Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive21

Archive index

Multiple disputes involving B9 hummingbird hovering

Stale

 – --Darkwind (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering has been warned numerous times over the past several months by multiple editors about WP:OR, WP:V, and personal attacks, but continues to have frequent conflict, often inserting the same contested material on multiple articles. I am requesting some independent opinion on this matter.

Here is a current example of conflict-oriented editing on Mantra involving a content dispute over a book by Bucknell & Stuart-Fox (1986):

• 2 August (5:02) User:B9 hummingbird hovering inserts the Bucknell et. al. book into the References section, but it is not used in any footnote or otherwise mentioned: [1]
• 2 August (5:04) Since WP:LAYOUT calls for the References section to contain only works cited in Notes, I remove the uncited book: [2]
• 2 August (9:27): Book is reinserted, this time with a quote: [3]
• 2 August (12:56) User:IPSOS removes the quote as irrelevant to the article: [4]
• 2 August (13:23) Book is reinserted: [5]
• 2 August (15:44): User:GourangaUK reverts insertion as inappropriate and requests discussion on talk page: [6]
• 3 August (1:51): Book is reinserted: [7]
• 4 August (04:50): I remove the materia as irrelevant and note that it is being inserted on multiple articlesl: [8]
• 4 August (13:18) Book is reinserted, with personal attack on me: [9]
• 4 August (13:55) User:IPSOS removes the content as irrelevant, noting lack of consensus: [10]
• 4 August (14:15) Material is reinserted: [11]
• 4 August (22:51) I remove it, categorizing it as content spam: [12]

Regarding the book involved in that conflict, B9 hummingbird hovering is inserting Bucknell et al. on mulitple articles, many with the same pattern of insertion of the book with no quotation or other citation that would justify placement in References (according to WP:LAYOUT). E.g.:

• 2 August: B9 hummingbird hovering Creates page for the book The Twilight Language: [13]
• 2 August: Five_Dhyani_Buddhas: [14]
• 2 August: Om_mani_padme_hum: [15]
• 2 August: Chakra: [16]
• 2 August: Mandala: [17]
• 3 August: Yantra: [18]
• 4 August: Mudra: [19]
• 4 August: Mantra: [20]

If you review the edit history for this user various other articles where similar conflict has taken place can be found. Any opinions on how to handle this situation? Buddhipriya 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(I'm responding to this case after confirming with User:Buddhipriya that he'd still like assistance, despite the age of this alert.)

This case is what is known in technical circles as a "doozy". The user's edits all appear to be good faith edits, but there's no question that he is (or was at the time of this alert) ignoring consensus. He seems willing to discuss the issues but I tend to agree with User:IPSOS that most of his arguments don't make sense (and I don't mean that they're weak arguments - I mean they don't seem to mean anything at all). Moreover, his recent edits seem to be primarily violations of Orwell's second, third, and fifth rules.

As for how to handle it, he seems to be reluctant to accept the word of two editors, especially two editors who he sees as allied against him, as consensus. Making use of WP:RFC to get more people involved in specific cases would likely be useful, since this is, at its heart, a content dispute. The specific issues involving that book seem so to be stale, but if there are any specific issues going on now I'd be willing to try talking with him, as an outside party, to see if an understanding can be reached. Sarcasticidealist 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I hope you will clarify that by "he" in the above remarks you are referring to User:B9 hummingbird hovering and not to me. Since the posting of this report the editor has reduced their attacks, but has continued to press issues in ways that may involve failures of policy. I would appreciate it very much if you would dialog directly with the user to get their side of the story and provide an independent opinion on the policies of WP:OR, WP:V, and the need to avoid personal attacks. I also have found it difficult to understand what the editor is saying at times because the editor uses language in what is perhaps a metaphorical or poetic manner that I sometimes find simply incomprehensible. This has limited my ability to engage in direct dialog. I chose to use a Wikiquette alert rather than an RFC as a first step because I was wanting to begin with the least invasive method for getting independent opinion. Buddhipriya 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - "he" indeed refers to User:B9 hummingbird hovering. I'd be happy to talk to him, but I'd first like some more recent examples of issues that he is pressing; from what I can tell, the one you cited initially, while it was certainly a problem when you cited it, seems to be largely resolved. At that time, I will also explain that, in article talk pages, clarity is perhaps to be valued over beauty. Sarcasticidealist 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a fresh example of WP:OR: [21].
• Here is a fresh addition of unsourced content which conflicts with the basic facts in the article: [22]. Buddhipriya 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left some comments on his talk page. Let's see what happens from here. Sarcasticidealist 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations that I am a troll and a stooge of ZanuPF for reverting inappropriate material on Robert Mugabe

Stale

 – --Darkwind (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted the following message to WP:AN:

There is persistent vandalism of Robert Mugabe. Since he is a living person, I presume the special care as pointed out in WP:BLP applies. In the last case of vandalism, User:Brian.gratwicke inserted the term "illegitimate" in the description of him as the president of Zimbabwe. I removed it, and, because he has been warned for his edits before, and has been on wikipedia for quite a while, I issued him with a "uw-vandalism4im" warning given the nature of the vandalism to a living person's article. He objected to this on my talk page, and I replied stating that if he wanted to claim that the election was rigged, he should be able to come up with the appropriate references. His reply was to accuse me of being a troll. I take this to be an extremely serious accusation as to my credibility without any supporting evidence, and certainly was not my motivation and never has been as one can see by my previous work on wikipedia. I would like to request some immediate action taken to deal with this problem. He is "demanding" that i withdraw the accusation of vandalism and has now repeated the accusation that I am a troll. He is attempting to escalate the matter, by alluding to an idea that I may be a ZANUPF stooge, which is clearly insulting and derogatory and without foundation,but I am refraining from replying.

The response from WP:AN so far has been disappointing in one crucial respect. First of all, I accept that I may have been inaccurate in describing the addition I removed as vandalism, though I still consider a case may be made for that (see my reply to the response to my original message). However, I am disappointed that the one administrator who has replied has not commented on the real issue that motivated me posting to WP:AN in the first place: that of the unfounded accusations that I am a troll and the allusion that I am a stooge of ZanuPF for merely reverting POV-pushing that was unverified and inappropriate (and could lead to further difficulties) on a wikipedia article about a living person. I find it difficult to retract and apologise for the mis-identification of vandalism if the accusation against me of being a troll and the allusion that I am a supporter of ZanuPF remains uncommented on and not dealt with. The original mis-identification should not, I think, be seen as some kind of free licence to respond in the way that Brian.gratwicke did. I would like some advice on what to do here. Finally, I am surprised at the apparent bias shown by the adminsitrator who replied to me with the following sentence: "Mugabe's last election was heavily criticized as unfair and he is seen as a dictator by a number of people around the world; the use of the word "illegitimate" is therefore valid" as it oversimplified the situation. My personal thoughts about Mugabe is that he is not someone I would like to see in charge of any country given his behaviour, but I do not feel that would justify such language or such simplistic conclusions in an encyclopaedia, which wikipedia aspires to remain.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a first. We have a wikiquette alert apparently as the second step after being dealt with at the Administrator's noticeboard!

It is only two hours since your latest response at the noticeboard. Relax. Give it a bit of time, and perhaps you may also cool off a bit yourself and put it all in perspective. I suggest you delete the material added to your talk page by User:Brian.gratwicke, recognize that you provoked this with an inappropriate accusation of vandalism, and let it go. You really only need to get fussed when incivility becomes an ongoing disruption. It is better not to go straight to administrator noticeboards and wikiquette alerts after one childish outburst. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL: User:Calton and User talk:THF and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Syring

Stale

 – --Darkwind (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuses me of "spinning" and then calls my argument "crap" after I politely asked him to explain what appeared to me to be a non sequitur and suggested "spin" was an uncivil way to characterize my good-faith concern about a WP:BLP1E violation. THF 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And then Calton left this uncivil remark on my talk page. THF 05:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The same initial response has been posted to both users' talk pages. Responses should be made here! Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It does look to me like Calton could use a good healthy dose of WP:AGF - his reply to the AfD discussion was not so much about the notability of the content, but more along the lines of "This was a bad-faith nomination". One of the WQA folks (I don't have time at the moment) should probably leave him a message reminding him of the policies and inviting him to this discussion so that we can more effectively mediate the dispute.

THF, I'd encourage you to remain civil in your responses to him, and for the time being to keep your distance for now, as it'll be all too easy for this to spiral out into a big shouting match between you two. I appreciate you bringing it here, though - it'll give us an opportunity to help mediate and redirect the energy back into the content issues.

As for the content: Keep in mind that the term "left-wing" (applied to the media) is somewhat of a loaded term among many - it's apparent that Calton doesn't like having media stories attributed to "left wing blogs" and such, since he sees it as political spin. (It's a common tactic in politics to try to reduce a story's notability by pointing out apparent or perceived biases in the story's sources - a logical extension of that is to imply that the story was made up by one party to hurt someone on the other, or that one side is putting undue weight on an issue.) While something like this may be true, content discussions should be kept as NPOV as well, if possible - in this case, I'd probably have said something more like "It was only reported via a handful of minor sources" or similar.

That said, I think your attempts to resolve the dispute have been good - just remember to keep your cool. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The "left-wing blog" remark reflected the fact that one of the Patrick Syring external links was to a left-wing blog. There was no pejorative intention behind the comment, it was purely descriptive. There perhaps exist better sources, but whoever created edited the article chose to use a left-wing blog. Of course, it doesn't matter how good the sources are under WP:BLP1E. Non-notability outside of a single scandal is non-notability. Thank you for your input, I hope that my conduct to date complied with WP:CIVIL. THF 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (corrected 07:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi - I know this probably isn't the place to mention this, but I did want to clarify. I created the Patrick Syring article, but I didn't use any blogs as a source for this article. The only blog reference in the article was a link to a site that hosted the indictment - and this link was added by Pat1425! (Syring?) FWIW, I don't think there's any left-right angle to this story at all, unless it spawns a debate about hate crimes legislation. Popkultur 01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind one of KieferSkunk (t c)'s remarks, which is that "left-wing blog" can be seen as a loaded term. While it is not, of itself, uncivil, many people see it as a POV term. Personally, I'd avoid using terms like "left-wing blog" in Wikipedia discussions. This may keep people who are offended by the term from blowing up at you. Just call it a "blog" - it doesn't matter if it's left-wing, right-wing, or pig-wing, a blog is usually not considered a reliable source anyway. --Darkwind (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fashion Icon

Resolved

The Fashion Icon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit warring, bitching, accusations of trolling and personal attacks where no incident has taken place, constant deletion of critical comments from his/her usertalk page. User was notified here, rather brusquely since s/he has deleted all my comments on his/her talkpage for the last few days. Update: yup, it's been deleted!--Rambutan (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide any specific diffs? Melsaran (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. They are as follows (look at the edit and the summary): [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], this one particularly, [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] in response to [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. I can produce about 7 more if desired.--Rambutan (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not counting the last one, all diffs were on her own talk page. As I pointed out before, users are given a lot of freedom to do what they want in their own user space, and while these comments/reverts weren't exactly civil, it may be better just to leave the editor alone, forget about the whole thing and resume editing. It doesn't look like you two have a real dispute as long as you try to leave each other alone. Melsaran (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the deletions of critical comments are indicative of her disregard for the consequences of her actions on Wikipedia. Look through her contributions history - it's all very contraversial. And yet she's not stopped or discussed it civilly. It's poor Wikiquette, which is the purpose of this page?--Rambutan (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is poor Wikiquette, but I propose that you try to leave her alone for a while and resume editing, and when the problems continue, you report it here again. Alright? Melsaran (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Threats and Power abuse

Resolved

On my talk page I asked User:Isotope23 why they would remove a valid link to a non spam non commercial site involving the person in the article Don Murphy. As you can see I politely asked for evidence and was threatened and told basically that they would do what ever they want. This is not appropriate. Muckrakerius 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor blocked as a sockpuppet of banned editor ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you need clarification, feel free to email me.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacks, incivility and aggressive behavior on Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and associated pages

Stuck

 – Already being addressed at ANI. Don't tackle it in two forums at once. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has been ongoing between various editors (primarily User:Filll, User:Orangemarlin and User:ConfuciusOrnis), and myself, ostensibly about this article and its ongoing FA candidacy. This has repeatedly descended into incivility, personal attacks, and general aggression and hostility, in the course of which I've been accused variously of "mud slinging", displaying an "obnoxious attitude", being "unwilling to help" "unreasonable" "insulting" and "difficult", "flinging crap", "wasting our time", suggesting that the article is "crap" or "trash", and generally being treated to an uncalled for level of aggression, hostility, bullying, harassment, profanity, and general incivility. Some representative examples (not a complete list, and not in any order of severity) include: this , this, this, (especially) this, this, this, this , this, this, these, this, this, this, and this, and can be found in context on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, and on the talk pages (or in associated page histories) of myself, User talk:Filll, User talk:Orangemarlin, and User talk:Firsfron. I don't understand how this has developed in this way or what exactly I've done to bring it upon myself, as I think all my edits have been constructive and any criticisms I may have raised where clearly directed against the article itself, not as ad homs. Their behaviour seems to me to be a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc. Badgerpatrol 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well before you raised this alert, many of the statements you list had been simply removed. Some of the diffs you list are attempts by editors to talk with you about your concerns and explain their concerns in user space. Rather than try and talk with them you seem to have gone to the wikiquette alert and other processes a bit too quickly.

You should recognize other people trying to scale back, and/or talk to you. I can understand some of the frustration, on both sides here. But when lots of people are getting irritated with you, you need to think about how you can back off a bit yourself and try a different style. This alert is unnecessarily aggressive against Filll (talk · contribs) in particular, who has more than demonstrated a willingness to withdraw anything you found offensive and back off the whole thing. Actually, I think he might have had a point; but he's said he does not need the aggravation and would rather give up working on the article. In fact, this whole things seems to have resulted in you not wanting to continue with it, while having got into a fight that has made other people not want to continue either, if I read the matter right. Very unfortunate indeed.

I'm not saying you've got no point. I'm suggesting you might be able to put yourself in the other person's shoes a bit and see if you can't engage a little differently yourself. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed... Badgerpatrol has already brought this up at ANI. This WQA alert should be considered closed, and any further discussion should go over the existing and active discussion at ANI. The link takes you to the right section. Over and out. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between User:Groupthink and User:FrozenPurpleCube in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of government agencies in comics

Resolved

 – --Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel User:FrozenPurpleCube is running roughshod over policy and engaging in ad hominem and baseless attacks against me instead of responding to my arguments about the subject under discussion. Groupthink 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that there is nothing here of any concern to Wikiquette, and that for the most part you are both engaging with admirable civility. You disagree on the substance, obviously, but there is no attack there. Or if the mild expressions of disagreement there are raised to the level of "attack", then you are just as guilty as FrozenPurpleCube; maybe even more so. At some point you will both have to accept that you represent two perspectives and neither one will persuade the other; so don't just continue indefinitely with that objective. Make a case for the benefit of a closing admin. Recognize that the other guy will do the same. Recognize that closing admins are smart enough not to worry too much about who has the last word.

But primarily, I think the way you have both managed the dispute without getting into personal attacks is quite praiseworthy. Well done. Please don't spoil that substantive engagement by trying to portray it as attacks. Assume good faith, and carry on. Best of luck... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and fair enough. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones; this can be closed. Groupthink 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam reversing on Ilinden Uprising group of perpetrators

Stuck

 – Violation of WP:MULTI; there is already an RFC and a request for mediation noted on the talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I replaced the Ilinden Uprising blurb (less than 300 words), which was largely irrelevant to the topic, with a true encycopledic article (2000+ words), with well quoted sources, while paying attention to be neutral and objective, avoiding disputed issues, like the ethnicity of the participants.

Little did I know that the previous blurb was one of the long string of Bulgarian progapanda on the wikipedia, propagated by a well-connected group of people, who have been warring against me (alone) for days now, and completely deleting my article and replacing it with their own nationalistic blurb.

Now, I don't want any sort of recognition for myself, I only want wikipedia users to have the better article, but I cannot talk sense to these people, since they refuse to talk about anything, but unilaterally delete my content.

What can I do? Most of dispute resolutions on wikipedia involve voluntary involvement of all parties, which in this case is inapplicable.

Capricornis 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodness. There does seem to be quite a communication gap and content dispute on that article. However, there's already an RFC and a request for mediation noted on the article's talk page. Opening a WQA is hardly productive in this case, as it's quite redundant. If there's any wikiquette reminders needed to any of the parties involved, I'm quite sure they'll be issued as appropriate by the volunteers and/or admins involved in the other forums you've already brought this to. Marking stuck. --Darkwind (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Children of the Century

Stale

Looking at a pretty nasty exchange currently happening between User:Dohanlon and User:Reginmund. Originally started as a question of guideline enforcement - which was also discussed at WP:FILMS, and consensus at the moment seems to be against Dohanlon. Dohanlon, however, refuses to accede to consensus, which is the first issue. This has already led to a temp block on his account and the article being full protected for 2 weeks. Reginmund has been discussing with him (and so did I for a time), but he refuses to cede ground. While I decided to walk away and let consensus speak for itself, Reginmund continued to discuss and now things have escalated to the point that both users are just shouting and violating NPA. Girolamo Savonarola 04:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I think the above statement is misleading. I was being asked to concede on this point on a concensus of three users. Two of which were Reginmund and Girolamo. I asked several times for clarification of the issue from Reginmund but he would not clarify his point. I provided verifiable sources to back up my claim. I agree that the discussion got heated, but in my defense if you read it I ask and ask for verfication and clarification and don't get it. Interestingly as more users have posted on the topic the concesus Girolamo talks about is no longer in favour of their POV. Dohanlon 14:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion. I asked Dohanlon three times why he disregarded a reliable source and his excuse was spelling errors. I asked him for a better reason and he veered from my question. The user is also disposed to make personal attacks and is relatively uncivil. I won't go into details but I think that the discussion says it all. All of his points, I have clarified. Reginmund 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and made some comments on the talk page. There is a need for some clarity in the different issues. One issue is the name of the page, and the other is a matter of content, concerning titles used in release in different countries. The content issue in particular is best handled within the talk page, asking all editors to keep a bit relaxed. The page is protected; take it as a chance to set out the content dispute as clearly and calmly as possible. You want precision as to precisely what you are claiming about release titles, as well as an indication of how various sources help verify that. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned spelling errors as the reason that the Yahoo! source is incorrect. I have listed on the page why this source is not reliable. Reginmund made several personal attacks and refuses to clarify numerous questions. As I dealt with each of his innacuracies eg UK DVD, BBFC etc he steadfastly refused to concede relying on an incorrect Yahoo! page. Reginmund has not as he says above clarified all my points. But that speaks for itself on the talk page. Dohanlon 14:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I never once made a personal attack to Dohanlon. I asked him for a better reason as to why Yahoo! is a bad source and he never gave me one. He never showed me proof of a UK R2 DVD release. I clarified all of his questions, and yet Dohanlon still refused to accept my source as reliable. He is a very uncivil Wikipedian, is disposed to make presonal attacks, seemingly because he is taking the issue to personally. Reginmund 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is still an issue, please provide recent diffs of comments that you believe are wikiquette violations. Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of sock-puppetry

Resolved

 – Warning template added to User talk:PalestineRemembered, user is also under consideration for admin mentoring. --Darkwind (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered has been using my talk page to accuse me of being a sock-puppet. Well, I'm not, lol. Isn't this a violation of WP:NPA? How can I get him or her to stop vandalizing my talk page? Dlabtot 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I've left a message on User:PalestineRemembered's talk page directing him or her to WP:SPP -- if the accusation is going to me made, that is where it should be done. Dlabtot 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but the very limited nature of this users contributions log (2 or 3 days of posting) strike me as highly suspicious. The edits of this user have defended the Palestinians (as I'm sometimes inclined to do) and are very welcome. But they're not welcome if this is a sock.

If this user was originally acting in good faith, and was handed out long and completely unwarranted blocks (as happened to me), and has retaliated by creating new accounts (as I refused to do), then I'd consider raising their case and getting the original block lifted. It's your call, User:Dlabtot. PalestineRemembered 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, my talk page is not the right place to accuse me of sock-puppetry. That is nothing but vandalism. The correct place to raise allegations of sock-puppetry is WP-SSP. Please stop vandalizing my talk page. Dlabtot 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I don't mean to sound harsh but it is most uncivil to repeatedly accuse someone of being a sock without a request for checkuser to prove it. The information which leads you to believe Dlabtot is a sock can be cited as reasons why the checkuser request should be granted. If the request is run, and confirmed, then you can call him/her a sock all you want. Anynobody 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just would like to note the defiant response that User:PalestineRemembered has posted to the warning placed on User talk:PalestineRemembered. But if no more attacks are posted on my talk page... well that's all I want I guess. Dlabtot 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by Isaac Pankonin

Stale

For some time I am having a discussion with this user. During that time he felt the need to refer to me as "troll", "POV-pusher,"[39] and more such compliments.

Nevertheless, I had the impression we were finding compromise. Then out of the blue he starts making ad hominems regarding my person and apparently has decided to invoke all kind of abusive editors to evade discussing his unsupported edits. For some reason he insist on mentioning those disruptive contributors in a totally unrelated RFC[40] to support his view that the UN charter can be ignored by the Bush administration. The relevancy of these other and different discussions he fails to explain.[41] Also, he conspicuously states those discussions were on the same subject, eventhough it was him who first voiced the opinion the US is not bound by the UN charter and I never had that discussion with anyone else. Then of course his need to start a RFC on my person without even contacting me to see if that is needed, while invoking abusive WP:SPA GATXER seems unusual.[42]

Aside from this behaviour I find the deletion of extensively sourced material troubling.[43]

At this point I would appreciate it if he was told to abide by the above mentioned policies. RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Update: this user is now contacting uninvolved editors,[44][45] [46][47] he does not know and that I do not know, in an attempt to promote his idea to start an RFC on my person to resolve the content dispute he and I are having. His request admits that the users in question might not even know who I am! In the absence of any prior attempts at WP:DR would this not violate WP:HARASS, WP:POINT, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:USER and WP:ATTACK on User:England's Rose

Resolved

England's Rose has been making comments accusing Wikipedians who differ from him on political issues of being "bigots" and "barbarians". More seriously, he has made racist comments on his talk page, but I hope this can be resolved without taking it to the Admin's noticeboard. Lurker (said · done) 09:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He first seemed to show up here. His first edit was to "correct" articles based on that rejected policy. Also, the fact that he's so overwhelmingly pro-union and uses words like "bigots" mean that I can't help thinking it's a strawpuppet account. I could be completely wrong but the whole thing doesn't feel entirely genuine to me. Readro 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, please. WQA volunteers typically don't have the time to scour history listings to find substantiating evidence. --Darkwind (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

attacking content, possibly racist content Lurker (said · done) 11:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps. After seeing that, I went ahead and pulled some diffs from this user's contributions that make me wonder as well if this person is entirely serious. With regard to the matter brought up by the original poster, I'll leave a {{uw-defam2}} on their talk page and see what happens. --Darkwind (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely hilarious. I am not sure that any form of intervention would help here, though. ARe there any examples of tendentious editing in mainspace? Hornplease 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that exceeds 3RR, certainly. Most of this user's edits have been to various Talk: and User talk: pages. The worst it gets in mainspace is on Alex Salmond‎, in which the user adds some POV material, is reverted, and re-adds it twice more (although the 2nd time he did leave out the pejorative "separatist". --Darkwind (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I thought. This would indicate that there's a good chance that this is somebody's sockpuppet back on for laughs.Hornplease 04:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated WP:ATTACK from Shinealight2007

Resolved

 – User is on a temporary block, and has been reminded about AGF and NPA. --Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Shinealight2007 accused another editor, User:Justanother, of being a "Scientology operative" who is under "orders from the COFS" (Church of Scientology) for no apparent other reason that that editor reverted Shinealight2007's excessive (imho) edits - see here and here.

When asked not to repeat those attacks, he responded by doing so again at User talk:Shinealight2007 (and then went on to say that I must be a "Scientology operative" as well because of my own comment!)

WP:ATTACK warns against "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme", and I don't see that this editor's wildly insulting accusations have any basis anyway. wikipediatrix 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

+=== Scientology operatives should not be allowed on Wikipedia === Scientologist, sure. But Scientology operatives like User:COFS, AKA User:Shutterbug, and the others, should NOT be allowed to edit on Wikipedia. That is why I brought up the original question. That the users refuse to answer it or explain their actions here, is testament to this. They are most likely reporting and just following out orders from on high, just like user:COFS. How long will this be permitted to go on on Wikipedia? Was all the press coverage not enough???????? Shinealight2007 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
+==== Scientology operatives outed on Wikipedia and still they are allowed to besmirch this site ====

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS
  • Nuff said. Shinealight2007 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
    

+==== After all the press coverage, does anyone care??????? ====

• Google News search of coverage of Scientology computers editing Wikipedia
  • C'mon people, you should care about your encyclopedia and stop these Scientology operatives from wrecking it! Shinealight2007 20:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

+==== Why have the Scientology operatives not been blocked already? ====

• Even more evidence that should shock us all, but somehow doesn't. I just don't know why the Administrators have not taken actions yet against the Scientology operatives trying to destroy Wikipedia and remove as many articles as they can. Shinealight2007 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

Wow. Shinealight2007, stop. Wait. Your proposals are in total conflict with the principles of wikipedia. Your excessive use of section headings and formatting is ugly, and seven question marks in a row is consider poor punctuation style. This is more relevant than you might think. These kind of typographic conventions, I think, tend to cue third parties that you are on a strong POV campaign. As a matter of advice on working well with the community, you need to avoid giving this impression.

I have removed the inappropriate subheadings with a leading plus sign. Don't use subheadings for emphasis. In a small alert like this, don't use them at all.

I agree that there is a problem with scientology areas. But you need to forget the idea of banning a class of users because of their affiliations. Persist with that as a campaign and you are, I suggest, far more likely to be banned yourself. People get restricted for disruption of the project, not for having conflicts of interest, incorrect views, or membership in certain organizations outside wikipedia. Claims about what is "most likely" are also unwelcome ad hominem. Settle down. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Duae's comments, with an additional note: Please remember that one of Wikipedia's core guidelines is assume good faith. Rather than assuming that a certain editor's edits are prompted by outside affiliations of which you have no evidence, instead assume that they're just trying to improve the encyclopedia. If you don't like their edit, talk to them and ask why they made it, instead of accusing them of anything. You'll last a lot longer in the Wikipedia community if you do so. --Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Anynobody

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This person is one of the regular editors on Barbara Schwarz. The other day he made a couple of comments on the talk page which seem to show hostility towards the person who is the subject of the article and to other editors. The tone of them, to me, seems almost to that of threats: One to report a person to INS and the other to reveal "secret" information to discredit the person. [48] [49] -Steve Dufour 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read Anynobody's comment in question three times now and still can't figure out how you arrived at that interpretation. wikipediatrix 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what he said: "Since the SLT reported her nationality, as cited in my quotation earlier, we're gonna need more than your opinion as a valid reason to remove it. This almost looks like you're afraid ICE will deport her as an illegal alien, and are trying to cover her legal status up." To me that sounds like he is threatening to report Barbara to the authorities unless I stop working on the article. In the other case he listed a bunch of things he knew about Barbara. To me this seemed like he was threatening to add them to the article if Stan didn't back off from his criticisms of the article. I could be wrong however and Anynobody could just be a disinterested encyclopedist. (p.s. Please see your talk page where I gave some information on where I am coming from on this. Thanks.) Steve Dufour 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost no-one is disinterested. We all mostly edit topics in which we have an interest, and a perspective. And that's ok. The guidelines are there to help manage the end result. There is nothing whatever in that comment to suggest any kind of threat. It is a speculation about your motives, and that's all. We prefer editors to avoid speculating on motives, frankly. But give your own position and openly declared objectives, it's a bit hard to resist. There's nothing that needs to be done for this alert, that I can see. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour, I don't make threats. I find they are generally not helpful, and actually tend to make things worse. (Since on top of whatever the argument was there is the new issue of a threat to be dealt with.) I also didn't say you must stop editing there, just that you should perhaps stop mentioning that you think the article needs to be deleted since it's generally understood how you feel about it.

Duae Quartunciae I completely agree that editor motivations should generally be left out of the discussion. However in a case of conflict of interest it's regrettably necessary. Steve Dufour has said he's out to delete the article at her request, since neither are concerned with whether or not it would be the right thing for Wikipedia, a COI exists. Ordinarily I don't speculate about motives.

Also I'm sorry I didn't notice the post you made after my last post in the thread about Steve Dufour above. I totally understand why you might think I was insisting her nationality should be included in the first sentence simply because I think it's notable. The fact is regardless what I think; it's discussed in the sources because it forms a basis of her beliefs. I didn't mean to come off as arrogant about my opinion, I'm just pretty familiar with the sources so am confident in what I'm saying about them. Anynobody 08:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't make theats Anynobody. I still think that the article on Barbara is going to work against your own interests, as a critic of Scientology, in the end. Steve Dufour 11:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then. I am going to mark this as resolved sometime fairly soon, after a short pause to see that things don't fall apart again. I think we might be able to agree that there have been no threats, that no-one is really "disinterested" entirely, and that second guessing motives or interests, though tempting, is not going to get us anywhere. There's no reason you can't continue to work with mutual civility even as you disagree and even as you have different motives. Over and out, I hope. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue is resolved, clarification

To clarify I'm not second guessing his motives, he's been honest about them. I do agree that in most cases discussing motivation is unhelpful, but in a WP:COI situation it has to be. (Just not here, on WP:COIN or the talk pages)

I don't mean to seem like I'm trying to get the last word in Duae Quartunciae, I just don't want to look like I agree it should NEVER be talked about though, because there are some times when it does come up as a valid concern, as it has it an arbcom case. I am kind of concerned observers there could try to cite it as an example of hypocrisy.

(P.S. Steve Dufour, I'm not editing Wikipedia as a Scientology critic. It just turns out that Scientologists can make it difficult to post information which contradicts theirs, so more edits are required as they tend to revert or rationalize to match their POV. You're involved too so I assumed you read the statistics I provided which show I have more edits than average on certain articles related to the CoS because the CoS spends almost all of their time here editing CoS articles.) Anynobody 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a helpful clarification. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you Anynobody. I first came across fanatical anti-Scientologists on alt.religion.scientology and I tend to put anyone who contributes to Scientology related articles here in the same category. (p.s. Critics of Scientology have far outnumbered defenders here, although it seems that more church members have gotten involved in the last few weeks.) Steve Dufour 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OSA is making a big push to whitewash scientology-related articles.--Fahrenheit451 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you know anything about what the OSA is doing? Can you prove it? wikipediatrix 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this off the WQA page, please. This isn't related to the original WQA. Thanks! --Darkwind (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's cool Steve Dufour, the pro-CoS editors tend to paint anyone who doesn't agree with them as the type of person it sounds like you thought I was so I understand how a misunderstanding can happen. Anynobody 02:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(PS Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have a POV one way or the other. I've noticed that if people see an accusation made enough it might look true, which is what I meant.) Anynobody 05:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Violation by Spyke1077

Resolved

 – User has been reminded about WP:NPA. --Darkwind (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spyke1077 has repeatedly made personal attacks on the Big Brother 8 Talk Page. Wanzhen 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this comment, mostly? I've given him a {{uw-npa2}} reminder. --Darkwind (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks. The commments in that section were the ones in violation; however, now it seems this same user has just gone and commited another violation and deleted a large section of the talk page. current.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_8_%28US%29&oldid=154664537

versus previous... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_8_%28US%29&oldid=154546569 Wanzhen 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I've left a {{uw-tpv2}}. --Darkwind (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

Stale

The endless edit war between Irish Nationalists and others appears to be recommencing over at Lough Neagh. Since my attempts to try and make them behave always seem to result in one of the protagonists getting a sympathetic editor to simply ban *me* /rollseyes/ I thought I'd just raise the matter here. Cheers--feline1 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Am going to take it to the talk page. Mark Chovain 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I give up. Maybe someone else can take a shot. feline1 seems only interested in blaming others rather than solving the problem. Maybe this will need DR. Mark Chovain 15:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad feeling between User:Canadian Paul and Ryoung122

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The initial exchange in Wikiquette alerts

==User:Canadian Paul, part I==

User Canadian Paul has in my opinion overreacted to what I considered to be an accurate and fair note placed on a discussion board. It seems this user will only be satisfied if he 'stomps' the opposition into the ground, with speech such as this below:

[edit] Bad Faith Accusation I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comments clearly out of line and from my point of view, the truth is the mirror opposite. Every accusation he has thrown at me has been a mirror of his own behavior. This seems to be some alpha-male competition for him. For me, it's about making sure that Wikipedia keeps articles that should be kept. I have more to say but I wonder if this is the appropriate place to discuss this. It seems to be an inflated-ego issue, and the material on Wikipedia is only tangential to the personality conflict. However, when others threaten punitive actions in order to get their way things have gone too far already.Ryoung122 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Canadian Paul's Response===

Since nominating an article that Mr. Young started (Gladys Swetland) for deletion, I have been the subject of personal attacks from this user.

The debate came to a head when he accused me of nominating the article for deletion in bad faith and accusing of me of "having an agenda" This can be found in the discussion here.

Angry, I defended myself on the page and then posted a possibly inflammatory message here, although I never attacked him personally. He then proceeded to make accusations and attack me personally. He accused me of the following:

• you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others
• You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star"
• Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland

No evidence for the first two claims has yet been produced and I do not believe that my contributions (User:Canadian Paul list many of them) are at all indicative of a pattern of "causing chaos" or "not respecting the work of others." The "attack" on John Campbell Ross refers to my removing him from Living national longevity recordholders because his status as Australia's oldest man had no citation. The discussion can be reviewed here.

Personal attacks include:

• Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old.
• Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias.

Next, I provided links to WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:NPA and warned him that if he continued, I would bring his violations to the next level. He responded by calling these "threats" and then turned around and warned me that he would "press charges" against me if I continued "harassing" him. He accused me of "attempted intimidation/harassment to get your way." I'm not sure what my way is exactly, since I've already conceded that I do not want to edit longevity articles anymore. He further accused me of making comments that are "hateful and vile." He further accused me of claiming a moral high ground, again, I am uncertain how this could be. I admit that may not have handled this in the best possible manner, but I have not been harassing or launching personal attacks. When I told him to leave me alone, he could have just stopped there. Now that he's threatened to press charges, he claims that he wants "a truce." He claims I have violated the harassment and attack policies. If I have, I would like to know about it so that I can improve my behavior, because I do not notice it. I have ended discussion with Mr. Young, but I feel that a legal threat should be brought to appropriate attention. Also please note the personal attacks in his above complaint. Cheers, CP 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===RYOUNG122's RESPONSE===

Actually, I JUST FOUND MORE EVIDENCE:

Swetland is a test to see how and if WP:PSEUDO applies to these articles. I suppose it was a bit unfair of me to do this without warning, so here is the list of articles I will be nominating in a bundle if Swetland is deleted: John Ingram McMorran Shitsu Nakano Elena Slough Emma Verona Johnston Camille Loiseau Grace Clawson Ura Koyama Susie Gibson Margaret Skeete Lucy Hannah Annie Jennings Hide Ohira All of these people are or were a) Dead, meaning that they won't get any more notable as time passes b) Not state or national longevity recordholders c) Never the world's oldest person, man or woman. Many were admittedly the oldest person in a nation at the time of their death but I do not feel that is sufficient per WP:PSEUDO. If I am mistaken and any of these articles fall into one of those three criteria let me know and I won't nominate it. Also, if any of these articles can be shown to be expandable into full length articles, I won't nominate them either. I want to contribute to supercentenarian, longevity and veteran articles and lists, but I just don't see the need for all these permastubs, and now I have a possible policy option to back me. Cheers, CP 00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if you think it shouldn't be there, why don't you nominate it? You know you'll have me on board at least, along with a few others. Cheers, CP 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

However, this was posted to another user's page and I was NOT AWARE of this 'plan' to basically raze the 'supercentenarian biography' category. When you consider that most of the articles he was planning on nominating for deletionwere at or near the top-importance level in this field, it comes across as an all-out attack.

Let's review: John Ingram McMorran (oldest man in America, 113) Shitsu Nakano (Japan's oldest person, 113) Elena Slough (oldest living American, 114) Emma Verona Johnston (oldest living American, 114) Camille Loiseau (France's oldest person, 114) Grace Clawson (oldest living American, 114) Ura Koyama (Japan's oldest person, 114) Susie Gibson (at 115 or 116, one of the oldest people of all time) Margaret Skeete (at 115, one of the top 15 oldest people of all time) Lucy Hannah (at 117, one of the top 5 oldest people of all time) Annie Jennings (at 115, one of the top 25 oldest people of all time) Hide Ohira (at 114 years 236 days, older than the current world's oldest person)

Clearly, Canadian Paul is on a vendetta, and he left a trail of evidence that showed his conspiracy plans. I find it highly reprehensible to hatch a plan to 'take control'...a clear violation of WP:OWN. Note these articles were all started by a myriad of people (none by me, except Gladys Swetland). So, it seems the plan was to attack Swetland first, then go for even higher, then delete the remaining stubs. Seems like a 'Supercentenarian Holocaust'. Perhaps the worst idea is that these should be deleted because the people are 'dead'. Hello? Dying does not make one unencylopedic. Wikipedia is not just for current events. Current events need to be placed in context. The above attacks are the equivalent of attempting to delete people like Lou Gehrig from the Hall of Fame. After all, he's dead and didn't hit as many homers as Babe Ruth, right? Ryoung122 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Canadian Paul's Second Response===

The above discourse WAS posted on Mr. Young's talk page and was a specific attempt from me to get feedback about those articles and alert him that if he had a good reason for me to not nominate those people. I don't see how I am "taking control" of these articles by proposing to nominate them for deletion and achieve a consensus on Wikipedia. My "vendetta" is against articles that can or will never be expanded beyond stubs. I noted that they were dead because it means that they won't advance any higher in the ranks or become the world's oldest, as is mentioned in the very text Mr. Young quotes. Please also note the combative language being used to describe my activities (vendetta, conspiracy, Supercentenarian Holocaust). Cheers, CP 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, CP is 'baiting' (saying things to get other persons 'riled up'). Also, it should be noted that Wikipedia has been in existence for only a few years (at least as a major, comprehensive source) but has grown quite rapidly. Some of these articles SHOULD exist but were only started recently. To reconstruct them requires going back and finding the original newspaper citations (an easy feat, yes, but often those that start the article-stubs don't know where to find them). These articles are NOT 'perma-stubs'. There is material available and they can be expanded. Deleting them prematurely is irresponsible. Planning a massive deletion-nomination process on a massive scale (I've heard about 88 articles) is sheer lunacy. Attempting to delete some of the 'all-time recordholders' is simply absurd. I note that many of these people gained MAJOR media coverage. Moreover, other articles have already survived 'articles for deletion' (such as Edna Parker so CP seems to be not respecting already-established consensus, in favor of a conspiracy plan to re-set the bar. Let's face it, if someone proposed to nominate baseball articles on Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, and Tom Seaver, I don't think anyone would be taking that proposal seriously. If someone proposed to delete articles on the Empire State Building or even simply Citicorp Center, no one would taken that seriously, either.Ryoung122 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Young, this whole Wikiquette alert is about your personal attacks and you've turned it into an accusation about my plan to delete 88 articles (an accusation the requires evidence). Edna Parker was a wholly different case than these other articles, as she was still living at the time her deletion debate was discussed. You've now also accused me of baiting (no evidence for that, I'm allowed to defend myself here). The question here is not whether I am out to do delete these articles (which I am not, again evidenced in your talk page, I said I am leaving longevity articles alone, not to mention that these accusations are based on either twisted or no evidence at all). The question here is about YOUR personal attacks, which you have continued to perform in this very section, your accusations and most importantly, your legal threat, which is a very serious offense. Cheers, CP 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

==User:Canadian Paul, part II==

User Canadian Paul has in my opinion overreacted to what I considered to be an accurate and fair note placed on a discussion board. It seems this user will only be satisfied if he 'stomps' the opposition into the ground, with speech such as this below:

[edit] Bad Faith Accusation I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comments clearly out of line and from my point of view, the truth is the mirror opposite. Every accusation he has thrown at me has been a mirror of his own behavior. This seems to be some alpha-male competition for him. For me, it's about making sure that Wikipedia keeps articles that should be kept. I have more to say but I wonder if this is the appropriate place to discuss this. It seems to be an inflated-ego issue, and the material on Wikipedia is only tangential to the personality conflict. However, when others threaten punitive actions in order to get their way things have gone too far already.Ryoung122 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More background information:

This dispute BEGAN here with unethical planning that included ideas of false allegations, such as WP:PSEUDO. Note the article existed BEFORE the list (by more than a year), so the accusation of simply making a 'stub' out of a list case was false.

1. User His Space Research suggests deleting the Gladys Swetland article as a test case, and includes some questionable ethical logic:

[edit] Too many supercentenarian permastubs Yeah. Well, some of these pseudobiographies could do with a merge to "List of supercentenarians from country X", or similar, although people may object to that idea and consider it listcruft. I suggest you try nominating the article for deletion to see what people think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You should nominate Gladys Swetland as a trial, since it's not current, I think. We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability of supercentenarians. Also, I may have said this before but I recognise you from deathlist.net.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above comments seem to be in violation of WP:OWN. Let's look again: "We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability fo supercentenarians." Uh, since when did these two appoint themselves to this position?

2. The article was nominated for deletion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gladys_Swetland

3. User Canadian Paul turns the discussion personal:

Notice Though it hasn't affected the discussion that I can tell, I would like to point out a possible use of Stealth canvassing to a possibly partisan audience (you need to register to be a member of the forum, which likely means you have an interest in gerontology at the least) here. Cheers, CP 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

4. I note that the nomination may have been in bad faith (including the idea that nominating an article that's 'not current' might be easier to delete, as fewer voters would notice).

Notice User Canadian Paul's nomination of this article may be in bad faith, in violation of WP:POINT 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Canadian_Paul

[edit] Too many supercentenarian permastubs Yeah. Well, some of these pseudobiographies could do with a merge to "List of supercentenarians from country X", or similar, although people may object to that idea and consider it listcruft. I suggest you try nominating the article for deletion to see what people think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You should nominate Gladys Swetland as a trial, since it's not current, I think. We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability of supercentenarians. Also, I may have said this before but I recognise you from deathlist.net.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that 'not current' means 'easier to delete without others noticing'.

Ryoung122 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

5. User Canadian Paul responds extremely negatively and fails to take responsibility for any of his actions:

Bad Faith Accusation I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have 'crossed the line'? In other words, User CP is trying to put himself above me and be a dictator, and is fuming that I found evidence of a plan to do so.

6. I respond.

[edit] As You Make Your Bed, So You Must Lie in It (I posted the above message before I saw this):

+ ==Bad Faith Accusation==

+ I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I found the 'bad faith' accusation quite on the mark. Yes, you have contributed a lot. However, you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others. You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star". Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Unless you founded FACEBOOK or something, don't be treating other people as if 'GOD' has just walked into the room. The claim that I would call into question your actions merely to get a 'leg up' in an AFD debate is a typical example. No, I believe down to the core that your actions were ill-considered and inappropriate. Whether the idea was yours or planted by another, to attack an article simply to 'move the chains forward' for an agenda (to make it easier to take out lesser articles, something you already stated you proposed to do) is completely unacceptable. The chance of living to age 113.66 is estimated to be about 1 in 100 million or so. In the same way that we have lists (and articles) for the 200 tallest buildings in the world, is it too much to ask to actually 'document' a case? Instead of everyone having to 'take our word for it' that a case is notable...providing the details allows others to investigate and double-check. I note that the Encyclopedia Britannica as recently as the 1980's wrote that 'no human has ever lived more than 113 years 124 days'. For those not trusting the Izumi case, the first person to verifably reach Ms. Swetland's age was Fannie Thomas and that was in late 1980. True, the 'conveyor belt' has moved higher and there may come a point in the future when '113 years 240 days' is no longer a big deal, but since Ms. Swetland's death the records have actually gone lower...she would now be '4th oldest' if alive today, not '9th oldest'.

Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I note the USA currently has 6 of the top 10 oldest verified living people. Should we then ONLY create articles for the oldest American, ignoring the other five, while creating articles for much-younger persons such as Florrie Baldwin?

Now, back to the remainder of your note:

I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles,

Good riddance! I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors

Wikipedia does that every day, day in, day out, to everyone. Including you. Get used to it. You have crossed the line.

Once again, a police-like mentality. No, I did not cross the line, you did. You began the attack for the wrong reason, not me. I'm not going to defend every article...I dropped Yasu Nihiyama and Tsuneyo Toyonaga (the first time). But there comes a point when throwing out an article is akin to kicking a worthy player out of the Hall of Fame. You could easily have gone after some mere 110-year-old permastub with little or no significance. Instead you decided to play chess and go after someone in the top 10%. That's right. Of 1054 persons aged 110+, Gladys ranked in the top 9%. That's an "A". Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland. No, I was NOT closely monitoring every article I ever created (over 60). Yes, I did find it highly unethical to suggest nominating an article that would be 'easier to delete' since no one might notice (given it wasn't in the news lately). The FACT of the matter is, the majority of people that vote for deletion don't have any idea what the subject is about in the first place. The main purpose of the longevity articles is, in fact, not to tell the public that 'Gladys plays the piano'. It is to inform the public just what the maximum human lifespan is, and give a few examples on the frontier of survival. When you only cite the 'oldest person' and that's it, children develop a concept of a large gap between the 'oldest celebrities' (like George Burns, 100) and the 'world's oldest woman' (age 114). Creating a list of the '100 oldest people of all time' helps to show that, in fact, there is no 'gap.' Like a kid collecting baseball player cards and learning about stats, so these 'perma'-stubs, especially when expanded, can serve as collective examples of:

A. How long people really live (in fact, the tight-knit bundling of the ages shows that the real age maximums are quite close together, making it easier for children to recognize that claims to age '125' are bogus) B. Various strategies of success on how to live a long, long life (hint: it's not the same for everyone) C. People of all 'races' all live about the same length of time as everyone else D. Kids will learn a little about history, as well.

True, in the same way that children have their favorite 'sports' team, nationalism plays a role here, too. So we need 'examples' from many different nations. But we shouldn't short-sheet the 'large' nations, either. In the same way that children need to know that '9 out of 10 supercentenarians are female' so showing that the USA is first in supercentenarians just might raise a lot of good questions that lead to answers such as "part of the reason the USA has so many supercentenarians is that there hasn't been a war here since 1865"...which reflects on issues of larger society as well.

Yes, I have all these ideas in mind. This is bigger than just Gladys or you or me. It is about educating the world.

All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers,

Saying 'cheers' after verbally stabbing someone somehow just doesn't band-aid over the previous vitriol. By the way, 'have a nice day.'Ryoung122 16:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree I upped the ante a bit...but it was on CP's user page and I didn't feel it was relevant to the discussion. Since CP turned it personal and finished off with things such as "I will ignore you from now on," it seemed reasonable for me to let him know, 'one last time,' what I really thought.

But of course the claim to 'ignore me' was false. Soon we have round #7:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you. I was prepared to defend myself against your bad faith accusation and leave it at that, but you have continued to attack me. I would like you to present me with evidence of the following claims:

you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star" Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland - Pointing out that Ross has no source for being Australia's oldest, even by your own admission, is not an "attack" I am highly considering bringing these accusations to the attention of the administration, as well as the following personal attacks:

Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I nominated Swetland in good faith with very well spelled out intentions and reasoning, reasoning that others have agreed with me (hence the other delete votes) and despite you saying that they don't know enough about the topic, they have every right to vote for or against deletion. Yet you continue to attack me over my nomination even though I was prepared to walk away. I am now considering bringing this to administrative attention.

P.S. Cheers is an automatic part of my signature. Cheers, CP 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it seems that User CP is NOT focused on the issues but on making himself the Wikipedia policeman. So, I simply mirror his vitriol back to him in round #8:

8. Canadian Paul, I THOUGHT you said that 'All further communications from you will be ignored." I guess you changed your mind. In any case, in regards to these accusations:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you.

This sounds like a threat. That is, a threatening message against me and attempted intimidation/harassment to get your way. I do not for one second believe that you are in the right here and I will defend myself vigorously and will press charges in return if you choose to continue YOUR campaign of harassment. I note that YOUR Aug 24 2007 comment was extremely hateful and vile and was a disproportionate reaction to what was a considered and fair posting on the Gladys Swetland articles for deletion 'discussion' page. As Bart Versieck...who felt like you 'stabbed in the back'...said...WHY? That I happened to find out 'why' and posted your own words is my right and is relevant to the discussion result.

In regards to the WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK claim...these are unfounded. First off, until this week we often worked together. The above comment made on Aug 24 was the first indication that you wanted to cease communication...yet you continued anyway. Communication is a two-way street. You cannot 'cease' communication if you continue to do so as well. Also, the comments I made to/about you were on your message board, not in the main discussion, so I don't see how they can be seen as 'harassment' or an 'attack.' What WAS posted in the main discussion was relevant to the discussion. And I note that once again, your comments to me seem to be a 'game' of 'one-upmanship.' Considering you started it, I find it highly indefensible for you to claim some moral higher ground.

So, where do we go from here:

A. Cold War...we can agree to a truce and that's it.

B. Take it the next level. My comments were a reaction to your unbelievably vitriolic comments made first. If you choose to pursue a scorched-Earth policy, then I truly believe you are the problem. I will request mediation and third-party intervention.

The choice is yours.Ryoung122 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice I offered a 'truce' but this was quickly rejected in round #9:

9. I have decided to post the dispute here, my case will be up shortly. Pointing out that you are violating three important Wikipolicies is not a threat. Claiming that you will "press charges" against me, however, is. Cheers, CP 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I acknowledge that user CP has effectively 'declared war'.

10. Whether I am violating those policies or not is not for you to decide. In fact, it seems that you violated those policies and I will be making that assertion. I also note that your comments came first.Ryoung122 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm not about 'hiding things under the rug'. Telling the third parties exactly what happened is the best way to arrive at the facts. The bottom line is if someone throws proverbial stones, I feel the right to respond in kind. Perhaps I should remember "Wikipedia: No angry mastodons" but give me credit, at least I realize it; User CP is not happy unless he is 'alpha-male'. The bottom line: CP started this and it quickly escalated. In fairness I think a good idea is to 'take a breather'. However, posting the entire chain of events first is important to establish what led to what.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Additional Information===

Greetings,

In regards to this posting:

Notice Though it hasn't affected the discussion that I can tell, I would like to point out a possible use of Stealth canvassing to a possibly partisan audience (you need to register to be a member of the forum, which likely means you have an interest in gerontology at the least) here. Cheers, CP 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this highly dishonest. Number one, needing to 'register' is something you do on virtually all major forums...including Wikipedia. Given that registration is FREE (and apparently Canadian Paul is a member or how did he know about it?) and registrants are able to maintain anonymity (with 700+ members and membership anonymity (unless they choose to self-identify), am I going to go through every anonymous ID to delete those that aren't favorable? Not possible). Second, Canadian Paul said himself that persons should be 'informed' of what he plans to do...or did that mean only those who agreed with his pro-deletionist actions? Ryoung122 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Additional Response===

Stealth canvassing is generally against Wikipedia policy, and certainly in this case its use was questionable. People should be informed ON wikipedia because it's public and everyone can see it. Furthermore, yes, all forums require registration to post. But most can at least be viewed be those who aren't registered. Unless you're a member of Yahoo! Groups, you cannot read the postings. The extra effort it takes to access these posts was used as proof of possible partisanship. Cheers, CP 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Point-by-Point Rebuttal===

I re-quote another comment to provide point-by-point rebuttal:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you.

Clearly, this sounds like a threat. You could have said that you considered me to be in violation of these policies and that if I continued, you would report it (it's called a WARNING). However, you didn't do that. Instead you went straight to the 'it's too late, you're in trouble' threat. Thus, what you said was a THREAT.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was prepared to defend myself against your bad faith accusation and leave it at that,

But you didn't. First, you responded extremely negatively and then claimed would ignore me from now on, but you didn't stop there, either.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

but you have continued to attack me.

I only responded to what you already said. That's not 'continuing to attack you.' Making yourself the 'victim' here looks hollow.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to present me with evidence of the following claims:

you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others

That would take a long time, wouldn't it?

You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star" Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland - Pointing out that Ross has no source for being Australia's oldest, even by your own admission, is not an "attack"

You insisted on deletion even though I told you the source was out due to a death in his family. That doesn't mean we don't have one. You could have simply added an 'unsourced' tag and left it at that.

I am highly considering bringing these accusations to the attention of the administration, as well as the following personal attacks:

Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I nominated Swetland in good faith with very well spelled out intentions and reasoning,

These comments were made on your userpage, not on a discussion page. Also, the point was that if we ONLY include a 'one person from each country' (National recordholder) then the U.S. loses out. Since the US has by far the largest supercentenarian population, it would be incredibly unfair to give only one representative to the U.S. I know, this is akin to the big state/small state argument over representation in Congress. Should Rhode Island have the same number of congressmen as Texas? I think not. Also, you attempted to change John Babcock from 'American' to 'Canadian' centenarian (even though he turned 100 in the USA and has lived here for over 80 years). I guess Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't American, either. Thus, I stand by the comments made and don't see them as an attack but as a point of contention.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

reasoning that others have agreed with me (hence the other delete votes)

'Stacking the deck'. You don't mention that there were 'votes to keep' and not just on this article. In fact, most supercentenarian articles nominated for deletion have been kept.

and despite you saying that they don't know enough about the topic, they have every right to vote for or against deletion. Yet you continue to attack me over my nomination even though I was prepared to walk away. I am now considering bringing this to administrative attention.

You never at any point informed me that you were 'prepared to walk away.' Such a claim is frivilous. I note you claimed to 'ignore me from now on' after posting your negative comments but when I responded to them you then responded seconds later.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Cheers is an automatic part of my signature. Cheers, CP 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I final note: "Cheers" is an automatic part of his signature. In other words, he doesn't really mean it in all situations. Perhaps I should learn a lesson, however: sugarcoating goes further than truth-telling. So, 'have a nice day.'Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am contemplating proposing an immediate three week ban for the next person who adds to this huge attempt to carry on the debate in the Wikiquette alerts. Fortunately, I am not an admin, so random thoughts like this don't have any real impact. :-)

Calm down, guys. At this point you both seem to be abusing the Wikiquette alerts page; which may not have been the wisest option. Someone will have a look at it, soon enough. Be a bit patient. I may try to reformat a bit to get rid of long lines with a leading space. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now cleared up the alert a bit. I have removed all subheadings by adding some kind of leading indent marker. I have done the same for lines with a leading space, which make this page too wide. I have boxed up the whole thing in a NavFrame so it does not distract from the rest of the page. The end result may not be optimal, but if anyone really wants to read through, they can do so. I suggest that nobody bother reading it at all, until the following points just below have been addressed first.

If anyone here would like this handled as a Wikiquette alert, then they should take a deep breath, and look carefully at the guidance information at the top of this page, especially the #Instructions for users posting alerts.

Having done so, then make a concise, clear, neutral, polite statement of the problem. Bear in mind that you are writing this for the benefit of the wikiquette editors, not the person with whom you are in dispute. Don't use a subheading. Just give a simple paragraph pointing out the main problem you see and that you think Wikiquette may be able to help with. One or three links that can be used as a starting point for finding where the problem arises is useful. Giving twenty links is likely to backfire when they are all ignored. Over to you again, my friends. Good luck, and may the coolest win. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Without being specific (the details are in the NavFrame), User:Ryoung122 has engaged in personal attacks, harassment and has an outstanding legal threat against me on my talk page. In order to drown out my complaints, he has further harassed me by inventing a conspiracy where I am supposedly committing "Supercentenarian Holocaust" by preparing to nominate "88 articles" for deletion. He has exaggerated and misrepresented facts and even made up some facts (for example, he quotes an exchange that is clearly on his talk page, claiming that I was hiding my intentions by not informing him) He has posted this conspiracy on his personal webpage and invited others to have their say by directing them to this page. He also claims that I caused "chaos" and "failed to respect the works of others" while refusing to cite any examples. The dispute erupted after I nominated Gladys Swetland for deletion and he accused me of a bad faith nomination after I pointed out his stealth canvassing. To this I was angered and responded uncivilly on his talk page, although I did not make any personal attacks. My most pressing concern in the outstanding legal threat, but the harassment I am getting regarding this "conspiracy" (which is simply untrue; I even wrote on his talk page that I have no desire to work on longevity articles anymore to which he replied "Good riddance!") is an issue too. I have made many important contributions to supercentenarian articles, including full references for List of living supercentenarians and Living national longevity recordholders. Other than a few comments on some user talk pages, where I discussed setting a standard for which supercentenarian articles should stay and which should go, there is no conspiracy here - especially since my explicit statement has always been that if the Gladys Swetland case did not get deleted in AfD (and it does not look like it will), I wouldn't bother nominating anything else. Cheers, CP 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been 24 hours since Canadian Paul added the clarification as requested. Ryoung's position can be seen reasonably as well also, so I'm ready to comment.

This is a very unfortunate bit of bad feeling, which sprung up at short notice between two editors who had previously been able to work together tolerably well. The mutual accusations have been quite over the top. The whole thing should be able to be dropped without further action beyond a bit of strong advice to both parties to settle down. On some specifics.

• There is no credible legal threat that has been made; just mutual grandstanding about harassment.
• The mutual claims of harassment are hard to sort out; and easily fixed by both sides just dropping the venom. I cannot access the personal web page without signing in.
• We can't control what people do off-site; but off-site pages that continue disputes arising within Wikipedia reflect badly on the person who hosts them. They damage Wikipedia and they are likely to be regarded as aggravating factors if this dispute goes any further. (See Off-wiki personal attacks within the no personal attacks official policy.) I don't know what is on your off-site page, Ryoung122, and I don't want to know. I don't want anyone to repeat it here either. I advise you to consider carefully what you put up off-site, and to consider keeping all concerns you have with other Wikipedia editors strictly within Wikipedia itself, for the good of the community.
• There have been mutual accusations of who started it, and neither individual has a good case. There has been a continual escalation. Ryoung112 made an explicit bad faith accusation early on, in the discussion surrounding a AfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys Swetland, and Canadian Paul reacted very angrily.
• The total number of edits involved in the dispute is fairly small. The length of time it has been going has been fairly short. There's every hope it can die down as quickly as it erupted, if both sides are willing to avoid parting shots.
• This is one case where I would suggest people consider archiving or even deleting stuff from their own talk page. A similar rather unfortunate exchange appears in the talk pages of both individuals. Consider getting if off your own main talk page somehow, as an indication of a desire to move past it; if you do want to move past it. Don't impose that on that other person; only make major changes to your own talk page, if you think it worthwhile.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolution Comment Have a day off of this has really cooled down. After a day, I see that the accusations on his web page do not seem to be effecting much (I'll admit I was as worried about the Gladys Swetland debate as I was my reputation as a Wiki editor), so that is not a particular concern to me anymore. I do, however, maintain that the personal attacks were begun by UserRyoung122 (I discovered this comment that is dated two days before his bad faith accusation, therefore before I had reacted uncivilly to him. What I have accomplished by my age has been a source of pride throughout much of my life and it is regrettable that he cannot judge me past my physical age) Nevertheless, I hereby and without condition fully apologize from my incivility after Ryoung122's bad faith accusation in the debate (there should be no excuse to react as I did) and although I maintain that I never personally attacked Ryoung122, I apologize if I somehow created that perception.

Having said that, I am still concerned about this "conspiracy" that seems to have formed up around me. Let me state for the record that there is none nor do I have any explicit plans to nominate any more articles for deletion (longevity-related or otherwise). Having said that, it needs to be acknowledged that I retain the right, as a Wikipedia editor, to point out WP:NOR violations or request direct citations for any material on Wikipedia (including longevity articles) without it being used against me as evidence of my "conspiracy." There are many violations that I would have preferred to work on myself (as I did on Living national longevity recordholders for example), but now it seems I will not be able to do that - that doesn't mean I am going to turn my back on things that are unreferenced or original research. I'm glad you have suggested cleaning up my talk page as well, because I do not want this to effect the way that other editors perceive me and my contributions and was going to ask you if I could just delete most of the vitrol and accusations. Cheers, CP 01:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)