Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive91

User:LoveMonkey at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences

There has been an ongoing content dispute at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences between Esoglou (talk · contribs) and LoveMonkey (talk · contribs) which seems to have degenerated into prolonged incivility (see the talk page). The questionable comments are coming mostly from LoveMonkey — less so from Esoglou (whose questionable remarks seem to be more in the nature of defensive responses). The article's revision history suggests a continuing effort by LoveMonkey to WP:OWN the page.

I am not an expert on this subject matter and am hesitant to try to take sides on the content dispute, but the overall tone of the debate appears very unhealthy. Attempts to get the two parties to change their behaviour, and/or to get additional editors involved in this or related pages, have so far been in vain. I tried here, but my effort was quickly rebuffed. I think it's appropriate to get someone else involved, to guide this issue toward a resolution, and/or (if necessary) to confirm if my reading of the issue so far is on the mark or not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It would probably also be helpful here to review the editing and talk history of East–West Schism, especially during June 2010. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

LoveMonkey claims that Esoglou will not discuss. Yet when Esoglou answers and proposes new reformulations, LoveMonkeys response is only that Esoglou edit wars. That's not a constructive path forward. I'd suggest that they both should agree to not edit the article until the have reached an agreement on the change, and failing that a protection of the article (maybe 72hrs) to force LoveMonkey and Esoglou to discuss the issues and reach a consensus instead of edit-warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly and happily accept a no-edit agreement, such as I proposed with regard to East–West Schism. May I be permitted to remark that I have not been edit-warring: this is one example of a long-drawn-out and hitherto fruitless discussion that I have entered into instead of edit-warring. What LoveMonkey called a revert by me was an early attempt to put forward a revised text that might be more acceptable to him (quoting the actual words of the source, instead of summarizing). The straight reverts (two) were done by him. Almost any edit by me that touches a LoveMonkey text LoveMonkey calls edit-warring. His own reverting is never edit-warring, in his judgment. Esoglou (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely not a cut-and-dried matter of disruption or vandalism, BTW. It appears to me that both Esoglou and LoveMonkey are making what each one believes is a good-faith effort to improve this article (and related articles). But the end result is that these two cannot agree, neither one accepts the other's good faith any more, and LoveMonkey seems (at least on the surface) to be dominating the argument (again, see the revision history and note that the overwhelming majority of edits have been coming from LoveMonkey).

This article desperately needs input from more people who are familiar with the subject, and who are prepared to evaluate the sources and discuss them in as dispassionate a manner as possible. As long as one or two editors are perceived as trying to WP:OWN the article, though, I'm not sure how eager others may be to enter the fray. I would be willing to try to get up to speed on the topic and contribute, but I don't think I can be an effective mediator here, since LoveMonkey has already indicated that he/she doesn't consider me to be neutral. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've previously been involved with this, through protecting (I think...) East–West Schism. I appreciate that this may already been tried at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences, but if not... are there any relevant WikiProjects that could provide on-going input? Failing that, the only thing I can suggest is some sort of voluntary interaction ban adopted by LoveMonkey and Esoglou. Otherwise this is going to end badly, sooner or later. TFOWR 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the talkpage says it's supported by wp:WikiProject Christianity, wp:WikiProject Catholicism, wp:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and wp:WikiProject Theology. Those would seem like good places to start.

LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern is, have they been approached before? What happened? I'll have a dig round the other article's talk archives and see if I can work out what happened between then and now. TFOWR 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think all but Theology were tried last time. It is maybe worth trying them again, and also Theology? But LoveMonkey and Esoglou - you two really need to start working more collaboratively - or to avoid each other. Re-reading Talk:East–West Schism was enlightening - non-involved editors there had already noticed this dispute. Richwales, you've seriously been trying to mediate this for two months? That's service above and beyond the call of duty.

Here's what I'd suggest: Lovemonkey and Esoglou - agree a short, neutral text to post at each of the four WikiProjects' talkpages. Invite non-involved editors to join you at the article.

Neither of you should be edit-warring. I'd suggest that nothing should be added to, removed from, or changed in the article until both of you agree. If that means the article stagnates - so be it. Hopefully new editors from WikiProjects will prevent that happening.

Lovemonkey, you need to be more open to Esoglou's proposals. This is a collaborative project and you do need to collaborate.

If you two remain unable to collaborate then things will worsen rapidly. I would see the logical next course of action to be preventing you two from working on the same articles. Ideally this would be done through mutual agreement between the two of you. If that wasn't possible it could be enforced through some sort of ban imposed by the community. Please take this opportunity to work collaboratively. TFOWR 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I put TFOWR's two proposals (an agreed posting on the talk pages of the projects; refraining from editing the disputed article) to LoveMonkey, but he has rejected both. Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

List of The Punisher comics

Like most Wikipedia editors, I have strived to make the articles I edit as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, user Pun Fan has apparently claimed ownership of the article List of The Punisher comics, because he refuses to accept any edits he does not agree with. This has resulted in an edit war, and when I tried to politely bring this to his attention, he resorted to personal attacks, both in his edit summaries, and on his talk page. This is the only article this editor has ever worked on, and he has changed the title of the article twice without consensus, to suit his POV. [1] [2] Please help! Fortdj33 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see, you made changes to the article without discussion, reverted edits by a major contributor and labeled them as vandalism, hit that major contributor with vandalism warnings, and responded to the annoyed answer by giving an NPA warning, then filed this WQA. Your own behavior is so far out of line that you really need to fix it before complaints about anybody else will be taken seriously. You're actually correct regarding the article-name issue, but you've approached it so antagonistically that I don't have any urge to help you. Looie496 (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intention to be antagonistic. The edits that I made were basic manner of style issues, but the user in question reverted them with no regard to the validity of the article, only because he did not agree with them. That user has since deleted any attempt I have made at discussion, which is why I asked for help here. I'm sorry if I went about it the wrong way, but I'm asking for help in coming to a consensus about the List of The Punisher comics article. That's not currently possible, as long as Pun Fan refuses to acknowledge anything that does not correspond with his POV. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have alerted Pun Fan to this discussion, as is instructed at the top of this page. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also denied your report to WP:AIV. Please do not seek blocks on other users as punishment. It seems like you need to work on your Wikiquette as well, here, Fortdj33. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 03:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I apologize if I went about it the wrong way. I too had alerted Pun Fan to this discussion, before he deleted it from his talk page. Maybe I shouldn't have accused him of vandalism, but my goal was not to get him blocked, only for us to be able to come to a consensus on the content of the List of The Punisher comics article. His response to my attempts at discussion was to attack me personally. I posted for help everywhere I could think of, because I was at a loss on how to deal with an editor, who was reverting manner of style edits, just because he claims to be an authority on Punisher comics. It was not my intention to offend, and I hope that in the future, we can both comment on the article's content, without referring to any contributors in an insulting or disparaging way. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi everybody! I am Pun_Fan and i would like to say lets not beat down the boy. If anybody is at fault it would be me. I over reacted to it all and i just take the punisher comic to heart. Which means i am pretty protective over it..lol So lets not go at it like this. We are all here for a passion some more then others, But! if it were not for this site i may have not been a punisher comic collector. Can't we all just get along? But! I ask in all this... Please be a manly man when it comes to Collecting Punisher Comics....Please.

Sorry for the bad night. Pun_Fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pun Fan (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this discussion has carried over to the talk page of the List of The Punisher comics article, where Pun Fan has continued to make personal attacks against other editors and claim ownership of the article. I have nothing personal against Pun Fan, but some help is needed, in explaining to him the concept of how a Wikipedia article is maintained. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrice Martinez

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – User:Pppedia was blocked for making legal threats Please, note that the page is being addressed by someone User:Pppedia who stated “ Please take note: I represent Ms. Patrice Martinez and if this article has no lead section written, it is because Ms. Martinez has chosen not to write one at this particular time. Also, if any intro, lead, editing or altering of this profile is executed without my client’s authorization, we will prosecute. ” The article however does not seem to breach any personal information beyond the professional career of the actress (Privacy Act of 1974). It is unknown whether Pppedia is or not really the representative of the actress, but instead of addressing the problem to the Wikipedia administration the user chose simply to vandalize the page including his threatening notice. It seems that there is some problem of association Ms.Martinez with her formal husband Daniel Camhi mentioning of whom I removed from her article, however that information is still available at IMDB where I drew most of the information in the first place. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Reported to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. Figureofnine (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC) The user who made the threat has been blocked. This is really more serious than a Wikiquette issue. Figureofnine (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Sugar-Baby-Love

I would like to report Sugar-Baby-Love for incivility. Here [3] refuses to address content (which is Warren Farrell) and discusses “sexual libido” and his theory that my name has something to do with sexual libido. Here he does it again [4]. It is a clear attempt to attack me personally instead of discussing his removal of two reliable sources. Here [5] the user questions my motivation, fails to assume good faith, and argues that “we” (that is the user and nobody else) “know what [I’m] doing” because I included a Merriam Webster Definition and an Allword definition in the article and pointed out that the sentence “Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism” does not confirm and cannot be used as a source for the sentence “The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law”[6]. I believe that behaviour like this is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Randygeorge (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The above editor has a patten of making dramatic, huge changes of material done in direct opposition to editorial consensus. He or she has been reverted multiple times by several different editors, including myself. I hope that administrators can warm him or her to cease his or her behavior.

"Randy" means, of course, to be horny-- to have sexual libido. I find his or her username to be offensive and upsetting. I have asked him or her, politely, to change his or her name to one that is not so objectionable. This is a separate issue from anything to do with his or her edits and should be treated as a separate issue. Wikipedia has a longstanding tradition of users changing their name at the request of other editors. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

He or she may not have intended his or her username to be offensive, but that is not relevant to the question of whether or not it is. I believe it is. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy is also a real name in spite of its other meaning. I have a good friend named Randy and see nothing wrong her username. That said I do think that Randygeorge is POV pushing and being disruptive. Half of her edits have had to be fixed by other editors and the other half have been her undoing those editor's efforts. She does not discuss changes to articles on talk pages and does not seek to build consensus with other editors even though all her edits are in controversial gender related articles. She has threatened me with being banned and being uncivil when I disagree with her and is cherry picking inflammatory quotes to include in articles by saying "According to so and so.." and demanding no one remove them because they are verifiable even if they are not reliable or significantly detract from the article for reasons like WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:SYN and are contrary to the WP style guidelines (by putting them in the lead-in, etc). Her MO should be clear by even a casual look at her edit history which has led to at least one article being protected for editwarring. Unlike her I am not advocating she be banned (I do not seek to censor people with different opinions) but she does need to change her editing behavior--Cybermud (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On just a cursory glance, it appears to me that these two editors have been engaged in multiple edit wars on related topics and that things are getting a little heated on a personal level. I find nothing offensive about Randygeorge's username, it is a first name and a last name, or a first name and a middle name, it's clearly nothing sexual in nature in context. However, Sugar-Baby-Love appears to have discovered a distaste for the username in the midst of a content dispute, and is using it as a threatening cudgel (tsk tsk). I also find this comment to be over the top "I'm very sick of you making huge changes of material based on nothing but your own personal bigotries." Even if you get annoyed, you need to keep your tongue in check; see WP:CIV.

Randygeorge also seems rather fond of waving sticks around; I randomly selected 3-4 diffs of recent talk page edits and in almost every one of them there's a threat to report someone or another for this or that, which does not foster an environment where people can cooperate on difficult topics.

To sum it up, both folks implicated by this complaint have been intemperate and haven't always conducted themselves properly. The real problem here is your edit warring across multiple articles, which should be resolved through dispute resolution. I recommend you gravitate to one of those options, and try to cool down a little. — e. ripley\^talk 20:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The disturbing thing is that these two editors Cybermud and Sugar-Baby-Love miraculously show up at all articles I've ever edited and start reverting my edits. They follow me everywhere I go which is pretty scary. Thank you, E. Ripley, for your comment. Randygeorge (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, George has followed me around. And his spurious allegations about sock-puppetry about me are, in my opinion, a clear form of projection. I very highly suspect that George is the sockpuppet of a previously banned user.

He or she has all the hallmarks of that= (1)Frequent accusations of reporting for behavior, (2)Dramatic changes made against editorial consensus, (3)A refusal to engage with alternate ideas on talk pages, and (4)A narrow, lazer-beam like focus on editing certain articles- which, in George's case, are sexual-related articles.

I believe that a 'CheckUser' test or something similar is in order. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Addressing this user's accusations is usually a waste of time because they are so obviously false but this particular accusation can be addressed really quickly. This should settle who started editing first and who "followed" [7][8][9][10][11][12] I won't even address his other accusations because they are even less believable. I hope that every can see how frequently Cybermud joins the edit-warring. Randygeorge (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

George is well aware that Cybermud and I are different users, and I humbly ask him to admit that. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• George has taken this content dispute to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Add to this report Sugar-baby's tendency to see socks where none exist. See User_talk:Sugar-Baby-Love#Jacques_Dutronc and User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Sockpuppetry. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I said that there could be a sockpuppet situation, but that I wasn't certain. I wanted to talk things out.

And then... when I'm taking to another editor... you respond for him. And then the opposite happens, he speaks for you. This then goes on and on. It's as if you both are sharing brains or something.

If I was to be persuaded that there was no sockpuppetry, then the exact logical opposite behavior occured. Anyone can look at the related talk pages and see for themselves. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This board is for the discussion and, hopefully, remedy of incivility. Sockpuppetry discussions should be conducted at WP:SPI. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 04:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sugar-baby, you should make yourself more familiar with the various recent changes pages. Any edit summary that includes "Revert. Edits made with false edit summaries" is going to get my attention, especially when made by somebody with the already rocky history you've accumulated. Yes, I'm obviously aware of this thread and the one on ANI. Unfortunately, this just reinforces a lot of the stuff that's been documented about you already. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, there's been nothing "documented about" me. And, obviously, I have no "rocky history". I've been in content disputes with very unhelpful editors... an experience just like many editors on Wkikpedia have faced.

Are you done here? This is not a space made for people to make threats like "is going to get my attention". Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there has, in the above, at ANI and on your own talk page (and a few others I can't recall at the moment). And I made no threats, merely exposed one of the phrases that catches my attention when reviewing recent changes. Any new editor who claims such a detailed understanding of WP policies in such a tricky area as fair use, non-free and public domain images is going to catch my attention because they're likely a returning editor, self-confident to the point of arrogance or a really quick study. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to your attack that I'm "self-confident to the point of arrogance" and just say that I want to move on. I don't want to continue a flame war with you. I'm just going to let this go.

I understand how much having 'the last word' is important, so I'll let you have it (and you can say whatever negative or hostile thing you want- it won't matter). So go ahead. I'm moving on. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wanting a retraction of the false accusation of sockpuppetry. As an IP editor, I get more than enough of them and fight them vigorously. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Update. User Sugar-Baby-Love is writing edit summaries like these [13][14][15] despite being told by other editors that his edit summaries are hostile [16]. Also please read this [17] and tell me that this user is civil. I would also like to add that user Sugar-Baby-Love has recently archived comments on his talk page [18] which were critical of his activity on Wikipedia. Most of the other editors expressed similar problems with this user as I have expressed here. Randygeorge (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Users have a complete right to archive material on their talk page. And it's objectively false to claim that the entire talk page was "critical", you can see from the archive that it had a variety of things. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Zachary Klaas on Talk:Park51

We've had some disruptive talk page editing on Talk:Park51 by User:Zachary Klaas. User is hostile and argumentative towards fellow editors (diff. Believes article is only NPOV if it is highly critical of conservatives. The deeper issue is that he does not grasp WP:SYNTHESIS and has difficulty separating neutral facts from arguments and opinions (they are "factually documented"). While I disagree with some of his mainspace edits, to his credit he has not edit warred. But he is disrupting the talk page. I'm posting this alert after another editor requested that he be removed. Any assistance from uninvolved editors explaining synthesis and Wikipedia's civility policy would be much appreciated. Fletcher (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, Park51 is a very controversial issue. I took a look at the diff. It doesn't look like Zachary Klaus attacked anyone (the "you" looks generic and it was at the beginning of a new section) and even if the "you" is being construed as referring to Fletcher, Zachary Klaus said "Sooner or later, RSes will appear that you can't deny without looking foolish" which is very different from saying "you are a fool." If there are no personal attacks, the only issue is whether the talk page is being used for discussion of the article (rather than as a forum). Scanning the talk page, it seems that Zachary Klaus does confine his remarks to the article and that TSteichen, who complained about WP bandwidth, is also using a lot of bandwidth. I don't see a WQA issue here. Vyeh (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not "resolved". You were just unhelpful, offering a response that was pure sophistry. I was hoping someone else would chime in. Fletcher (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of WQA issues. The diff you gave does not violate WP:CIVIL. In my opinion, the statement that you made, that my response was "pure sophistry" violates WP:CIVIL a whole lot more than the diff you provided on Zachary Klaas. I see three editors with differing views on a controversial subject. I did look at other sections of the talk page and I didn't see anything that suggested Zachary Klaas has done anything wrong or that he is disrupting the talk page. The fact that you and TSteichen are talking about blocking and bringing a WQA issue suggests that you two are improperly trying to settle a content dispute. I put a "Resolved" tag on this discussion, because it was pretty clear from my experience that no other WQA regular would find anything amiss. You may now see another editor chiming in, but don't be surprised if that editor now reviews the entire talk page and looks at your comments, in light of the tone of the comment that you made here. Vyeh (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is accusing other editors of "sophistry" civil, or not? It can't be acceptable by one person, but not by another. Since you didn't object to it, you can't then accuse me of incivility for doing the same thing. Feel free to review my contributions to the talk page. I think you'll find my harshest comment has been to you right here, reflecting my frustration with this Wikiquette project. For the record, I was not looking for a block, and the content disputes should be resolvable, else I would have gone to ANI. I came here precisely because I did not think administrator intervention was needed, but maybe just a helpful reminder to be collaborative and avoid synthesis. If I can't get that short of the user blatantly and unambiguously violating policy, and ANI is used for such egregious violations, I'm left very confused as to the purpose of Wikiquette. Fletcher (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to other WQA editors to see the difference between stating that an editor's analysis is sophistry and using the word in a section heading (for all I know, Zachary Klaas was referring to his own argument). I have reread all of Zachary Klaas' comments on the talk page. While he is passionate in his views and he has said some pretty bad things about Pamela Geller, I don't see any personal attacks on other WikiPedia editors. Vyeh (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite certain he was not referring to his own argument, but responding in continuation to other discussion threads with myself or others. Why would he label his own arguments sophistry? The way you seem to read things is... not the way I read things. For instance you looked for personal attacks, but I didn't accuse him of personal attacks. I said he was hostile and argumentative to the point of being disruptive, e.g., insinuating his fellow editors are stooges blind to the evidence, which isn't a direct personal attack, but still a rude comment. It doesn't matter; I can put up with him. I felt bad for TSteichen, who is a new contributor who I felt might be dispirited interacting with Zachary, but I'm sure TSteichen will survive. In light of your see no evil approach I doubt I will gain any traction here. Fletcher (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I look at the latest diff and I don't see the implication that anyone is a stooge. I think the fair implication is that his/her fellow editors are too devoted to neutrality to call a spade a spade. Maybe another WQA editor will see something I haven't, but I see his comments as attacking certain people's positions and possibly certain notable people rather than rudeness to his/her fellow editors. Vyeh (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz refusing to discuss in relation to the use of BLP cleanup template

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Referred to WP:Requests for comment/User conduct

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

Recently I replace the template {{BLP unsourced}} with {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} or {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} on about 70 pages. I did this as I believed that it is a more accurate cleanup tag and provides a more detailed explanation of what is needed to be done and why IMDB isn't enough. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (I'll refer to him as HW from now on to save typing) reverted 7 of my edits, with the edit summary restore accurate tagging; Undid revision 3815###### by The-Pope (talk). About 30 minutes later I noticed that one of the articles had been reverted, so I posted a message on his talk page, explaining why I had done what I did. At the time I thought that he'd only reverted one edit, not 7. 12 hours later, having not received any reply on either his talk page, nor mine, despite HW editing prolifically during that day, I reverted the articles back again, with the edit summary of "disagree as per comments on your talk page, IMDB specific tag is more accurate and useful". 25 minute later HW reverted again without any edit summary. I noticed this and was a bit annoyed. So I posted again on his talk page. I did not re-revert. I waited for a response. 10 hours later another user, User:Tabercil (who I don't know at all and don't think I've ever interacted with in the past) reverted one of HW's edits back to the IMDB tag and also posted a message on HW's talk page that he agreed with my use of the IMDB tag.

HW then reverted Tabercil's edit to the BLP article and posted a message on Tabercil's talk page that was pretty close to a [attack on me], or at least my motives. "This is more damaging to Wikipedia than simple vandalism; it sends the message that we don't really care about the BLP problem, so long as we can make it look like it's much smaller than it really is" I was angry at this stage, given how much work I've done on the UBLP problem this year, but also that HW was not engaging with me at all. So I replied, on both Tabercil's talk page and duplicated it on HW's talk page. As I often edit from a mobile device, his extrememly long, unarchived talk page was making communication with him difficult, so I also (I thought politely, he disagreed) asked him to archive his talk page.

The main issue here is should an experienced editor be able to revert other experienced editors three times without any discussion? He avoided WP:3RR, but he did not reply at all to my attempts to discuss the issue with him, until he deleted my posts on his talk page (which I know is his right to do) and put in his final edit summary "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" and "rude user, unwelcome here". I have not since re-reverted and at the moment I believe that one of the 7 articles has been sourced, so the tag dispute is moot, the others have the BLPunreferenced tag remaining, not the IMDB refimprove tag. I also have only used the IMDB reimprove tag since on one article, and won't use it again until this is resolved.

The secondary issue here really should be discussed elsewhere is the "content" dispute, ie whether or not the {{BLP IMDB refimprove}}/{{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} tags are suitable to be used or not. I will only note here that the tag was challenged in a TfD when it was first created and survived it when the nominator withdrew his nomination (but the majority of the !votes were keep). HW has had two previous discussions about this topic - User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#use_of_BLP_unsourced_vs._BLP_refimprove which spanned the creation of the template, and HW didn't comment on the creation of it; and User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Confused in which he states his opposition to it's use.

As I've been asked/told not to post on his talk page anymore, I'm not going to defy him and notify him of this report, so if you think he should know about it, then can someone else please do it.The-Pope (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

After an admittedly cursory glance, this seems to be far more than a Wikiquette issue. Though someone has not violated the letter of WP:3RR, they can still be blocked for edit warring if it's egregious enough. Have you considered reporting this at WP:3RR anyway for review by an administrator? — e. ripley\^talk 16:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd start here first. I read don't template the regulars to also mean don't report the regulars too hastily. The-Pope (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Pope, I don't think you are right to count an EL as a reference. The tag you are applying would be fine if IMDB were being used in one or more footnotes, but not just for an EL listing. Yworo (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And I would have been happy to discuss that reasoning with HW on his talk page or the template's talk page or the WT:URBLP page. Not here. This is about his actions. The-Pope (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've discussed this issue at some length on my talkpage and on the URBLP project. His or Her Holiness didn't repond to any of my arguments, although he mentioned the talkpage discussions, which focused on the lack of consensus for refining a tag in use for years, contrary to the practice of hundreds if not thousands of editors and to several relevant policies and guidelines. If you're going to ignore and refuse to engage with the arguments of other editors, and instead demand that they refute your own nonpolicy-based positions, you can expect, often enough, to be ignored. Especially when you later respond to attempts at reasoned, policy-based discussion as "absolute crap." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a major, long-running problem with this editor, and is not limited to any one article or policy. He absolute refuses to discuss his absurdly strict interpretations of these editor-created policies with any content-creating editor. He continuously treats good editors as if they were vandals or trolls. This forces people who actually write articles to either stop editing here and become discussers and rule-makers/enforcers, or to find projects more welcoming to contributors. The latter is what I have done now, partly due to harassment from users like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but more because of the community's tolerance for this type of behavior at the expense of actual contribution. Until an RfC drives off this user, and policy is put in place to discourage this type of abuse of Wikipedia, I strongly recommend that anyone actually interested in researching and writing on any topic find a project more suited to their interests. The Wikipedia community's tolerance for this type of behavior makes it only a place for liars, bigots and prudes to edit-war in their bias into what they pretend is the "sum of human knowledge". Dekkappai (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you try a user conduct RFC, then? — e. ripley\^talk 16:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Because his complaints are generally false, and have been rejected by the community in the past. My "absurdly strict interpretations" of policy which he complains of are simply 1) nonfree images can't be used as general illustrations in BLPs, and 2) advertising copy isn't a reliable source for verifying BLP claims. Neither of these is even minimally controversial, as interpretation of policy goes (although the merits of standing NFCC policy are often debated). Dekkappai rejects two fundamental Wikipedia principles, WP:BURDEN and general notability requirements; and he has a long track record of hurling invective (like "liars, bigots and prudes") against editors who don't share his views. Editors enforcing standard policy interpretations are not required to engage in extensive, potentially endless, thoroughly unproductive discussions with editors who say "I don't like this policy, let's not enforce it" -- especially when the underlying policy is Foundation policy and can't be relaxed by enwiki consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've probably about exhausted discussion here then. If anybody is concerned about HW's conduct please open an RFC. Otherwise let's move on. — e. ripley\^talk 18:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This was all a waste of time then. We've had as much discussion here about the real issue as we had previously. Oh well, nothing like tangents and offtopic discussions to keep us all busy. The thing is HW generally does good. It's just how he does good that is the problem.The-Pope (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you see a pattern of behavior you think is problematic, WP:RFC or WP:ANI is where you need to go, not here. This is only an informal board intended to help guide people to other steps they can take to resolve a civility problem, and maybe to hand out a few tut tuts where needed. Nothing that gets done here is binding, and I'm not even an administrator, frankly. — e. ripley\^talk 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Masem

Resolved

 – No grounds for a wikiquette complaint. Eusebeus (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Masem and myself are engaged in a discussion about the notability of list, but in an attempt to undermine my arguments, he has engaged in repeated Ad hominem circumstantial attacks on me personally [19][20][21].

I have explained to him that personal attacks are not appropriate, since the discussion is not about me personally, nor are the questions raised by Masem relevant to the matter under discussion.

Masem is an administrator, and is aware that personal attacks are not acceptable behaviour in Wikipedia. He should know this because:

1. they are insulting, and as such are form of low level flaming;
2. they are not constructive, becasue they neither advance the discussion, nor contribute to working towards a shared understanding of the issues;
3. they are unnecessary, as there is no reason to engage in personal attacks, for all disagreements can be resolved (or not) without them;
4. they are not appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages.

If Masem wants to discuss a personal matter in good faith, then he should bring it to my personal talk page. Staging mock arguments over the validity of my contributions is little more than cheap attention seeking.

In the first instance, I would like a third opinion on this issue. If there is something I have said or done that has offended Masem, I whole hearted appologise now. But if he is not willing to discuss this with me on my talk page, then I am asking him to cease the attacks, and to make amends with an appology. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how these are personal attacks. I have not mentioned Gavin's character in any way, only that his viewpoint is far from consensus. The fact that he takes these as personal attacks is worrisome, on the other hand. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gavin.collins, but I fail to see anything inappropriate in any of the diffs you've supplied. Perhaps it's my eyesight, or I'm missing something written between the lines. In fact, the diffs you've supplied seem to show polite, collaborative and on-topic discussion. (Disclaimer: I keep WQA watchlisted in case editors I'm familiar with appear here, and I know Masem's work from FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• As you know Gavin, I am generally supportive of your positions. However, nothing in Masem's reply even remotely constitutes a personal (ad hominem) attack. Indeed, the very fact that you have taken his comments as such suggests to me that you need to take a brief step back from the debate. Eusebeus (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing untoward about any of the linked comments. — e. ripley\^talk 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. These are not personal attacks, or even the slightest bit discourteous. Figureofnine (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And I also agree. Nothing at all to complain about. Jusdafax 14:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too, no personal attacks there. Masem is a good admin and has a lot of patience, the comments in the links above are perfectly reasonable. This page would be overloaded with cases if comments like that were deemed unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering about this diff, where Gavin reverted the demotion of a heading with the edit summary "Do not persist in personal attacks, please". I cannot see that the level of a heading constitutes a personal attack, nor can I read any personal attack out of Masem's edit summary "this is part of Jaymax's proposal to see if there any more support for one specific view". Reverting back and forth over the level of the heading strikes me as lame, (and both Gavin and Masem may need to explain themselves a bit here). However, I cannot for the world see why Gavin would make accusations of NPA violations there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will admit the second revert I did might have been unnecessary, though I note: my comments were originally stated in the previous section w/o header, Gavin added the top level header to my comments, which I felt was unnecessary and also a bit of re-factoring my comments, and changed to the second level header for proper placement as a subthread of the previous discussion. When Gavin reverts that claiming it was a personal attack, something I could not see, I did do the final revert back to the 2nd level header because that seemed like an unnecessary reason to justify that change, and thus did that last revert before Gavin reported here. Maybe unnecessary, but if Gavin was insisting on breaking out that thread that I started, I wanted to make sure it was tied to the proper section. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a great believer in the need for civility, which is why I volunteered for this board, but Gavin was simply wrong to come here with this. His "personal attacks" edit summary and unecessary revert was not warranted. If anyone is misbehaving it is him. I believe that this section should be closed out and that Gavin should be cautioned to not bring these kind of cases without bona fide personal attacks. There was just nothing here. Figureofnine (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, only one editor has acted unreasonably and it is certainly not Masem. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've been involved in discussions with both Gavin and Masem and even though I've disagreed with each of them in the past (I've also agreed with each), I know that both are excellent editors and I can count on them to act in good faith. I also know that everybody needs to step back once in awhile and let other things flow around you besides Wikipedia. It may be time to do that, just as it will be someone else's time eventually. Rapier (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I should not have to put up with comments such as as "Gavin's view seems like an extreme minority position". Even if I do hold exteme minority views (disputed) and even if Masem is always right in such matters (disputed) and Masems views represent the majority my view (disputed), it is just not relevant to the discussion. If Masem has an opinion about the merit or demerits of my personal viewpoint, let him air them on my personal talk page, rather than playing to the crowd. Such insults may seem like clever rhetorical devices, but they are transparently in bad faith. I am requesting that the use of contentious labels to undermine another editor to cease, because they serve no useful purpose.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem is not attacking you, but characterizing your position. That simply is not an ad hominem attack. He is describing your view, not you personally. He feels that it is an extreme minority position. He did not refer to even the position in an attacking way. If he said that you were a "fringe POV pusher" or some other such attacking phraseology I would be in agreement with you. Editors have to be able to describe the positions of other editors. Figureofnine (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with stating an editor has a minority position or view, or has no backing for something. That is not an insult. I would say you may be over reacting, but i am unsure if that is deemed an insult these days too. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the underlying issue. I don't even know what it is. But let's say that Masem is totally wrong, or that this is a pattern of mischaracterizing the facts. You certainly have avenues to pursue such a complaint. But he is being courteous, not insulting, not labeling. Figureofnine (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have stated my case, and received feedback, for which I am grateful. In fairness I must withdraw my complaint. Clearly this matter has got under my skin, and I once again appologise to Masem. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin, thank you for this gracious comment. If you feel like your opinions are being unfairly portrayed and marginalized through that portrayal I can only imagine that would be frustrating and insulting. Without knowing more about the specifics of the content dispute, though, it's impossible for me personally to know the "Truth" of the amtter. On a passing glance at the links you've provided, I don't see any incivility, but then it seems you're asserting something more insidious than someone calling you dumb or a vandal. I'm sorry I can't be of more help here. — e. ripley\^talk 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Gavin deserves a nod for the well-mannered apology, which is not at all common. I have great respect for that. Jusdafax 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• It's too bad about this misunderstanding. Making an apology is a classy move and rare on Wikipedia. I hope this will get us back on track to looking for principles that have broad consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The three comments linked in the original post do not appear to be personal attacks, IMO. striking comments as late and now unnecessary BigK HeX (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delighted that these two experienced editors have buried the hatchet. Figureofnine (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Anonymous IP vandal

I have been constantly harassed and attacked by an editor who is going under several IPs. Examples of his attacks can be found here, here, here, here. The list goes on. I've tried to deal with him but as he's under several IPs, and since I've given him warning through a few of them (example), I'm not sure what more I can do to deal with this editor. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism, but I do see incivilty in some of his contributions. He uses juvenile profanity now and then, for which you've warned him. His most recent contributions are two days ago, and are civil. So I'm not sure what else can be done. Ideally, someone else should warn him the next time. I'd be happy to do so, but there's nothing recent.Figureofnine (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been several things where he goes around attacking me under various IPs. here and here. He/she uses so many IPs. Is there anything I can do? Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The first isn't much but the second was actionable, so I left a warning on his talk page. What's happening here is not really vandalism, but a person engaged in a content dispute with you who isn't behaving. Let's see if this helps. Figureofnine (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BlueRobe incivility and talk page abuse

Resolved

 – Problems examined and commented on, discussion seems to have run its course

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

One of the most recent posts from User:BlueRobe is a rather hostile rant.

This is on top of multiple rants, soapboxing comments, and endless repitition of WP:OR. Basically you're likely to be able to pick out any of his contribs at random and have a good chance of seeing some form of problematic communication, but, specifically, over the last week, we have

1. today's rant: [22]
2. other personal attacks: [23]
3. assumptions of bad faith: accusations of "sabotage", a supposed lack of integrity, a supposed lack of integrity again, and yet again with a supposed lack of integrity, vague accusations of "sabotage" by "trolls", the sudden arrival of "people who have never even looked at the Libertarianism page" is attributed to puppetry ..... when an RfC had been initiated, and another unfounded accusation of a cabal.
4. unfounded WP:OR characterizations of reliable sources: the RS are "crackpots"
5. posting of unsourced, possible WP:OR on Libertarian philosophy / soapboxing: [24], [25]

He's received multiple warnings about his problematic behavior: [26], [27], [28].

I think he's a new editor here, but as he has continued despite warning, I think a resolution needs to be sought as this behavior is extremely unproductive. BigK HeX (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A first glance would seem to indicate there is in fact a problem with this user, irrespective of the merits of the issues. Jusdafax 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's behaviour at Talk:New Zealand may also be relevant here. Recently, during a short debate, s/he posted material which could be considered defamatory of living individuals: [29] and, when the material was reverted, started vandalising the talk page: [30] ; behaviour for which he was temporarily blocked: [31]. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

After getting blocked for vandalized that talk page 5 times, I'd have expected more civility. BlueRobe may not be acclimated to the collaborative editing process -- he seems awfully frustrated that his WP:TRUTH is not being accepted (as indicated by his comment that, "In every Wikipaedia page where I have deep knowledge on the subject I have seen petty politics undermining the integrity of Wikipaedia pages"). BigK HeX (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

issues moved down to the report following this one

bigk are you serious, didn't you call me ignorant a few different times, and someone else a moron yesterday on my talk page? i could understand if you were civil, but come on, be serious. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC) You were able to find this page. Post a report on me if you need and I will address the issue there, especially regarding the WP:BANNED user on your talk page. This report is about BlueRobe. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Nobody's behavior is above examination and you must expect that you'll probably be looked at too when you report someone with whom you've been in a conflict. Darkstar1st, can you provide diffs of what you're alleging? — e. ripley\talk 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC) sure, 1 minute plz Darkstar1st (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I'm perfectly fine with my actions receiving scrutiny and would have no problems with it being here if it were relevant. But the issues he mentions should go in their own report, as the interactions with Darkstar and the User:Karmaisking sockpuppets have no bearing on BlueRobe. BigK HeX (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Agree with the observation that this report should not be clouded up with reverse accusations. Jusdafax 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Content disputes aside, it does seem like BlueRobe has a problem with keeping his cool and being civil. — e. ripley\^talk 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

no action needed no more than his accuser, see below. both cases should be thrown out. nothing that bad was said by either, come on wp, lets get back to content, please Darkstar1st (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire reason we're here is because disruptive behavior of the sort I've posted in this report (that continues despite repeated pleas) is PREVENTING us from "getting back to content." Also, I have no problem with being sanctioned equally with BlueRobe, if it is felt that I deserve such, or if my actions are in parity with BlueRobe's. BigK HeX (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, this particular noticeboard is to discuss problems with civility, it's specifically not to discuss content disputes. BigK HeX's report was appropriate, and discussing the civility problems it exposed is appropriate. However, this board doesn't really contemplate any punitive damages per se (I couldn't enact them anyway even if I wanted to, I'm just a regular editor like you), but is rather to help defuse frustrations related to incivility and to point people in the right direction. My impression is that the information presented by BigK has been examined and commented upon and now our this board's function has been served and for all intents and purposes is at an end. My suggestion to BigK is that if you want to escalate this further your next step probably should be a user conduct RFC. — e. ripley\^talk 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying very hard to avoid that route. My hope is that some coaching from editors who are clearly outside of the dispute might help User:BlueRobe to consider that warnings are not just a plot of some "leftist cabal" arrayed against him, but concerns with a reasonable basis rooted in his behavior. If a tiny amount of outside input from the WQA would help end the incivility, then I'd *love* for that to be the end of it. If that's not enough though, then I do agree that RFC/USER will have to be the next step. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope this can be of some help then. It's a shame he never showed up here to give his side. Anyway, I'm going to mark this as closed. — e. ripley\^talk 04:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you go the RfC on conduct, do alert others like me who have been attacked by him as well, generally or specifically. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User:BigK HeX

Resolved

 – Conduct examined and commented upon, discussion seems to have run its course

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

[Branched from the preceding WQA filing...]

bigk are you serious, didn't you call me ignorant a few different times, and someone else a moron yesterday on my talk page? i could understand if you were civil, but come on, be serious. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[@User:BigK HeX:] Nobody's behavior is above examination and you must expect that you'll probably be looked at too when you report someone with whom you've been in a conflict. Darkstar1st, can you provide diffs of what you're alleging? — e. ripley\^talk 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

sure, 1 minute plz Darkstar1st (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of "moron"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkstar1st&action=historysubmit&diff=382290571&oldid=382290366 how he got into a fight with someone on my talk page is confusing, i havent read half of it. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

i do NOT support this or any action against bigk, he is a good guy and just trying to keep him real. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My response in reference to my aforementioned use of "moron" is that the discussion is with a long-term WP:BANNED user (with over 100 confirmed sockpuppets) who is on User:Darkstar1st's talk page giving him "advice" on how best to advance a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Indeed, this banned user even titled the section something like "It's a ground war", filled with such moronic [I stand by the characterization] advice as "distracting" legitimate editors, as he claims that he used to "edit on monetary reform, then fight them on that page, then make small minor edits on the page I was really interested in, like Austrian School" and that "the ratio [of distracting edits] had to be about 20 to 1." And also that, if Darkstar1st desired to "enrage" editors (supposedly such as myself), that he should "try to add Ellen Hodgson Brown, Henry C.K. Liu or Jorg Guido Hulsmann back in WP as notable writers. These kinds of fun and games always enraged them. Because I knew the statist scams so well I knew what would get them going, so these little games were always great fun". I firmly stand by my actions on this matter. BigK HeX (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

'Moron' seems pretty apt to me. What exactly is the problem? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

no problem, unless you complain when others use the same term when talking about you. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not apt, it's a personal attack and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who it's addressed to. See WP:NPA Figureofnine (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Questioning editor

i was born in kentucky, so english wasnt my strong suit, but is this really civil? "Out of curiosity (and you do NOT have to answer), is English your first language? BigK HeX (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)" Darkstar1st (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm expending quite a bit of effort to help you, as I seem to end up explaining how many of your edits are not properly representative of the source. (Also, I'll note you've recently used a non-English source, which may have been a clue of some sort.) In any case, I provide the following portion of this thread for context. (Note that portions in green were NOT in the original thread, but are provided to give any interested observers here access to the page of the source that is at the heart of the present issue.)

Following thread portion provided for context

About an edit containing: "anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism, by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principles" why was this removed? the existing source was already accepted by those who removed the new material, yet the old material was left on the page? how can one page of a source be valid, and not the next? Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice By Edward Stringham page 504, line 21. 517, line 20. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC) For a useful experiment, quote the EXACT text from the book, and then quote your exact edit. BigK HeX (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC) page 504 line 20, "the term individual anarchist will therefore be used to refer to those who oppose government entirely and advocate the market as the primary..." my words: anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism Darkstar1st (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) . . . . . But now .. let's do the ACTUAL experiment. BigK HeX (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The source opens by explaining that, There are two distinct strains of libertarian thought: minarchism and anarchism... While this study focuses on the anarchist branch of libertarianism, the sole, although crucial, difference between the two factions resides in their views regarding government provision of police and proper function of court services...Because the anarchists propose that a definite economic institution, the market, replace the political institution of government, they have been referred to as "free market anarchists", "anarcho-capitalists", and "individual anarchists". Since libertarianism is compatible with any voluntary non-coercive institutional arrangement, of which the market is only one...of such arrangements, terms such as "free market anarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism" are overly restrictive. The term "individual anarchists" will therefore be the term normally used to refer to those who oppose government entirely and advocate the market as the primary... And from this author's opening where he is describing only how he will employ terminology for this one paper, you get the following edit: ...anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism... As usual, I find your edit problematic. BigK HeX (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC) would it be ok if i said, "anarcho-capitalism is overly restrictive, and not compatible with libertarian" Darkstar1st (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC) That's even worse. I'm not sure how you don't see that such an edit would wholly misrepresent the source.... Out of curiosity (and you do NOT have to answer), is English your first language? BigK HeX (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

then allow me to help you. drop the civility and other reports, it is a waste of time, and you are guilty of the same. personally i could care less what you call me, so drop the report, and come up with some new cutdowns, 1988 called and wants your last few attempts back. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge your advisement, but kindly refuse. If problematic behaviors continue on that article and its talk page, unfortunately, I feel that dispute resolution is certain to escalate and probably sooner rather than later. BigK HeX (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

then i command you to stop using the same slurs yourself. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll wait to see what outside opinion thinks of my possible incivility, before I concede that I've been "using the same [type of] slurs". Also, please note that it brings me no joy to make reports like the one above. I am quite loathe to do it, which is why I've tried to give so many warnings. But, in any case, we'll see what comes of this report regarding my behavior... BigK HeX (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For starters, you shouldn't call editors "morons," no matter the provocation. The only other possible incivility I see mentioned in this lengthy discussion is questionining if English is his/her primary language. I don't see the point of that either, though I assume it is a question raised in good faith. It could be misinterpreted, so it's best not to ask questions like that. I have no idea what the underlying dispute is, but I think you should both cool it for a while. Figureofnine (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it could be argued that I didn't call an editor a "moron". I'm curious to find out what your personal characterization of the "moron" situation would be. BigK HeX (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

actually you did call an editor a moron. "lol .... you're a moron. None of those battle "tactics" has done you ANY good" see my link you moved, which i suggest should be moved back, as it is relevant to your accusing other editors of the same thing you are doing. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

He's NOT a Wikipedia Editor -- certainly not an "Editor In Good Standing" which one would generally mean when using the term "editor". He was stripped of his editing privileges many years ago. So, that was merely one of the many hundreds of sockpuppets of a banned user (User:Karmaisking). User:Figureofnine didn't directly address that point, in particular. BigK HeX (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

if you have evidence he is a sockpuppet, you should file a complaint there, otherwise, and until then, he is an editor. and you are missing the point, do not use the term moron at all in wp when addressing anyone, not matter your opinion of their status. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my actions on that matter. BigK HeX (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider. Every person making an edit at Wikipedia is a Wikipedia editor, whether logged in or not. If your position is that the IP editor was not legitimately contributing, there are ways of dealing with that. Calling names is just not appropriate, and doesn't accomplish anything except to cause more conflict. Figureofnine (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the point of questioning an editor ... when I see an editor (rather consistently) make edits that not only appear to misuse sources but to blatantly contradict sources, then there is an issue somewhere. It could be something as innocent as a language barrier, though a few other possibilities do come to mind. Asking whether the most innocent possibility explains the issue is my attempt to WP:AGF, and an attempt to perhaps find a starting point to come up with possible editing strategies that may work better for the editor. BigK HeX (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

i think you are trying to deceive us here. #1, we have had far too many elaborate exchanges in english to leave any doubt my grasp of the language, if fact a much more braod use of the vocabulary than even yourself. #2, denying you called an editor a moron despite the facts is an outright lie. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to assert that our exchanges have been "elaborate", but I'm not sure that I'd agree. Assuming -- just for argument's sake -- that I am correct in the copy-and-pasted thread above, are there possible reasons that YOU can think of that cause difficulty in creating an edit that better represents the source and might be something that we can possibly resolve for the future? BigK HeX (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

if you insist, i will put together a few diffs that show who has used more complex words in our convo, or you could simply acknowledge, your insult was just that, and not based in reality. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I personally can sympathize, there's really no justification for calling someone a moron, whether they're a "good user" or a "bad user." Our civility policy makes no such distinction and so neither should we. With that being said, I think it's about time to close this thread down, as it's mostly devolved into arguing between the two of you and I'm not sure what good keeping it open would serve. — e. ripley\^talk 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar and I are disagreeing, but it seems fairly civil. Progress might be made on the matter of poor use of sources. Let's let it run a bit, and see what comes of the latest topic. BigK HeX (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with E. Ripley that we don't seem to be making progress here. I'd urge both editors to be calmer in their interactions. If one editor feels the other is misbehaving, the most effective route is to ask for outside help. Figureofnine (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>I have filed a sock puppet complaint against the editor in question, one of two (probably same editor, probably User: Karmaisking) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:125.7.71.6. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact I just realized the IP who became Shadowman444 actually gave us his blog address - which he signs as KarmaIsKing! Perhaps one should be polite to infamous sock puppets anyway, but just FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Final update, User:ShadowMan4444 now banned as sock of User:Karmaisking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Conduct of Off2riorob

Resolved

 – Closure recommended and endorsed by Shakehandsman. Doc9871 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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

I was advised to bring a dispute here rather than on the admin noticeboard. Essentially the mains issue is User:Off2riorob's false accusation of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and particular his failure to assume good faith towards me. My supposed sock is User:Cacadores - there is virtually no overlap in terms of article or even the types of articles edited or times. No reasonable person would suspect Sockpuppetry whatsoever nevermind allege it. Here is the accusation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=382494174&oldid=382493944

A lesser concern is Off2Rriorob's lack of civility towards me which is why I've taken particular issue to his false assumptions of sockpuppetry (normally I'd ignore such a statement if it were made in isolation).

--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't describe the above-linked comment by Off2riorob as a civility violation. He said that he had entertained a suspicion of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry; calling it an "accusation" is actually somewhat of an overstatement. The situation also has to be seen in light of the fact that Shakehandsman's editing has been deemed problematic by a number of editors in good standing, besides Off2riorob, per comments made earlier at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_Off2riorob. --JN466 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If you look at the evidence there are no grounds for suspecting sockpuppetry whatsoever. Therefore as others have stated he has failed to assume good faith. Also the edits that are supposedly so problematic were me undoing deletions by Off2riorob as they were not in keeping with the consensus established in the talk page of the article. I've been enforcing rules and it's Off2riorob who caused the problem by refusing to use the talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I know you were directed to WQA at the ANI discussion, but opening this thread here after it was very thoroughly discussed at ANI is borderline forum shopping. And as it was made perfectly clear to you at the WP:ANI discussion, there is clearly no evidence of incivility or personal attacks towards you in the diffs provided, and therefore there is no need for intervention by anyone else into this situation. There was also evidence which surfaced at WP:ANI which seems to indicate that your editing pattern is to consistently add one-sided POV information to various articles (often unsourced and sometimes blatantly false information). I don't think you're going to find any sympathy for your situation here. What are you looking to have happen as a result of your perceived lack of civility? I would recommend you attempt to resume your content discussion civilly, or if that is not possible, disengage from the discussion and refrain from editing the article or articles in question. SnottyWong ^chat 23:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • This is ridiculous. I haven't added any false or unsourced information whatsoever. Great isn't it? I make a complaint about false allegations and all I get for my trouble is someone posting even more falsehoods. I mean Sip1 goes on about how the comment that Harriet Harman hates marriage in unsourced and was removed. In reality the quote is in the title of the article!, If that wans't bad enough I actually removed the quote myself - how that for causing trouble? You really couldn't make this stuff up.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
        • What are you looking to accomplish by lodging your complaint here? What would you like us to do? SnottyWong ^gab 23:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) To be honest, I don't see the linked comment as a civility violation. On the face of it, off2riorob appears to be explaining the reason behind their actions, not actually accusing you of socking. I assume that there is some history here, and that's why you've brought this up, but suggest that you put this behind you for now and return to editing the article or the discussion. Generally, you'll need to demonstrate a pattern of incivility before expecting any action. --RegentsPark (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ok fair enough, but as others have said, by admitting he thought I was socking he's totally failing to assume good faith - there's zero evidence to suggest sockpuppetry. That's the point - the lack of civility and it's very much continued in the rest of his conduct towards me. Even in the BLP notice board section he's failed to mention the fact I was simply enforcing the consensus in the talk page of the Harriet Harman article (and look how many problems that has caused me since!) I'm not necessarily expecting any real action, just thought it was important to bring this to someone's attention - it's so ridiculous to assume sockpuppetry in this instance. Anyway, if the false comments are retracted then that would easily be enough for me--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

While Off2riorob's editing style is not my cup of tea (insert my standard disclaimer), I don't think you have much of a case here. RegentsPark is in the right of it, you would need to establish a strong long-term pattern of abuse. With what you have brought to ANI and here, he is on the right side of the edge. Suggest you drop this and move on, sadder but wiser as to the current ways of Wikipedia. (Also suggest we close 'less Shakehandsman or the subject have any final comment.) Best wishes, Jusdafax 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob seems to edit "outside the box" from what I've seen: a quite valuable asset to any project. We can all be "arseholes", but we can't all see things the same way. It takes "all sorts" to run this project, Shakehandsman, and I concur that you should honor your username and let this thread be resolved. :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm presuming people are waiting for me or Off2riorob to post something in order to close this? I wasn't going to bother posting as advised above - I've already stated my position in that I'd be perfectly happy if the comments were just retracted but it doesn't appear that we're even going to manage that. He's even deleted all mentions of this from his talk page resulting in people messaging me to checked I'd informed him of the matter. Anyway I'm bored of this now so lets just close this as it is a total waste of time. To be honest I'm probably more troubled by the false allegations made by Slp1 than anything Off2riorob has done as they're ultimately more damaging because a number of people here have believed them. She won't retract these either or even apologise even though I've now proven them to be false, and I don't suppose there's much I can do about that either, though I hope people are at least aware of the reality of the situation. Anyway thanks to Errant and Jusdafax for all the support, I really appreciate it.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly people have believed that there are problems with your edits because there are; repeating that false allegations have been made doesn't make it so, unfortunately. As one very basic, obvious example, it is amazing to see the continued claim that there is nothing wrong with this edit which quotes Leo McKinstry as saying "hating marriage", something that is nowhere to be found in [the article cited. Anyway, I agree to closing this too, since it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast. --Slp1 (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For the tenth time, it's in the article headline as we discussed on your talk page. You've admitted to your mistakes now please stop all your false allegations as it really is beginning to look as if you have some sort of agenda here. If nothing else at least Off2riorob has remained silent rather than repeating the things he said or defending his conduct.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I have an agenda, which is that WP should be verifiable, accurate and of neutral point of view. Headlines, most especially misquoted ones, are not an appropriate WP sources. Surely you can see that? But I'll tell you what, I'll just pop over to the WP:RSN so that you can get some outside opinions on this one specific matter. And as I said on my talkpage, either make an official complaint somewhere about my "false allegations" with some evidence or cease making the claim. That's my last here, guys, I promise it!!! --Slp1 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to make an official complaint as I accept many of the accusations and your assumptions were based on mistakes not malice. Furthermore, those repeating your claims have further exaggerated them and you're not to blame for this. Anyway I give up, rather than have the decency to show his face in here and apologise Off2riorob has instead decided to get involved on the WP:RSN discussion instead so he's obviously actively monitoring this, I think that says it all really. I therefore fully retract my above comments implying his conduct might have been superior to yours and regard this matter as closed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that closing this is probably a good idea. I don't feel that the original post was an accusation. He probably shouldn't have said it, but I don't think that it was uncivil or a personal attack. Figureofnine (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

James Frankcom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Vaughan Anwyl and his talk page

Resolved

 – General consensus that James Frankcom was uncivil. Falsely accusing other editors of bullying, harassment, etc... is a breach of WP:CIVIL and the editor should desist and reconsider his actions. Further complaints can be brought to AN/I.

Eusebeus (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

A few minutes ago I had decided not to do this, but that was before he accused me of trying to rig the AfD on his talk page. His most recent attack on me is at the AfD, where he claims I've bullied and harassed him and am unfit to be a 'moderator'. I responded at the AfD and his talk page, asking him to retract his attacks or make a formal complaint, and then a bit later trying hard to make it clear I thought he was editing in good faith and that we should try to avoid any conflict [32]. It was then noted on the AfD that he was canvassing (and calling editors, presumably me included, 'anti-Celts' which is silly). I warned him about this - a template I admit, but adding " It's quite possible you don't realise that this sort of post to talk pages, asking people to !vote a particular way, isn't allowed.". It's then that he claimed "You will be able to get people, as I bet you already have, who you know are interested in this wiki to be made aware of this debate and take part. The difference is you can do it without it being tracked and made public.". This isn't the first time he's complained about me, by the way, see [33] which I didn't know about at the time. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that James has gotten a bit frustrated, which can happen from time to time, and as a result made some intemperate comments that he should probably retract. Doug is an experienced administrator in good standing here and if you (James) want to make an accusation that he's behind-the-scenes seeking to influence an AFD you should probably have something to back it up beyond your frustration or suspicion. If you do, you should open a user conduct request for comments, or if you feel like he's abused his position as an administrator, you should bring a report to the administrators' noticeboard. If you can't or don't want to do that, then you should probably stop making those kinds of accusations.

Also, James, you made a comment at the AFD along the lines of that you didn't realize that your every edit on Wikipedia could be scrutinized, but in fact it can be and often is -- anyone can examine anyone else's contributions history, that's the point of this place (here's mine!). It's easy sometimes to take an AFD personally, but more often than not, it isn't intended that way.

It appears from the "Victimisation" thread he posted previously that James feels like he locks horns with Doug a lot, and that Doug invalidates his positions frequently with ad hominem sort of comments. I'd like to hear James' point of view about what his interactions with Doug have been and why he feels that way; diffs would be helpful, if you know how to produce them (see Doug's comments above -- you have to use the "history" button on an article to access them).

One final note to James: It seems that you've made some good contributions and also had some struggles here. I would encourage you to stick around and try to learn something from all of this. Perhaps you might seek out a mentor who can help you when you run into problems. — e. ripley\^talk 13:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

James is more than just frustrated. He said "I and other editors have been bullied and harassed by Doug Weller for years and I say once again that he is quite unfit to be a moderator." James appears to be an experienced editor, so he ought to know that James is an administrator not a moderator. Even I know that. But more important is that this is a personal attack and it just should not be tolerated. He needs to be warned to desist by another administrator, or perhaps blocked if he has been previously warned. Figureofnine (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see he hasn't taken part in this discussion, which is a shame. I know I'm frustrated with him, he's just edited History of Finland after a discussion with Finish acdemics - no sources, and another, less experienced editor has, rightly I think, removed some of his material with an edit summary "original research removed". Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am prepared to take part in discussion so long as it is not completely one sided and any criticism I make of "the system" does not result in more threats and chest beating from administrators. I have felt hounded by Doug Weller. He has taken a keen interest in every wiki I get involved with. I once found an online discussion between him and another editor where he said he would follow everything I did. He has demonstrated to me in the past that he holds strong views of his own about Welsh History (despite his area of expertise being computers) and tends to take a ruthlessly "revisionist" line to popular tales and traditions. He has attacked almost every wiki I am involved with, sometimes unfairly, and I ask that this online bullying to stop. I have tried to calm things down in the past (see discussions with Cuchulain) but his attitude has been haughty and dismissive. You may say this is a "personal attack" but bullying is a subjective thing... I feel bullied so therefore I am. Regarding the Finnish History section... this is how wikipedia should be built up. The entire section "Iron Age" which lasted from 500BC until 1150AD was basically just a couple of sentences and very uninspiring. I have added to that based on what I have learnt here. There is a lot of evidence to support what I wrote online (I have had it read to me) but sadly it is only in Finnish but what I wrote was not made up or "original research" it can be found on the Finnish Language Wikipedia with citations to existing academic research but it needs citation. That requires someone to take the information from the Finnish language wikipedia sister site and translate it and knowledge of a subject until now kept mainly within Finnish circles will be expanded. Bingo. Result. Hopefully what I have started will be the impetus for that to happen...unless it has all been deleted by some zealot before that process can be allowed to happen. Nevertheless, I have grown SERIOUSLY disillusioned with the way wikipedia has become over the last two or three years. I am not the only one. Experienced editors like myself who contribute to the site, who built this site, are being driven away in droves by what feels like an increasingly small cabal at the centre (who must spend ALL day every day online) concentrating responsibility and power in their own hands. If this is the way a repository of world knowledge is going to be then it is moving far away from the original intention of Wikipedia. James Frankcom (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Doug has written "Thanks, your reversion there seems appropriate." after someone deleted the edit I had made. He has no interest in this subject and no prior knowledge just presumes anything I do should be deleted. This comment is unnecessary involvement and is deliberately inflammatory. It is cyber-bullying. James Frankcom (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I was glad someone else did this, yes. It was original research and to be frank I think it demonstrates that at times you seem to lack understanding of some of our basic principles. My area of expertise is definitely not computers (and I rarely pay attention to computer articles here), where did that come from? I have training and interests in a number of subjects, including archaeology (where I have both academic and field experience) and your edit was about the Iron Age in Finland, but in this instance I was attracted by the fact that you made it clear your edits were on the basis of discussions and a visit, and that's original research. What you should have done is taken this to the talk page and made your suggestion about the Finnish encyclopedia, which actually wouldn't be hard to implement. Google Chrome will translate automatically as will IE 8 and there are other ways to get other Wikipedia's articles translated. As for 'ruthlessly revisionist' line on Welsh tales and traditions, I think I take a 'ruthlessly no OR line' and insist on using reliable sources. And the idea that because you feel bullied I'm bullying you - that's just wrong. Sites such as this [34] are not reliable sources. And the idea that because you feel bullied I'm bullying you - that's just wrong. I've just looked at the section on the Iron Age in our Finnish article there [35] and it isn't as good as ours. If that's the wrong article, and you can give me a link to the one with the academic citations, I'll get it translated and added to ours. If machine translation doesn't work, I know someone who can translate Finnish. And the idea that because you feel bullied I'm bullying you - that's just wrong. I think your memory of the online conversation you mention is wrong, but there are editors who I do check from time to time because I believe I have legitimate concerns about their editing, usually only when their edits come up on one of the many articles on my watch list. You are one of them. although you are generally a much better editor than most of the ones I have in mind. I don't do this very often - I know you say I take "a keen interest in every wiki" you're involved with, but looking at your edit history there's very few articles you've been editing that I've been involved with. I have to thank you for your creation of some Iron Age articles, well done. Just because I have concerns doesn't mean I don't think you do good work here most of the time, but there are times when you lapse into using your own interpretations and knowledge where I think it's to the detriment of an article. Or use sources that don't meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been dozens of times over a number of years when you and I have come into...for want of a better word, conflict. Perhaps it would alleviate my feeling of persecution (by you) if you stopped following me and allowed others to criticize me if they felt the need. Otherwise my feeling that I am being hounded by you will continue and increase. Regarding the Finnish article, my wife is Finnish and can translate but what I think would have been a good second step, rather than a whole sale 'Revert' would be to add 'Citation Required' markers instead which would allow me and other editors to return to that article and add the necessary references as they come in. I would really like to wind things down, but given the history between you and me and what appeared to me to be a recent attack on established articles by yourself (and thanking others for deleting my work), I only think this can happen if you give me some space. I am not adverse to criticism, I welcome it, and want to continue to improve this wonderful wikipedia project, but I think continued negative criticism from you in what can sometimes appear to be a macho battle of wills (in which you, as an Administrator, are unfairly placed to win) can lead to the perception that I am being victimised by you. Let us retreat from the frontline if we can.James Frankcom (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason this was brought here was certain language that you used which was attacking. Your using that language did not make you appear in a good light. If you feel that Dougweller has been violating WP:NPA, you can raise that issue here. If you feel that he is following you around and harassing you, there are other boards for that kind of complaint. Figureofnine (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what sort of language I am said to have used that was so outrageous (that I am not using here also)... and also, unless you are a professional wikipedian you do not know of the "other boards". It is all stacked in the favour of the few and at the detriment of the many. James Frankcom (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

James, you said I was unfit to be a moderator, you claimed I was stacking the vote on the AfD, and you seem to be claiming I'm misusing my status as an Administrator, although I haven't used my tools with you in any way and in fact can't do that. I rarely interact with you but I will continue to treat you as I treat other editors, although I recognise that you perceive me as singling you out. I am still waiting for the information about the Finnish article with the citations. It is always best to add new material, particularly that amount, with citations, and you should never be surprised or even offended if you do that and someone reverts it as OR. I can't believe we have come into conflict dozens of times, there are only 25 articles [36] that you and I have both edited, and on at least one, Battle of Mons Badonicus it was Cuchullain who changed something you wrote, not me. I've looked at 3 others and seen no sign of conflict. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not but I have a life outside of Wikipedia and this whole topic is all a bit "wheel within a wheel". I do not have the time nor the energy to go through every time you and I have had cause to interact but needless to say it is more than three times, as you say. It is many more than that hence my feelings of persecution. Certainly you have been following every edit I am involved with, which feels like persecution, and have got involved on many occasions in interaction I have had with other editors. For that reason I have felt persecuted and "singled out" and it has seemed to me you have thrown you weight around and as such I feel it has been an inappropriate use of your position as an Administrator. That is why I have said what I said. I have felt for sometime that there is an "in-group" within Wikipedia which is working at the expense of the majority of editors and, I believe, at the detriment of the projects initial concept. There are umpteen special pages, policies etc etc that members of this "in group" create and refer to in order to cajole other editors. These policies are created without other editors being notified or invited to partake, certainly if participation is invited it is not particularly effective because I have never been privy to any of them or heard of their existence. I am guilty as charged of expressing how I have felt and objecting to the way I and many other editors feel the whole Wikipedia project is being undermined and diminished by factionalism, clique-ism and the creeping monopolization of power. If you have felt personally offended by anything I have said then I am sorry. But I don't think this is about that. Ultimately I think this is about games of power, macho antics to force other people to acquiesce and the creeping process of an ever decreasing group of people controlling access to knowledge. Should there be a tomorrow then I will do some further research into Finland in the Iron Age, find sources, get them translated and edit the Finnish History page sentence by sentence to improve and expand it, for the benefit of people wanting to learn more about this interesting subject. Should there be a tomorrow I ask you to acknowledge my feelings of persecution and harassment by you and to leave me alone. There are other Administrators who can get involved if they need to. On these words I rest my defense. O worthies of Wikipedia do unto me as thou will.James Frankcom (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There's not much more I can say - if you think I follow your every edit, I really can't convince you it isn't true. Or convince you that we haven't interacted as many times as you think (I don't count editing the same articles as interaction). I can't give you special treatement simply because you feel persecuted, and I've already said I wouldn't use my tools, that would be wrong, just as not treating you like I treat other editors just because I'm an Administrator would be wrong. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

James, about 7 months ago we had a conversation on my talk page where we tried to sort out the difference we'd been having, which are related to these current problems. In that conversation I explained what I felt were the two areas where conflict occurred: first, in instances where you didn't cite your sources or hadn't been critical enough with your sources, and second, when you would neglect to engage in discussion after your material had been reverted or altered until you'd reached the point of being frustrated. You seemed to respond well to this discussion, and our interactions have been quite pleasant and productive since.

It seems to me that these are the exact same issues coming in to play here. This started as a concern over sources (I have no doubt that Doug's concern was genuine, and not the product of bad faith) and it became an unpleasant argument due to frustration. We can all understand frustration - it happens to all of us, and it always sucks to see an article you started up for deletion - but when your comments became personal, they crossed the line. I and other editors asked you to tone it down, but you didn't. When you essentially asserted that Doug was rigging the discussion behind the scenes, it was really, really uncool.
These issues are just going to keep coming up unless you really address them. As I've said before, Wikipedia is at the stage where we need to make sure all information we include is accurate and reliable, and there's just no way to do that beyond attributing it to reliable sources. And if you don't agree with what someone has done or feel it was unfair, there's no way for them to know it if you don't engage with them productively. As someone who shares a lot of your same interests, I'd be more than happy to work with you on anything you want to add to articles, or any problem you're having. I think we all agree that the material you've added over the last five years has been an invaluable a great asset for the project, and it would be a shame to lose your efforts. But personal comments are always inappropriate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This started about Doug's desire to delete an indisputably well referenced page that he thought wasn't notable enough (Evan Vaughan Anwyl). He stated that he wanted to consider forcing changes to another page that was connected to it because it was, in his view, too long. I suspected this had more to do with the fact I was involved with it than any concern over notability or length when there are thousands of comparable pages, particularly about the English nobility, which are arguably less notable and also include pedigrees. I believe this because I have seen discussions between him and other editors where they have been conspiring against me. I suspected this was just another attack on me by Doug who has never missed an opportunity to get stuck in. The other editors thought the subject was a notable one it was agreed to merge the two documents. Now that issue is to bed this whole matter is being deliberately dragged out and blurred into a long term critique of me rather than focused on the matter at hand which was the apparently horrendous things I said about Doug. I note that I was accused of "canvassing" support for that Evan Vaughan Anwyl page. But now I note a very similar process has been employed by Doug to get other editors, like Cuchullain, to get involved when he knows they are likely to shore up his own standpoint. What is the difference I ask? This whole issue that Cuchullain has brought up about referencing is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the original matter in hand and I think it is unacceptable to start expanding this unrelenting assault to whatever area they think fit. This is about bogus claims of personal attack. Nothing more. I stand by my words. At the end of the day this is a two way battle of wills between me and an administrator who wants to make me submit. I have tried in the past to get an understanding with him and a way of working with him but he has rebuffed me. This whole administration rights thing has gone to his head. Doug is bullying me and the things he accuses me of (canvassing) he in fact does very similar things himself when it suits him. In my view the Finland article on the Iron Age needs expansion. I am more than happy to work with Cuchullain on that but to be frank I am getting extremely sick and tired of all of this. Extremely sick and tired. Seriously, I think I am just going to delete my account. I have had enough. Where does this end? It is really starting to upset me now. If you want me to submit to you Doug it ain't going to happen. I am not going to give you that satisfaction. James Frankcom (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to consider all this before I refer this cyber-bullying and elitism directly to Jimmy Wales...

• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]

Is it any wonder everyone is logging off....James Frankcom (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - James, a list of diffs of Doug's alleged "bullying" of you would be more productive than the above. Take it to straight to Jimbo if you can't be swayed, I say. And don't give up on WP, even if the diffs you provided truly discourage you. If your edits are "true", no one can "bully" you off of WP... Doc9871 (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Either produce evidence of misconduct by Dougweller or desist. Figureofnine (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I have had more than enough of this. Do whatever it is you intend to do and lets end this show trial.James Frankcom (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This has become very unproductive. The original point has merit - the accusations made were unfounded and hence constitute inappropriate wikiquette. The subsequent remonstrances from User:James Frankcom are not germane and he has done nothing to substantiate his allegations of bullying. I will close this since further back and forth is unlikely to generate anything useful. Eusebeus (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. — e. ripley\^talk 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the original point did have merit, perhaps this should not be simply closed, but closed with User:James Frankcom admonished that his cited comments were not civil. Agreed? Figureofnine (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

While the prospect of an admonishment scares me to death and I fully understand some wikipedians natural desire for revenge I think it should be taken into account that I have felt persecuted by Doug Weller for a long time, I have told him this, and yet he has continued. He monitors many of the articles I have been involved with, is often over critical and leaves ad hominem type comments that I have felt to be intentionally winding me up. I don't have the technical wherewithal to find all these examples, but there are many. But at the end of the day, no one can deny it "takes two to fight" and unless Doug is asked to give me some space and not to get so quickly involved (perhaps he should refer it to another person) then I think it will only give a green light to (what I feel is) further bullying and the resolution process would have failed in a most predictable way. James Frankcom (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, James, you've mentioned "many" examples, but have not cited one. See WP:DIFF - it takes little to no technical wherewithal to provide examples (heck, I'm a blithering idiot, and I can provide "mountains" of diffs). Of course it takes two (or more) to fight, and no one is saying that you don't feel persecuted. But with no evidence to support it, they are just unproven accusations. "Revenge": it's not about. A significant part of the resolution process is showing other editors what you are talking about. Stay on WP and learn from others: that's how we all learned anything about this site (except for socks and vandals, who never seem to learn). Cheers, James :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

His most recent comment underlines the point that he needs to be cautioned about personal attacks, and that we shouldn't just shut this section without comment. Dougweller's original point was correct, and that needs to be acknowledged. James' behavior here indicates that. His unsubstantiated comments about being "persecuted" by Dougweller just should not be countenanced. Figureofnine (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User:BlueRobe personal attacks and unwillingness to discuss article on talk page.

Resolved

 – BlueRobe blocked for incivility and personal attacks

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

Talk:War crimes and the United States#Dresden Firebombing a War Crime

I just wanted to request that an uninvolved third party comment on User:BlueRobe's interactions at War Crimes and the United States#Dresden Firebombing a War Crime, and perhaps try to defuse the situation.

The basic issue is that he posted a valid suggestion for content to be added to the article, but did not provide reliable sources[45]. Two editors, myself and User:NYCJosh agreed with the suggested addition, told him he was likely correct and thanked him, but pointed out that he needed to provide reliable sources before adding it. I provided him with a list of reliable sources, as well as an example of how to write a neutral representation of information taken from one of the sources.[46] In response to these suggestions BlueRobe angrily responded about how other editors are ignoring his suggestions and not trying to improve the article. I tried to calm him down and point out that I agreed with him, he responded that he was ignoring me and that he didn't read my post.[47]

I'd just like someone who he's not angry at to talk to him, and see if they can get him to calm down and civilly discuss the article with other editors.

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You obsessive headcase. All this because I refuse to respond to your on-going taunts and harassment in the talk pages? I seriously recommend you seek counseling. And STOP STALKING ME. BlueRobe (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm ... OK. That pretty much settles the case for me on whether an RFC/USER is needed, as suggested in the previous WQA. Expect that to be coming on Wednesday... BigK HeX (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, never a day goes by where you haven't threatened or harassed someone who challenges your political agenda in the Wikipaedia pages. That. Is. What. You. Do. It speaks volumes about how political Wikipaedia has become that you get away with your constant harassment unscathed. BlueRobe (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Other articles

(This discussion was broken off into it's own section to make sure we maintain focus in the original discussion.)

BlueRobe responded to one of my comments with an aggressive personal attack that seemed to be out of all proportion to what I'd said. I took it lightly but did wonder if he should be directed to read about good faith. So you can consider me an uninvolved third party with a similar experience. Ben Arnold (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ben Arnold, if I remember correctly, you supported the censorship of references to aid agencies, that were providing aid during the immediately aftermath of the Canterbury Earthquake, from the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake page because those references were deemed to be "spammy/advertorial in nature". In reply to my "Is this a troll?...", you declared that, "You're right and I apologise, my comment was off topic and insensitive." Now, you're jumping onto Jrtayloriv's bandwagon to throw a cheap shot at me? Bad form, dear boy. BlueRobe (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Any editor who refers to another editor as "dear boy" loses points in my book. Regardless of anything else that's an interaction style issue that needs correcting. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is all you have, you don't have anything. BlueRobe (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, one apparently needs to look no further than the WQA listing itself to "have" something on your behavior. BigK HeX (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, must you follow me into every single page I visit? BlueRobe (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Who knows.... it could just be that I'm wikihounding you. (Though likely the fact that I've been on ALL (3) of the pages where we've interacted for far longer than you and that the other people in this WQA have never seen me on the pages they've referenced today all might say something else.) BigK HeX (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate tone from BlueRobe. I suggest that you open that RFC, it's plain that it would end up being certified. — e. ripley\^talk 02:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So, to summarise, I am being harassed because: 1) I refuse to reply to Jrtayloriv in talk pages (how is refusing to reply to another User an offense?!); 2) I asked Ben Arnold if he was trolling in a post that was so obviously a troll that he immediately apologised when I called him on it; 3) I've said "dear boy"; 4) what? BlueRobe (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Other WQA filings notwithstanding, your conduct is being addressed in this filing because your comments seem condescending or outright hostile. And because you seem to take issue with being asked to work from reliable sources (which I've personally witnessed, as well). BigK HeX (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I just surprised that you haven't already meat-puppeted Carol and TFD in here already. I expect they're on their way, are they? BlueRobe (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're being addressed because you're acting like a jerk. Gerardw (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Gerardw, there's no irony in that post, whatsoever ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record when I said "you're right" in response to BlueRobe's comments I was referring solely to his observation that people in Canterbury are suffering. My apology was for being off-topic and a little insensitive to what some people are going through. I am not "trolling", "a miserable old bugger" or "misanthropic" as BlueRobe has labelled me. I have always contributed to Wikipedia in good faith and have done good work here. And will continue to do so. :) Ben Arnold (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U filed

I've gone ahead and filed an RFC/U, since BlueRobe does not wish to discuss things here. Any interested editors should take the discussion there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User:DXRD

Resolved

 – Referred to ANI.

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

User:DXRD seems to be making a lot of good faith efforts around wikipedia, however this user has been marking every edit as "minor" when most clearly are not minor with many being so disruptive that they are reverted on sight. Massive changes this user makes are often arbitrary and attempts at dialogue dont seem to be getting anywhere.

latest attempt at dailogue

Another string of futile attempts on Talkpage

I would to see it emphasized to this user that Dialogue and proper marking of edit are important indicates of Good faith behavior. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) editor notified Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Their account is probably set to mark edits as minor by default. It would be better if a user marks the edits as minor but I don't see it as a Wikiquette issue.Gerardw (talk)

This isn't a civility issue, you might have a better result at WP:ANI. — e. ripley\^talk 03:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

QuackGuru on Chiropractic

Stale

 – Quackguru did not respond and discussion has run its course. Recommend editors seek other options if their concerns persist.

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

QuackGuru has been reverting every edit that he disagrees with on Chiropractic. He blanks his talk page to make discussions difficult. He accuses editors of being spammers for using references that do not agree with his point of view. Discussion with him is almost impossible because he takes everything to a personal level and starts attacking the contributors. He wants all opposing views to be excluded from the article and he wants every sentence in the article to read the way he decides (which, not hard to guess from his user name itself, is an anti-Chiropractic point of view). Looks like he's been following my edits outside the article and joining my discussions with other editors that have little to do with him.--Anon 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I used to edit that article a long time ago, but gave up because User:QuackGuru just made it so hard to make any changes. He's been banned multiple times for his behaviour in the past. He makes no attempt to compromise and acts as if he owns the page. His edits usually express a WP:POV and do not generally improve the article. I suggest he should be permanently banned from editing the page on Chiropractic. --Surturz (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru's user talk page appears to show a consistent pattern of removing comments from other editors — his only response being a brief edit summary, often citing policies in an "I'm right and you're wrong" manner. His participation at Talk:Chiropractic seems more conventional — albeit confrontational. I also note that he was the subject of cautions, bans, and blocks at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#QuackGuru during 2008 and 2009. It's depressing to see that he has apparently not changed his style significantly as a result of any of the past enforcement actions. He may very possibly have some good points, but this doesn't seem to be a productive way of getting them across, and it's unfortunate that Wikipedia probably won't be able to benefit from whatever useful contributions this editor might be able to make because of his combatant, uncooperative approach. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

While his discussions on Talk:Chiropractic may look constructive on the surface, they are anything but. All he does is link to half a dozen different guidelines that he misrepresents. For example he claims that any references that include banner ads are "spam". I have attempted to initiate a mediation case on the article, QuackGuru has not responded to requests to participate - it looks like it won't happen.--Anon 08:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some editors like to remove messages they get as soon as they get them; it appears that he is "responding" to messages left inside his edit summaries. It's perhaps not the best way to have a discussion but generally speaking editors have fairly wide leeway over how they use their talk page. If what you're trying to do is discuss article content with him, that sort of discussion should really be occurring on the article's talk page. It seems like you're involved in a frustrating content dispute, first and foremost. This page doesn't really contemplate helping to solve content disputes, it's intended as a means to check incivility and also as a launching pad to direct people to where to go next to get a problem solved. I don't see any obvious incivility but I didn't look closely; content issues aside, can you please provide some diffs where Quackguru has been uncivil? — e. ripley\^talk 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[48] per User_talk:Shell_Kinney#User:QuackGuru --Surturz (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Quackguru has had some significant problems with communicating ideas here in a productive way and in fact has been blocked for that very reason in the past; I make no judgment about whether he's falling back into old bad habits or not, as that case hasn't been presented here (and would be outside the scope of this board anyway), but if that's in fact the case, then perhaps a new request should be opened asking for AE sanctions. Shell Kinney seems to think it might be, in the diff you linked above. In any case, I would recommend you gravitate in that direction; I'm not sure there's much more that can be done at this board. — e. ripley\^talk 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

User:NickCT

Resolved

 – Editors have agreed to take a short wikibreak and try to work together

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

NickCT (talk · contribs) We are trying to follow the steps of dispute resolution regarding the image at the article Ahmed Yassin, and I am having difficulties with User:NickCT and what I perceive as a continued patten of assumptions of bad faith. Perhaps, as someone who does not agree with his choices, I am over-reacting, and perhaps I am guilty of not posting in good faith either, so I would appreciate if uninvolved parties could look at the following diffs, and the background. Opinions and advice to help clarify whether I am overreacting, if not guilty of bad faith myself, or if Nick is the one assuming bad faith and should be cautioned to stop doing so, would be much appreciated. I tried discussing this with Nick directly on 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC), but that does not seem to have helped. Some diffs follow in approximately reverse chronological order:

• 20:12, September 7, 2010
• 18:59, August 30, 2010
• 16:53, August 30, 2010
• 14:33, August 30, 2010 with edit summary stop playing silly buggers
• 00:39, August 24, 2010

To understand the dispute in toto, and understand where my opinions may be skewed and I may not have acted in the best manner, it is important to at least skim the discussions and repartee on Talk:Ahmed Yassin. Thank you for your time. -- Avi (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine what you expect to accomplish by bringing this here. It looks a lot like forum shopping, which is pretty disappointing to see. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping? Do you know what forum shopping is? Here, let me quote for you: "Forum shopping means repeatedly raising the same issue at different discussion forums (e.g. the village pump, article talk page, admin noticeboard, deletion discussions, etc.) until you get a result you like." Kindly show me where I went prior to discuss issues I am having with how NickCT is treating me . -- Avi (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been discussing the matter on talk pages. I have no intention of trying to grasp the whole dispute, but there was an RfC where the numbers did not appear to support you, and I see talk of MedCab. Unless your opening paragraph here was disingenuous, the appropriate thing would be for you to either accept the RfC or accept mediation. Looie496 (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What I am discussing here has nothing to do with what is being discussed on talk pages, it has to do with the behavior of NickCT and how he chooses to respond to others' edits. Perhaps you are jaded by others, or subconsciously projecting how you may have wanted to misuse the dispute resolution processes, but if you take the time and patience to carefully read what I posted above, you would see that it has nothing to do with the image and everything to do with user behavior. WQA is a forum in which one is supposed to bring more minor issues that have not been solved by talking with the editor themselves. I have tried that on Nick's page, and it has not borne fruit. Others who may agree in principle with Nick have responded to the RfC in general, and me personally, with the courtesy all of us deserve from each other, such as Sadads, Malik Shabazz, George, etc. The issue is not one of trying to undermine a dispute resolution process, and the reason I brought in the talk page was to both give Nick the benefit of the doubt and allow an impartial observer to see the two-way interaction instead of just the specific diffs I listed. I am kind of sad that your wikipedia experiences must have been so contentious, that you instinctively made an accusation of forum shopping without 1) completely reading the complaint and background and 2) asking for clarification if you are uncertain of something. It's a shame that you have become so suspicious after a relatively short time here. I hope that you find many editors with whom you can positively contribute and develop a sense of trust. Regardless, forgive me for requesting that someone else review the evidence and comment, and when I say evidence I mean specifically NickCT's and my interactions, having nothing to do with the content of the talk page--just the repartee, and whether or not I am correct in feeling that I am being hampered by a continued lack of good faith on Nick's part. -- Avi (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Avi

1)Your approach on Talk:Ahmed_Yassin has been to try to force your POV onto an article through WP:WIKILAWYERING. This Wikiquette alert itself is exemplary of the battleground/lawyering approach you like to take to enforce your POV.

2)You have not once conceded a single point or expressed any interest in reaching amicable compromise (as I did on multiple occassions).

3)You ought to read WP:DGF.

4)You resisted the RfC I asked for, then you tried to undermine it, then you failed to acknowledge that the RfC demonstrated your views were in a minority.

5)I have seen bad/questionable behavior from WP admins before, but you've really taken the proverbial cake. Are you open to recall by any chance?

6)If you can demonstrate a smidgen of intraspection or ability to acknowledge error by admitting you could have worked a little harder to seek amicable compromise over the picture issue that's currently under discussion, I'll sincerely apologize for anything I may have said which could have disturbed you. NickCT (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Re "Perhaps you are jaded by others, or subconsciously projecting " - You have made this psychological projection claim several times now. Note that accussing editors of psychologically projecting thier bad faith on you is itself assuming bad faith. NickCT (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the article's talk page, and it appears to me that the content dispute is proceeding through an appropriate dispute resolution option, namely an RFC. The two editors participating at this complaint notice also appear to be the ones in the most direct and regular conflict over the disputed content.

There have been some intemperate remarks from both Avi and NickCT obviously born of frustration with the dispute, as well as a stubborn adherence to their respective positions combined with a concerted effort to undermine the other's position, and much argumentation in between (all of this, frankly, typifies editing conflicts in the I/P arena).

To the point of this particular alert -- assumption of bad faith -- in short, it's clear to me that you've both moved beyond assuming bad faith to expecting/believing it of each other. (Cases in point: NickCT suggests Avi should "cease wikilawyering to push your POV" - and in this notice raises the question of whether the community should consider yanking his sysop buttons; Avi's suggesting that NickCT is "misusing" dispute resolution and repeated references to psychological projection, even on this page (does this kind of highly personal speculation about another editor really serve any useful purpose?)).

Both assert that the other has behaved inappropriately with respect to the RFC. I can't speak to whether Avi tried to undermine the RFC as I haven't evaluated that piece, but NickCT's suggestion that Avi has ignored the RFC's consensus is not correct. Avi appears to be insisting that the RFC be allowed to run the standard 30 days through the end of September/early October, rather than close it early. Those are two very different things, and the end of the month is very far away; the current consensus could change very much in that time. I think it's a bit premature to start raising mediation, since the RFC hasn't even concluded yet. This is an encyclopedia, not a race; it's okay if consensus takes some time to build. I did find Avi's comment that NickCT should feel free to obtain "consensus" to open an RFC to be curious (and wrong). I don't think I would characterize this as NickCT "misusing" the RFC, but perhaps it does mischaracterize Avi's position.

I'm frankly not sure what you two are looking for here on this page. This is a content dispute that is proceeding through dispute resolution in the proper fashion. It does seem that you have both made it more uncomfortable than it needs to be by constantly crossing swords with one another, sometimes in an unnecessarily personal way. I would recommend that you both take a wikibreak from the article, perhaps even mutually agree not to edit it (including the talk page) until the RFC has run its course. A break of that magnitude would give you a chance to catch your breath, regroup, put your feelings into perspective, and then roll up your sleeves and implement the consensus the RFC has achieved at the end of the month. But even if you don't want to agree to that timeframe, perhaps you can take a couple of days off and spend time not thinking about each other. Good luck. — e. ripley\^talk 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow e. ripley. Quite a reading and analysis. Unusual to find someone willing to dedicate that much time to analysis. It's appreciated. Several responses to some of your points.

Re "born of frustration with the dispute....typifies editing conflicts in the I/P arena" - Agreed

Re "Avi has ignored the RFC's consensus is not correct" - To clarify, I suggested that Avi might in future ignore the consensus that is gathering against his POV. Additionally, Avi made a number of comments suggesting my dislike of the picture in question was based off a personally held "emotional response" that wasn't shared by anyone else. The RfC has suggested so far that this was not the case, and Avi hasn't yet said anything like "Gee, perhaps you had a point."

Re "undermine the RFC as I haven't evaluated that piece" - Reading through the talk page you'll note that pre-RfC I said to Avi two or three times "I've sandboxed an RfC. Please comment on it and let me know if you think it's fair". Instead of doing so, Avi simply preemptively and without consultation setup his own RfC in a manner I felt inherently favored his point. In otherwords, I tried to collaborate, Avi tried to undermine.

Re "be allowed to run the standard 30 days through the end of September" - I'm not against this. I simply suggested that since consensus seemed to be developing for my point, and response wasn't high, we might want to consider closing early. It wasn't a point I was insisting on though, and I'm happy to leave it open.

Re "I'm frankly not sure what you two are looking for here on this page." - I ain't looking for squat. Avi brought this here.

Re "would recommend that you both take a wikibreak from the article" - Interesting suggestion. You'll note on my sandboxed RfC that Avi has made a number of edits over the years to keep this picture in place. I think this sorta constitutes WP:OWN. I'm sure if both Avi and I agree to, in-effect, article ban ourselves from the page in question (for a month or longer), the picture would disappear on it's own accord. I'm up for it. And you Avi? NickCT (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, E. Ripley, for your detailed and clear remarks. I will try to be more careful about how I word my remarks regarding the article, and as the holidays are upon us (tonight 8-) ), I will have enforced breaks from any editing, let alone this article, so hopefully that will go to defuse the tension. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Discussion ongoing at ANI

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

A WP:AN/I was started by lester (talk · contribs), Now Lester is blocking every attempt to make the article NPOV. We have requested at RFC, under the media section. Please see the talk:Windows Phone 7, the Windows Phone 7 history, and the WP:AN/I section. Thanks.--intelati^(Call) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there some civility issue here? If not, then this is an inappropriate venue. — e. ripley\^talk 18:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUND possibly. Lester is making it impossible to have a conversation just about the content of the page. He is (I think) accusing us of fanboyism. "It's sad that a magazine tries to rally its fanbase to come here and cleanse the Wikipedia article." --intelati^(Call) 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But that quote discusses a magazine's conduct, not a user's conduct. Has he said anything inappropriate about Wikipedia users specifically? Diffs would be helpful. — e. ripley\^talk 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It was directed at the users who where trying to "cleanse" the page. I came in as an outsider, and agreed with the edits proposed. Now Lester is claiming that we don't have consensus. While obviously the edits were supported by all commenters except him.--intelati^(Call) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't bring an issue here while it is under active discussion at ANI, please. All that does is to cause confusion. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was looking to get a second opinion because no other person had commented on it except for the parties involved with this. Sorry--intelati^(Call) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Repeated failures to assume good faith and abusive blanking of sections of talk page

User Lizzard has repeatedly launched what I consider to be bad faith attacks on an anon editor at both https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Anders and at a discussion created by her at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Moreover, Lizzard eventually admitted to knowing and working with the subject of the article, a previously non-disclosed COI at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Since WQA is voluntary, you will need to notify Geeklizzard (talk · contribs) of this section in order for it to have any effect. See the header of this page for more information. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Looie, I have now done so. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting that Geeklizzard appears to have contributed since being notified but has not (yet) responded here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Surturz

Stuck

 – Both parties were counselled to change their approach to the dispute. For binding outcomes on incivility, disputes need to be escalated to WP:ANI.

There's a problem with User:Surturz, who over the past eight hours has launched into personal attacks on me, using a torrent of expletives.

• Diff 1
  • "you are an idiot"
  • "world's first hyphentard" (edit-summary)
• Diff 2
  • "I certainly do not need to be civil ..."
  • "... it makes you look pathetic. Keep your fricken hyphens."
• Diff 3
  • "The wrong sort of love. The sick sort.... I don't think that is normal.... In fact, I think it is damn peculiar."
  • "Bitch was six pixels shorter." (apparently a reference to me)
• Diff 4
  • "Quite frankly, fuck that. I have better things to do (like add actual content to the article) than pissfart around gaining consensus to remove hyphens." (to User:Ohconfucius). "stupid" (edit-summary).
• Diff 5
  • "ridiculous hyphen fetish" (edit-summary)

Could this explosion of attacks stop, please? Tony (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring over punctuation is silly, but contrary to this [49], that doesn't give Suturz the right to ignore WP:CIV. Some of this is tongue in cheek ("bitch was six pixels shorter" was clearly referring to a shorter dash length, not Tony1 personally), but most of the rest is pretty inappropriate. The first couple of diffs are particularly over the top. It's clear that Tony1 takes style seriously and frankly so should anyone who is serious about building a quality encyclopedia. You can write the most beautiful sentence ever, filled with the best facts supported by the most ironclad sources, and it will still look like a fifth grader wrote it if its grammar, spelling and punctuation are improper. This is obviously an issue close to Tony1's heart and given the fact that he helped rewrite the manual of style, Suturz might do well to listen to what Tony1 has to say in terms of whether something should be an en dash or an em dash. — e. ripley\^talk 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Ripley. There has been no edit-war to my knowledge. Tony (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Tony, it seems you may have forgotten this quality message posted to your talk page. Not uncivil, granted, but more like the workings of a spotty teenager. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a history between these users prior to today? The initial discussion from Tony could have been much less confrontational, and calling the edits incompetent isn't necessarily civil either. I'm guessing a bit of AGF from either or both parties and this wouldn't have appeared on any noticeboard. --Onorem♠Dil 18:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Tony1 has violated WP:V in hyphenating terms that have no hyphens in them in the source material. He insulted and threatened to get me blocked when I renamed the articles to the correct names. He has not provided any WP:RS to support his claims. And I am quite honestly somewhat revolted at the email he accidentally posted to his talkpage: "Dear Fowler's Modern English Usage, I never thought it would happen to me. I had noticed the young adjective next door ever since they moved in, and had admired her fulsome descenders for some time. Little did I know that one day I would be inserting my 12-pixel em-dash between her round consonants and...". --Surturz (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the original discussion. The hyphens appear regularly in the major broadsheets (although sometimes they're confused whether it's one or two hyphens), and on the Internet. But this isn't the issue here: it's your habit of lashing out at someone you disagree with ("idiot", "sick", etc.). Tony (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue -- the real issue -- is that the terms, respectively, are Two Party Preferred vote, and Two Candidate Preferred vote in the references given, and you have not provided any evidence to indicate that the terms should be hyphenated. Instead, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks and querulous invocations of WP:MOS.

WP:MOS does not trump WP:V. Not by a long shot. WP:MOS is guideline, WP:V is a policy. If you want to fiddle around with dashes, go ahead, but don't get in the way of editors that are actually adding real content to the encyclopedia. If you can't find something useful to do here, at least have the courtesy to find something harmless to do instead. We all know that you dress up in your hyphen-suit before starting to edit WP, and that's your business. We do not need to know whether it is furry or latex. Keep it to yourself. --Surturz (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that there is something particularly annoying about breaking an article by making incorrect stylistic changes without knowing anything about the content. I myself was provoked by a similar matter into posting a very angry comment to Tony last year, and it's the only time in the last two years my anger has gotten the better of me. Style matters, but in most cases people who are working on style issues should defer to people who are knowledgeable about content. Looie496 (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looie, I am knowledgeable about the topic of two-party-preferred voting. Tony (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this is not about the substantive issue, but about Surturz's abuse. I am quite willing to discuss the matter with him and others, but in a polite environment. Could I remind people that this is not WT:MOS; it is Wikiquette alerts. Tony (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an answer on my earlier question about whether or not there's history here. Was the other user rude? Yes. Were you rude? Yes. Was a civil discussion attempted before this stupid argument started? Not from what I can see without trawling through contributions. --Onorem♠Dil 07:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's some history: link. Judge for yourself. --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Tony, you should not have even mentioned the word incompetence. You also should not have move-warred on the basis of MoS; MoS is to be applied with common sense. If the references provided belong to those of the AEC (the official body), and no other references have been cited, and you have no consensus for your preferred version (by way of a request to move the page), then there was no basis for you to be engaging in a move war in late August. I see Timeshift's move at 22:56, 25 August 2010 as a compromise, a temporary one at least. It was not acceptable for you to revert that to your personally preferred version, and I urge you to self revert while editors consider the merits of having it as two-party-preferred, two-party preferred, or two party preferred.
• Surturz, you should not go around calling people stupid or idiots on Wikipedia pages, even if they appear that way to you. In the same way that verifiability is a core policy, so is civility; it's not a mere guideline. When interacting with others, including those you disagree with, please do so in a more respectful and civil manner; your current style is not acceptable. I urge you to try a more collaborative approach; request for move discussion may be worthwhile, or alternatively, an article RfC.
• Communication is not merely limited to the words that we type to or about one another, and that's why this case has difficult communications on more than one level. At the end of the day, irrespective of which person's alleged breach of policy is more serious, you both need to (and I hope you will) be more considerate of one another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This dispute has been marked as stuck rather than resolved as the filing party was not happy with the outcome - that both parties should change their approach to the dispute. See also his comments about the process (example). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• FINAL STATEMENT: I am happy to be judged at a higher level. There are limits to WP:CIVIL. In my estimation, edit-warring over hyphenation is not helpful to the goals of Wikipedia, and I see no reason to be WP:CIVIL to such disruptive behaviour. Ridiculous behaviour deserves to be ridiculed. The rules of wikipedia are there to ensure that article content improves over time, not to cosset some hyphen addict's ego. WP:CIVIL is a means to an end, it is not the end in itself. I have made useful contributions to Two party preferred vote, while User:Tony1 has not. On that basis, he should be apologising to me. --Surturz (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, being civil in the face of disruptive behavior is of utmost importance, as it helps take the heat off of an otherwise "hot" problem. I think you're missing the point entirely. I'm now convinced that the main page should consist of two words, "Don't Panic". Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusion on the reason of removing contents in an article

Stuck

 – opinion rejected, discussion cut off by alert founder, for a non-negotiable principle

In 15:57, 24 April 2007, I added a section about the development/evolution on the "Real-time strategy" wikipage, named "Development of strategy and tactics". This section has been modified since then for some grammer issues or potential misunderstanding on somebody's intention. However, in 07:10, 20 May 2007, wiki-user Pie4all88 removed this section, and based on his description, this was due to "it didn't make sense and fixed up a little grammar". Since I have not looked around on this wiki content(Real-time strategy) for a long time, I saw this occasionally a couple of hours ago and I was confused by the reason for making such a removal decision by Pie4all88. Since he was a registered wiki-user, he should understand that not all the wiki-users were native English speakers, and, not all English contents in Wikipedia were grammer-perfect. Meantime, I wondered which part of this section was so-called "didn't make sense". Per my personal supposition, it might be a mixed up but not fixed up between sense and grammer. So I request a clear explanation about this description by someone. Due to the fact that I am ESL, I don't want this become an excuse of something. The following is a history revision of the related wikipage:

Revision history of Real-time strategy

Modifications about this section:

15:57, 24 April 2007 202.86.183.204(My IP at that moment)
00:35, 10 May 2007 24.252.96.162
16:47, 10 May 2007 87.126.251.158
07:10, 20 May 2007 Pie4all88

Please use simple English in any response to this alert. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.94.175.81 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the removal was proper, but perhaps for an additional or different reason. All assertions in Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources and must not be original research. It is the obligation of the editor who adds the material to provide those sources. Your addition was entirely unsourced when you added it and was still unsourced when Pie4all88 deleted it about a month later. Since you are just now bringing this to the attention of the community more than three years after the events in question, one must presume that your addition would have remained, at least insofar as your efforts were concerned, unsourced and subject to being removed for that entire period of time. Finally, I must agree with Pie4all88 that the use of English in the section was so poor that an average WP user — the audience for which we write WP — probably could not have understood what was meant. Contrary to your presumption, proper use of English here at English Wikipedia is an important element, see the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and bloody battles are fought over matters as seemingly minor as proper hyphenation (see, for example, the User:Surturz alert just a few items back on this page). While the better practice is to provide missing sources rather than to delete unsourced material, deletion is acceptable; removing well-sourced content for poor grammar rather than merely correcting the grammar is, I suspect (I haven't researched the question, so I can't be sure), unacceptable but you can't correct it if you can't understand it and removal of unintelligible material is certainly acceptable. You are free to re–add the material, but you should, first, make sure that you have reliable sources for it and that it is not just your personal research or observations and, second, make sure that the English is at least good enough to make sense. To do that, you might want to take advantage of help at the Editor Assistance noticeboard before posting the text to the article. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to give it a source when I am talking about a concept, especially when this concept is about a phenomenon. I took an example from a famous game when I added this section, and all the world knew that "THAT IS IT!". If you force me to give some sources for this concept, should I say "ask your nation army and all the participants"? About the poor grammer, have you ever seen the original text yourself or just "I haven't researched the question, so I can't be sure"? The Chinese version of this section is leaving the same as original and unmodified when I check it today. That is all I have to say. I know a bloody battle may be raised by a small element, but most probably it is because discriminations or unreasonable charges. Sincerely, 180.94.130.110 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking one point at a time:

• The existence of reliable sources is one of the primary devices by which WP screens out that which is WP–notable, and therefore includable in WP, from that which is not notable and thus not includable. The concept is simple: if something is important enough to be in WP then it is important enough to have been written about in reliable sources. That applies to concepts and phenomena as much as it does to people, things, and organizations. For a good example of the concept see WP:SCRABBLE. If you cannot find reliable sources for the concept or phenomenom that you want to write about, then it probably isn't WP–notable and shouldn't be included here.
• By posting a request on this Wikiquette Alerts noticeboard, you were complaining specifically about the actions of another editor. Editors here are volunteers, just like you and me, and are free to do as little or, within the constraints of WP policy and guidelines, as much as they like. The actions of Pie4all88 did not violate policy in my opinion and he was free to only do what he did without revising any other part of the article in question. It is not uncommon for editors to only edit snippits or chunks of articles without undertaking to revise the entire article. (Indeed, people who do such tasks are approvingly called WikiGnomes here.)
• The existence or nonexistence of the text in the Chinese-language WP is irrelevant for the reasons stated here, but also because of the same volunteer issue mentioned above. There are many things in WP which need to be deleted or repaired, but since WP is volunteer–driven they won't be deleted or repaired until a volunteer, first, notices the problem and, second, chooses to address it. It's entirely possible that no editor on the Chinese–language WP has noticed the corresponding text or, if they have, they have not chosen to address it. It is also possible, of course, that the Chinese text may be more intelligible than what was written here in English.
• You are correct, the English–language Wikipedia does discriminate: it discriminates against the use of improper English, whether written by a native speaker of English or an ESL-speaker. That is because it is the English–language Wikipedia. It does not discriminate against ESL editors. The difficulty of fluency in different languages is part of the reason that, as of today's count, there are Wikipedias in 273 languages. If, however, a Wikipedian chooses to edit on the EL-WP or one of the other–language WP's, they are not unreasonably expected to be able to write intelligibly in those languages. As I have suggested above, for those whose language skills are less than fluent, there is plenty of language help to be had here and their contributions are welcome so long as they meet WP policy and guidelines.
• If you disagree or wish to pursue the matter further you are free to, per my prior suggestion, simply reintroduce the text to the article (though I would again recommend making use of Editor Assistance) and see if it remains or obtains consensus without edit warring. Alternatively you may pursue your complaint against Pie4all88 further through other means of dispute resolution.

Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I emphasize that I cannot give a RELIABLE SOURCE to a concept. Can you just tell me what is the source of "Theory of relativity"? I see there is a section in TOR - "Maximum speed is finite: No physical object or message or field line can travel faster than light". Can you tell me what can support this point? If you can't source this too, can I remove it because "it doesn't make sense"? If you can source it, tell me is there a Time Machine or something like that existed in this world? Besides, can I remove the UFO page because NO RELIABLE SOURCE exists there?
• All right, starting from this issue, I understand that "I must be a very professional English speaker before I write something in English-Wikipedia" and I will tell this to all, since editors will just eliminate what you say but not help improving it if they think that "it doesn't make sense" or "a little fixed up of grammer". I also want to know who will agree this except racists. Furthermore, can you do me a favor by telling me in detail what the related problems in that removed section are?
• I WON'T COMPLAINT LIKE A KID, however, I also won't let unreasonable charges leaving there. I didn't see anything that might be harmful in what I added to the page though I considered that it might lead to someone considering more self-educations were needed. There is no perfect one in this world but it's not an excuse for trying to game the system or the world by stopping someone from speaking. I've met many even-more-experienced gamming ones, so this sentence "it didn't make sense and fixed up a little grammar" was just like what coming from a kid's mouth and I considered that it should not be coming from a well-educated mature adult.
• What I know about Wikipedia is, it's a database for sharing knowledge. Even some organizations consider that it's a garbage bin, I still support it because base on the wiki-spirit, anyone can choose to share what they know. However, what I can see today is, it's a site for show-off. I can do nothing about that but, I can keep myself away from the mess by stop sharing anything with it, even though, it's significant or not.
• The above discussion is ended. I would rather put my exertions to some other meaningful and interesting things but not debate on some common senses.

Good luck, 180.94.166.163 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned User Molobo is back as MyMolobo and is inspiring hate by heavily biasing articles again

Molobo, who´s article about Mitteleuropa was made up mostly out of propaganda sources (either war enemies or communist propaganda) and not a single german source has returned to the edit the more neutral version back to hate-mongering. I changed it back to more neutral again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunhist (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no use in reporting this here -- see the instructions at the top of the page. The place to report the reappearance of a banned editor is WP:ANI, where admins can see it and take action. Items on this page are often not seen by admins, since it is an early stage in voluntary dispute resolution. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Molobo is not banned, and his block was the result of his account bring compromised. If you feel the content is an issue. please discuss it with the editor on the article's talk page. Netalarm^talk 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cat clean - personal attacks

Resolved

 – Back to editing... Couldn't have done it without Doc9871  ;-) Lionel (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Several issues with User:Cat clean. Specific issue I am reporting is WP:NPA.

1. The user called me a liar, and also referred to one of my edits as "deceptive."
2. I warned the user here and informed them of our policy WP:CIVIL.
3. In spite of the warning and in defiance of policy they attacked me again in their response here by: calling me a liar, again, and calling my edit "deceptive", again. Lionel (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While they are using a new account, they show a sophistocated understanding of WP workings (one of their early edits was posting a case at AN/I) Lionel (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Repeated accusations of sockpuppetry (without evidence)[50] are also against the civility policy, just to let you know :> Both editors are undoing each others' edits on multiple articles in what looks to be a slow "revert war". Why are you two reverting each other like this? It's not healthy for either of you, or the project. You need to try and get along on articles you're both interested in editing, and content disputes belong on the talk pages of those articles. Running around reverting each other is not nearly as productive... Doc9871 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Doc, I defer to your interpretation of Sock. In my own defense, I only mentioned their "experience" so I would not be accused of DONTBITE. FYI I have invited the editor to discuss the issues on Talk pages without much succes until yesterday. Unfortunately there does seem to be a slow revert war. Note that this editor is the initiator: following me around and reverting my edits, not vice-versa. They are watching my Contribs, finding a deficiency, and then reverting. I think a tag such as {{fact}}, {{verification failed}} or {{request quotation}} is a far better alternative to outright reverting. IMO this would eliminate a great deal of the reverting. This editor is also having a 3RR problem on Horatio Algers with another editor.

In any event, I shouldn't have to tolerate being called a name, especially after asking the editor to stop.Lionel (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I plead guilty for stating didn't believe this editor's adding a category and source was accurate. No combination of searches on the book in question supported the content or category of pederasty[51], a contentious and controversial category similar to the pedophile category this user has also been adding. If an article subject is either - and are notable for this there should be no problem finding a reliable source to support adding such a category. This editor also likes to add LGBT categories to convicted child sexual abusers. Again these are categories that should be easy to source and with living people require self-declarations. They have continually added disputed content and categories but when they also provide reliable sources I have no problem with it. I never called them a liar but technically did say in one case I thought it was a lie and will certainly apologize if their edit turns out to be based in fact. The edit that was deceptive is this one [52] in it you can see where the user changes an archive listing of documents of the organization to just one - "Men Loving Boys" which supports their interest in linking another LGBT group to pedophilia. It changed an acceptable external link into a non-acceptable one which is odd because this same user seems quite at ease deleting external links off many articles. Outside of pedophilia, pederasty and LGBT subjects this user may show sound judgment but their eagerness to misrepresent sources and add categories against policy is in fact vandalism. I also admit I've gotten worked up over this and have had to pull away but I'm not sorry for insisting this user uses reliable sources accurately and i see no reason not to continue to do so. When they stop misapplying categories and labeling all sorts of people who have only been accused or alleged of something into controversial categories then no one will have any reason to undue them at all. Cat clean (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This report concerning Cat clean is not about content, it is about behavior. Their statement "will apologize if their edit..." demonstrates they still do not understand WP:CIVIL. Even if you think an editor is acting in bad faith you cannot accuse them of lying or deception.

AMENDMENT

I would like to amend the original complaint and add

1. Accusation that I "misrepresent sources"
2. Accusation of vandalism

(As indicated in the above post by the editor.) I categorically deny these false accusations leveled without any merit whatsoever. I have always edited in good faith and resent being called a vandal. This editor has repeatedly violated WP:AGF. This editor is continuing their uncivil behavior on the WQA page itself. Lionel (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources:

Here is the case I found unacceptable: You added "Gay organizations, in the beginning, were very supportive of NAMBLA." [53]

This replaced the original first sentence of the section "Ostracism" which stated "Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded:"

Here is what I wrote from the very same source:[54] "In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups."

You'll note specifically that one version claims all gay groups were supportive of NAMBLA, which the article goes to great lengths to point out is about pedophilia which omits that the main focus for the gay left was to help protect gay teens.

The original content was: Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded: in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979. In addition to forming several working committees, the conference was responsible for drafting the basic organizing principles of the march ("the five demands" Flyer for March on Washington [see p. 23]). Originally, the Gay Youth Caucus had won approval for its proposal demanding "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws." However at the first meeting of the National Coordinating Committee, a contingent of lesbians threatened not to participate in the march unless a substitute was adopted. The substitute, authored by an adult lesbian and approved in a mail poll by a majority of delegates, stated: "Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments."

Vandalism: Restoring disputed section about NAMBLA on Ginsberg bio without any consensus.[55][56],

adding sexuality categories on living people biographies against policy (adding LGBT categories to people convicted of child rape, murder) [57][58] [59] [60][61]

Looking through the user's work they evidently wish to remove content that is positive towards LGBT people and they wish to add scandalous and negative information. If sources state clearly that a person is both homosexual and a paedophile then simply produce the sources. If they don't then that content should be left off until sources justify adding it. Cat clean (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Lionel, please see WP:BOOMERANG. You are not following your own advice on civility. Just above: "Even if you think an editor is acting in bad faith you cannot accuse them of lying or deception." And then you accuse them later in this report of "false accusations". Do you not see the irony here? This is a content issue, and I just don't see the incivility on the other side (your side probably needs some "work"). What are you asking should happen to Cat clean as a result of this report, exactly? Doc9871 (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For my part I will try to not call them any names but I will still insist on reliable sources for adding pedophilia and pederasty content and categories. I also simply take a break when I want to scream. Other users have been very nice, even ones who I don't agree we can find a solution. Cat clean (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to collaborating with you. Lionel (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good deal! You two can work this out, especially keeping WP:VERIFY (including WP:BURDEN) in mind in content disputes. Doc9871 (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kevorkmail, does not want to talk

Summary of complaint:

• User:Kevorkmail ignored my discussion and chose instead to force his edit on me.

More details:

I am working on the Aleppo page. User:Kevorkmail is active there and he seems to have been taking care of the page. The climate section was empty. Right after I filled it up he changed what I wrote without leaving an edit summary:

• [62]

I reverted and asked him to talk:

• [63]

This is the discussion I opened, I was critical of him a little bit because this was not the first time he changes what I write without writing an edit summary or discussing with me first:

• [64]

He refused to discuss. Instead he lashed out at me and overrode my edit:

• attack on my talk

• overriding my rev, ignoring what I said in the talk

This is not the first time he does that. I asked him before on his talk page to talk with me or at least write an edit summary when he changes what I write. He respoded with an apology, but he really did not change his behavior and he keeps editing what other people write without saying a word as for why. My demands to him are two: 1-that he talk and explain what he does when he does it, especially if it involves something I wrote. 2-that he does not override me when I revert his edits and ask him to discuss.--HD86 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You wrote something, and Kevorkmail modified it, rearranging parts and adding information but not removing information. He should have used an edit summary, you are right about that. But modifying things that other people write is the whole essence of Wikipedia. People modify my contributions all the time; I expect it. For you to object to these particular edits indicates ownership on your part -- which, I might add, you expressed in a pretty rude way. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that "people shouldn't modify things that other people write." I never said that "Kevorkmail does not have the right to modify what I write." I never complained about that. Did you really read what I wrote above? I am sorry, maybe it was too long?

Maybe this page is about serious offenses, so this is what makes you people tend to speak like policemen. Anyway, here is the complaint again (hopefully) in a clearer and more direct way:

• User:Kevorkmail ignored my discussion and chose instead to force his edit on me.

If you, Looie496, think this is not a problem, then I think I am going to say: thanks anyway.--HD86 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not the page I am looking for. Thanks anyway. The problem is not that serious. I tried at first to have somebody from the "third opinion" page but they refused and told me to come to this police station. I withdraw my complaint. Have a nice day.--HD86 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 in regard to Bob_Day

In addition to helping out at WQA from time to time, I also help out at the External Links Noticeboard. The following was reported at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Bob_Day_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29:

Bob Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bob Day is an Australian politician. His Wikipedia article is currently negatively biased. He has a webpage which, in addition to general information about him, attempts to respond to the content of our article. The advocate of that content, Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes the link, despite being told directly that the site belongs to Bob Day, see Talk:Bob_Day#Bob Day dot Com for our discussion. Fred Talk 18:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the name and nature of the site, I think there is a strong presumption that Bob Day controls the site. This certainly qualifies as an official website and it should be included as an external link under WP:ELYES, point 1. Put it back in and if Timeshift9 removes it, let me know and I will put it back in (so you don't get into an edit war situation). An official website is the only EL everybody agrees must be included. Vyeh (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

reverted immediately despite citing WP:ELYES in the comment and on the talk page. Fred Talk 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued on article talk page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the edit summary of this diff by User:Timeshift9: "rv Fred - and which of the three at Wikipedia:ELYES#What_should_be_linked are you laughingly attempt to claim applies here? i'll say it YET AGAIN. talkpage WP:CONSENSUS is key, stop ignoring."

As a neutral editor who had not been involved in the article, I stated the following at Talk:Bob_Day#Bob_Day_dot_Com:"I saw the issue about BobDay.com.au at EL noticeboard. This is clearly an official site. Why should there be a statement saying Bob Day controls the site when his name is on it? Even the most anti-EL editor agrees that the official site of a subject of a BLP should be included so readers can see what the subject has to say. Vyeh (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)"

Here are the responses following my comment:

*****

So GeorgeBush.com would be owned by George Bush and JoeBloggs.com would be owned by Joe Bloggs? What a pile of nonsense. ANY political candidate in Australia, past or present, who has a website, has an area somewhere stating who owns the site. Timeshift (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:ELYES#What_should_be_linked and Wikipedia:ELYES#Official_links. Fred Talk 01:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And which of the three points in that section you link are you laughingly trying to apply here? Throwing rules at me and taking me to pages to report me is going to get you absolutely nowhere until you actually shut up, sit down, and thrash out some talk page consensus. Sorry to be increasingly rude but you are not listening to me or others. Try it for once. Timeshift (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess you were right. The world IS upside down, see "Clicking Candidate.com, Landing at Opponent.com", Naw Fred Talk 06:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as an official site. It makes no claim to even being authorized by Bob Day, much less controlled by him. It has references to support its biographical information. If it is his site, why would the references be needed? It does have a lot of useful information, such as publications actually written by Bob Day. The references and publications could be used to improve the Wikipedia article without adding an EL. It may be tempting to link to the entire list of publications, but it isn't the mission of Wikipedia to index everything he was ever written. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

*****

Ignoring the External Link issues, I would appreciate it if another WQA editor would take a look and weigh in. I will notify User:Timeshift9. Vyeh (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Until the website states that it is run/has been authorised by Bob Day, no. If the only trace on the entire website you can find of Bob Day ownership is in a comments section, this is not sufficient, there is reasonable doubt. EL stays out. Timeshift (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss EL policy, except to note that it was brought to the EL noticeboard, which is part of the dispute resolution process at WP. I would hope that another editor familiar with EL comments, but an editor who responds to WP:OTRS says that Bob Day has confirmed authorization. Reasonable doubt is the standard in a criminal proceeding, which not the standard of WikiPedia. Requiring that a website with his name on it explicitly says it is authorized by him seems to be getting close to WP:WikiLawyering. Vyeh (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when do we allow sites that implicitly attack Wikipedia and have no claim of ownership on them? I'd appreciate input from people other than yourself Vyeh. Ta. Timeshift (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fred Talk has said twice at Talk:Bob_Day#Bob_Day_dot_Com that Bob Day has claimed ownership via WP:OTRS. Vyeh (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift9 removed the external link. I've reinstated the link and would really appreciate it if another WQA editor would look at the situation. The crux of the situation is that an editor who is involved with WP:OTRS saw complaints from the subject of a BLP complaining about the WP article. After weeks of assuming the subject was whining, the editor made a few changes which were reverted by the subject of this WQA. Since the editor has been editing since 2002, has been an arbitrator and was not involved with the article prior to seeing the OTRS, I find the editor very credible in his complaints. Vyeh (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with spreading this over such a variety of pages, although it is, in some measure, a Wikiquette matter. This language,

And which of the three points in that section you link are you laughingly trying to apply here? Throwing rules at me and taking me to pages to report me is going to get you absolutely nowhere until you actually shut up, sit down, and thrash out some talk page consensus. Sorry to be increasingly rude but you are not listening to me or others. Try it for once.

is inappropriate when I am regularly talking to him. I do cite policy as a part of my talking, and he does not seem to be able to see how it applies to the issues under discussion. To approach this in terms of the external link dispute, a link to the subjects website is generally considered appropriate, and is, in fact, written into policy. He's just removed it again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Day&diff=385106234&oldid=385105705 with the comment "what is it you fail to understand?" Fred Talk 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I arrived here after following the report at WP:ELN, and this wikiquette report is misguided. I won't engage the "is it an official site?" argument here, but it is extremely rare for an official site to not give any indication who runs the site. Accordingly, it was very reasonable for Timeshift to make the comments you cite above when you were not responding to the issues raised. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

bahamut0013

• bahamut0013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam C. Winfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In an {{afd}} Bahamut0013 wrote a comment that began: "You don't acquit your intelligence well if you need me to explain to you how to apply a policy that..." This comment was addressed to another contributor. It seems to me that lapses from our civility policies and conventions have grown so routine, in deletion discussions, that they generally pass without notice.

I left a comment that said: "WRT the intelligence of other contributors -- we are supposed to confine our comments to the issues. Any genuine doubts we have about other contributor's intelligence we should keep to ourselves."

In bahamut0013's reply they say: "I can see from your continued rantings and ravings that I'm not going to get through to you, so I will no longer waste my time in attempting so. The closing admin will surely have the intelligence to see the wisdom of the argument..."

It seems to me that characterizing my good faith comments as "continued rantings and ravings" is an escalation in incivility.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The arguments there are a bit heated, and there's no doubt that Bahamut0013 has gotten a bit overheated, and needs to tone it down. You on the other hand might consider writing shorter comments and avoiding use of boldface and italics, which also convey a heated tone. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The diffs linked certainly are not the most civil communications I've ever seen, but they appear to have occurred as part of a rather contentious AFD; it can happen sometimes. Have you had any issues with bahamut0013 in the past? (It appears that you've had some difficult communications in the past with one of the other AFD participants, User:Iqinn, but he's not the subject of the report here.) In any case, if this is just an isolated incident, in which presumably your substantive interaction might be ended at the close of the AFD, I'm not sure that much can be accomplished by this report, beyond acknowledging that bahamut0013's language was not terribly civil. — e. ripley\^talk 18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This a joke, especially considered that the "rantings and ravings" remark was not directed at you. Geo Swan and I have not had any interactions at all that I can recall, nor with Iquinn prior to the AfD. And if I was choosing to be incivil, I would have simply been so, without any cloying language; had I mean to call Iquinn stupid, I would have done so, and not danced around it with an accusation of playing the fool. I'm a direct person, and don't go out of my way to step on toes, but neither do I focus on making myself polistically correct and palatable to those who come across my path. If you had the respect to discuss the matter with me, I might have had the respect to apologize for the misunderstanding. But I cannot assume good faith in what is tantamount to being a tattletale for a single isolated incident. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)