngoraFish 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, in case there is any doubt about the COI, see AngoraFish 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Stale: 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Alastairward is very clearly following me around to various articles I've edited, conducting various reverts and removals. To give some background, I think this is related to a dispute some time ago here. To give you a bit more about the user in question, most of the articles this user has edited are associated with Star Trek and science fiction. Therefore, I found it very strange that AW appeared on the article recently for Patton (film) and conducted a blanking of an entire section, some of which I had added [72]. Shortly thereafter, the user appeared on the main article for Patton and conducted the same revert there [73]. On the talk page for the Patton film article, the user made a vague statements about investigating user contributions [74] and stating "I see you've pulled this thing on other articles". Up to this point, I was willing to follow WP:AGF but this changed after one of my edits was supported by another user [75] - very soon after, Alastsairward appeared on the article for Uniforms and insignia of the Schutzstaffel- an article that I have been heavily involved with editing. AW promptly reverted an edit I had made then shortly thereafter, reverted another in which I was clarifying a translation. [76] [77]. In the second edit, AW claimed it was "vandalism" and then posted an admin notice on my talk page [78] as if I were a new user (I've been editing Wikipedia for six years). I should point out also that AW has edited few to none World War II articles and has never edited a single article on the German-SS; this was very obviously a result of reviewing my user contributions, finding an article I was involved with, and arriving to revert in order to get a reaction out of me. This is now the third article this user has appeared on and it is clear he is "following me around". I am asking for some advice and/or action to prevent this from spreading to other articles I've edited. -OberRanks (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As if to confirm what I have said the user just stated on a talk page that this is in some way connected with a former WQ alert in which I was witness [79] [80]. This appears to be bad feelings about old issues from February and I think this recent following me to other articles is directly related. -OberRanks (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks, you were the one who brought up the subject of the previous Wikiquette alert against me (which was dismissed) here. Note the difference in date and time, it seems that the first to remember was your good self. I'm also unsure why you cited that as a "conflict of interest" on my behalf.
But to the edits I made, I made them because you added trivia and uncited material to Wikipedia, plain and simple. I can think of no reason why I should avoid any particular article, are you suggesting I should? Alastairward (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
OberRanks also seems to be trying to drag an editor here, with whom I've had no interaction for some time, but who had weighed in at the previous Wikiquette alert (did I mention it was dismissed?). I don't see how dragging uninvolved editors into this discussion can be productive and it certainly makes OberRanks complaint about being "followed" seem a bit odd in retrospect. Alastairward (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I freely admit to inviting User:Peter Isotalo to this discussion since AW directly referenced a former Wiki complaint that PI filed as a background item for this recent activity [81]. -OberRanks (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you not check the diffs above, you mentioned it first, I didn't even remember who you were until you provided the first link to that discussion. Alastairward (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The comment here [82] pulling this sort of thing in other articles does tend to support the wiki-hounding allegation. Additionally, third opinion wasn't appropriate as there were more than two editors involved. A reason to avoid each other is simple civility and smooth functioning of Wikipedia; more editing and less drama is to be preferred. Gerardw (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone as far as I intend to with the Patton (film) article. I was (and am) perfectly willing to listen to what AW has to say and even did a self revert while we worked things out [83]. The spark that set this off was when AW showed up on the SS rank article, deliberately removing my edits as "vandalism" [84]. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that AW's appearance on the SS article was for no other reason than to continue the dispute from the Patton film article and try goad an uncivil response. I highly doubt that AW just happened to choose to start editing that article, on a subject which his account has never before even commented on, with the first edit being a revert of my contributions. So, where does this leave us. This can be over right now so long as AW doesn't track me to other articles I've worked on and start removing things for little or no reason. At this point, it is totally a good idea to simple go separate ways and not get involved with articles the other is editing unless there is a serious legitimate interest. -OberRanks (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Gerardw, if OberRanks has made poor edits in other articles, why should I not revert or change them? What does constitute "wiki-hounding"? Is it not more likely to be the actions that OberRanks took? That early on in our discussion he pulled out an old Wikiquette alert, that was dismissed in my favour, then started a new one and tried to pull in unrelated editors from the old alert to challenge me? If you were asked which is more productive, eliminating poorly or completely uncited material and trivia or dragging editors to a section of Wikipedia, where real concerns cannot be addressed, which would you say is worse?
Looking back at the talk page for the Patton film article, it's clear that more editors than just me have had a problem with the material he/she keeps trying to add again and again. Against many other opinions, this trivial material is forced back in, with a poor cite and little to no justification. This user tried to slip it into another article, where it had even less justification. Can you see the value of contrib lists now and why its useful to see where other inappropriate material is being added?
Besides all this, the original problems still persist, inappropriate or poorly cited material is being shoved into these articles, and OberRanks has made it clear they don't like trivia being removed, so we appear to be stuck. As the editor adding material to Wikipedia, the onus (or burden) is on them to justify their edits and not simply override other users. Its amusing to note that just after declaring in an edit summary that they don't want to "edit war", they go right ahead and revert all the edits before them.
Perhaps this might be one good place to ask, what do you do with an editor like OberRanks, who has snubbed consensus and other opinions and has made it pretty clear they just want me banned from their articles? Alastairward (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If you come across a poor edit in browsing Wikipedia of course you should fix it. But trailing around after a particular editor just causes undue drama, and isn't a appropriate because a.) if the writing is bad eventually some other editor will probably fix it and b.) there is no shortage of bad writing in WP for you to fix. If trivia is your particular concern, you could work on the list at trivia sections and there by improve Wikipedia without targeting a particular editor. Since you asked, I'd say your tracking OberRanks around is worse than their (allegedly) bad writing. WP:Civility is a pillar, perfect prose is not. Gerardw (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No offence intended, but I'm not sure what the problem is. If bad edits are made and I undo them, then what? Am I being excluded then from whatever articles OberRanks edits? I would remind you that he/she did once actively canvass for my input into one of their article edits and then dragged me to a Wikiquette alert for doing so. The diff is above. Alastairward (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The previous Wikiquette to which you are referring was started by User:Peter Isotalo. The original thread can be found here. From what I read in that, it was *far* from "dismissed" as several editors commented on previous patterns of uncivil behavior. I appeared as a witness- I did not "drag you to it" as it was started by other users. Just wanted to clarify that since this current situation is not (at least by me) motivated by that thread, but rather following me to other articles and reverting contributions for little to no reason. If that doesn't continue, then everything can be fine with this. -OberRanks (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
OberRanks, the previous Wikiquette alert was closed with the label "Not a wikiquette issue". In other words dismissed... (And what do you know, it was closed by Gerardw to boot).
And Peter Isolato has nothing to do with this current discussion, yet you have asked him to respond, why?
The only issue I can find here is that you beleive I shouldn't be allowed to edit articles that you edit, would you mind explaining? Alastairward (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I never said that you can't edit articles I've worked on- I said your arrival on the SS rank article was a clear attempt at following me from the Patton film article and reverting my edits to get a reaction. This especially since you reverted my edit as "vandalism" when it clearly was a legitimate edit [85]. If I am lying, then may an admin block me right now, but you showed up on the SS article in anger, reverted a legitimate edit to get a reaction, and then posted a newbie edit notice on my talk page to get an even further reaction [86]. The manner in which this was conducted was also very carefully manipulated so as to avoid making an actual personal attack or commit a 3RR breach so to maintain an appearance that you were just "following the rules". But, when you come down to it, I highly doubt you have a legitimate interest in an article about SS ranks and your presence there is a pure attempt to engage in further disputes in hopes that I will "slip up", lose my temper and/or commit an actual violation of Wikipedia policy. Well, that isn't going to happen. -OberRanks (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
OberRanks, you said above, and I quote directly, "This can be over right now so long as AW doesn't track me to other articles I've worked on". So there you have it, OberRanks request, a ban on me editing articles he/she edits. Sorry, but I've editing other WWII and military related articles before, and I will do so again.
And I see now you've moved onto assumptions of bad faith. If you're going to proclaim that every edit I make that happens to disagree with yours is hounding or provocation, we're pretty much stuck in this discussion.Alastairward (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more to say on my end. The edit diffs speak for themselves. This notion that you visited the SS rank article out of a new-found interest on the subject just doesn't fly with me- you quite clearly followed me there attempting to flame up a dispute. If I have misrepresented the situation or lied, I suggest submitting a notice on WP:ANI. -OberRanks (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should I bother, I've said my peace and provided the relevant diffs. Once again you've provided nothing worth bothering with in a Wikiquette alert against me, Peter Isolato doesn't seem bothered either.
I notice though that your edits have improved somewhat in the SS Uniform article after my intervention. So worth it after all eh? Alastairward (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post.