Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

William (Bill) Bean

Stuck

This user has become quite upset that I apparently failed to properly explain the placing or replacing of a NPOV tag. My apology has not worked to defuse the situation and now he's telling me: " I have more than enough evidence to assert that you are not acting in good faith.". I'm finding this whole thing very unpleasant and I really feel liked I am being attacked unfairly. OK, I've only been doing this for a few weeks and perhaps my edits have not been without error but does that mean I should be told that I am "failing miserably?" There are other examples but I think this gives the gist of it. Thank you, gentle Wikipedians, for your help. Dlabtot 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the diffs and see if I can help. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion on the talk page, Dlabtot wasn't even the one who added the tag in the first place. --Darkwind (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, I didn't think so, but he was asserting so strongly that I was, I was afraid to say so without taking the time to research it. Dlabtot 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A moment ago this comment was not here in this postion. When I researched the edits initially I found that Dlabtot had indeed thrown the first POV tag. I then went to his talk page and found numerous complaints that Dlabtot had thrown tags without explanation. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I doubt I'm wrong. Perhaps you should show the diff where my research failed. William (Bill) Bean 03:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a good time to set the record straight. The edit where the POV tag was inserted: diff 01:03, 19 September 2007. My first edit to that article: diff 01:04, 19 September 2007. Yes, I think I did replace the tag later after I had seen it removed. I was under the impression that if there is a tag like that on an article, it's not supposed to be removed unless a consensus has been reached on the talk page to do so. Since no such consensus had (or has yet) emerged, I didn't think I needed to explain why I was replacing it. I may have also moved the tag to the specific part of the article that seemed problematic. I don't know whether or what descriptions I put on the edit summary line. I will endeavor to be more descriptive in the future. I must admit that I have taken offense at some of the posts you have directed towards me. Dlabtot 07:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a reminder of WP:NPA on Bean's talk page, and let him know that he's free to comment here if he feels that he's been somehow misrepresented. --B/font>figura ^(talk) 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note. This user has made numerous POV tags without any comment or stated reason. This is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. It is also a violation of wikipedia policy. A quick review of back up my assertion. Please review Dlabtot discussion for verification. I now consider my placement here a personal attack. Fair warning. William (Bill) Bean 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating that someone is coming across as a troll or sock-puppet is not a personal attack. Accusing someone of the same (something I did not do) is. I will gladly accept your apology once you recognize the different. Finally, the person in question has made numerous POV entries outside wikipedia policy. He or she should stop. That's my point. William (Bill) Bean 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out above, I don't believe Dlabtot placed the tag that you're referring to. And even if he did, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet (if it isn't relevant to the current discussion) and stating that they "...are failing miserably..." (as in this diff: [1]) is possibly not the best response possible (see WP:CIVIL). And I don't believe that a listing here constitutes an attack, perhaps someone else can comment on that. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, for perspective, it might be helpful to take a look at a couple of other recent diffs, not directed at me: diff, diff. Dlabtot 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps for perspective the reader will note that the poster I'm responding to is making assumptions about my motives and or state of mind with no relevant evidence to back up those assumptions. Your turn. William (Bill) Bean 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not directly call Dlabtot a sock-puppet. Please review the posts again. I said the tag without explanation smacked of sock-puppetry. It's not the same thing whether you realize it or not. The presence of sock-puppets and trolls here at wikiedia is always relevant; always. Finally, if Dlabtot had not thrown the original tag he never denied it. Had he or she denied it I would have reviewed the diffs again. By the way this is a brilliant tactic for setting someone up. Your turn. William (Bill) Bean 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got a point. The other day, a guy said my Mom looked like, and acted like, a whore, but since he didn't actually *call* my mother a whore, I figured he was actually being civil, so I let it slide. Dlabtot 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't a debate. The point of WQA is to suggest that while you may (and I'm neither taking a position for or against) be correct in that Dlabtot tagged without posting posting on the talk pages, it is not appropriate to respond by calling someone a troll, or a sock-puppet, or a failure. If you feel someone is violating policy, then the right thing to do is notify them (politely). If they don't respond in a manner that's constructive, then follow dispute resolution, or try and establish a consensus on the talk page in question. Inflammatory language won't get anyone anywhere. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm not convinced that a back-and-forth argument is going to be terribly productive. May I suggest that we place this matter on hold so that other WQA responders may comment? --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I called Dlabtot a troll. I didn't. Instead of responding to criticism positively or appropriately he or she has made excuses, claimed ignorance, and "begged for forgiveness" without a hint of sincerity. I responded by pointing out why this started in the first place; a violation of wikipedia policy. The response was "please stop." This is manipulative and I know it. Now he or she has called upon you to intercede on his or her behalf rather than correcting the behavior that started this. Wikipedia is rife with trolls and sock-puppets. It hurts this place. Finally, inflammatory language is entirely up to me. If you don't like it that's your problem not mine. But I did get his or her attention. And I can guarantee you if he or she does the POV without showing cause again (and I'm not banned) this will seem mild. Enough is enough. I welcome input from others. If I feel I'm wrong I'll apologize, but don't hold your breath; it's unlikely. William (Bill) Bean 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you suggest I 'correct the behavior'? What could I do that would make you happy and end this? Dlabtot 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but inflammatory language is not up to you. There's an official civility policy, which specifically lists ill-considered accusations as an avoidable example of incivility, among other things. If someone doesn't like something you've said, and it can reasonably be taken as a violation of WP:CIVIL, then it is your problem. Also, veiled threats (if [X happens] this will seem mild) fall under incivility as well. I'd suggest previewing your posts first, or reading them out loud, before submitting, as it's entirely possible you don't realize how you might sound (the post above quite shocked me, especially on a page dealing with incivility as its primary purpose.) --Darkwind (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur -- the irony is somewhat staggering. As this doesn't look as though it will go anywhere in this forum, I've marked the complaint as stuck and fowarded it on to AN/I. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page. William (Bill) Bean 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC) *Regardless of whether your behavior fits the technical definition of a "personal attack", your comments of late have been incivil, both to Dlabtot and to Bfigura. Demanding that people follow procedure, or make apologies, is not a very good way of interacting with other editors, and not conductive to a pleasant atmosphere. I'd suggest that you refrain from such behavior in the future. >Radiant< 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for clarity, the above comment was directed at William (Bill) Bean. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been consistently on point about my issue with the tags. I have repeated these points numerous times. They have been ignored. I have never made an issue about the reason for the tag, rather the lack of a reason. Worse, rather than take my issues at face value and address them, I have been accused of having other motives. Since I have not brought up any other issue with the tags the motives attributed to me are fabrications. I find that insulting. As I said I have been on point from the very beginning. From the talk page on the article in question.

"Considering that you have listed numerous reasons that you believe the section is not WP:NPOV, I hope you will now follow Wikipedia policies and refrain from removing the tag until a consensus to do so has been reached here on the talk page. Dlabtot 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"

I have listed only one reason why I felt the POV tag was invalid; that being no reason was given for throwing the tag in the first place. Additionally I found the assumption on Dlabot's part both insulting and groundless. Again, my issue is with throwing tags without explanation. Further, Dlabtot is not the only poster who jumped to a conclusion as to my motives with no supporting evidence.

Please see [2]. My concern is now and has been for years the following; attempts by various parties to kill information, hacked articles, bias, and opinions presented as fact. Finally, I find the attempts at misdirection insulting as well. William (Bill) Bean 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I find it amusing that this section has been moved from Work in progress to stuck in less than twenty-four hours. Interesting no? William (Bill) Bean 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• In that thread you state that process wasn't followed in nominating the page for deletion, and start talking about vandalism - whereas it turns out that you were simply looking at the wrong day of the deletion logs. Seems to me that you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. >Radiant< 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I stated that throwing a tag without following proper procedure "smacks of vandalism." Please be accurate in relating this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjbean (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The AFiD tag was thrown on September 18th. For that reason I would expect to find the nomination on the page with that date. I did not. I did look at September 19th and did not find it there either. One poster claimed that the entry appeared on the September 19th page within seconds. I dispute that since I didn't find it. If the entire wikipedia community is not aware of a nomination for deletion then the process is flawed and any voting potentially skewed. I jumped to no conclusions. I responded to conditions I can plainly see with my own two eyes. Seems to me you are jumping to your own conclusions. William (Bill) Bean 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• According to the edit history, the article was nominated on the 19th, and indeed that's when the nomination page was made, and when said page was added to the logs. All at 04:06. So it would appear, from those logs, that you are simply mistaken. Being mistaken is really not a problem, but attacking others as a result is. >Radiant< 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the nomination on the 18th. This may have to do with time zones though I thought wikipedia used a universal time stamp. William (Bill) Bean 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If this "dispute" has been moved to an alternate forum I have a right to know where that forum is. William (Bill) Bean 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you do. That's why I gave the link to AN/I above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there was a call earlier for other WQA-regulars to comment, I'll say that User:Wjbean has been uncompromising, rude, and unproductive. He has even taken to seeking out other people who've been reported here, to inform them that he suspects a Cabal is out to get him. I'd say we're stuck, unless the user has a change of heart and decides to abide by policies like WP:CIVIL, instead of turning his nose at them, saying "Wikipedia has lost its way." --Cheeser1 01:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "a cabal is out to get him" and attributing that to me is a misrepresentation of my note to AussieLegend and I take strong exception to it. That was rude and uncalled for. If you are going to hold me to some standard of civility you should abide by it yourself.

I reviewed the statements he made that brought about an "incivility" charge against him here. Though I found them pointed I did not consider them uncivil. Certainly not remotely as "offensive" as my own. I am simply asking for his opinion on the attitudes around here. The title of the thread, like a newspaper headline, was designed to draw his attention to my question. I am finding that your (collective) attitudes are reminiscent of a lynch mob. I will not back down until I hear from someone who has elected authority. I will abide by whatever decision that authority makes up to and including leaving here permanently. Respectfully (well as much as I can muster) William (Bill) Bean 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that everyone who gets reported here seems to wind up hurling complaints at the accuser and/or the WQA volunteers? "Lynch mob"?? Are you serious?? That's probably a more absurd thing than a "cabal." Nobody on Wikipedia has "elected authority" - this is not a democracy. Certainly not on the WQA, where regular volunteers and other community members attempt to resolve conflicts. We abide by policies on Wikipedia, and when people step out of line, the community steps in to help resolve it. You have apparently violated some policies. My saying so does not meant that I'm out to get you (not to attack, lynch, or cabal-ify you), and reporting your behavior does not constitute a personal attack. If you don't want to be accountable for what you say, don't say it. You are soliciting help from other users who've been reported here, in order to mount resistance against cooperating, against abiding by policy. That's something definitely worth mentioning here. And I'm sorry, but lashing out at people is not how you settle these complaints against you. You should stop it. --Cheeser1 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1 First, I'm letting this drop as it's pointless. I'm simply responding to your question "why is it that everyone reported here seems to windup hurling complaints at the accuser and/or the EQA volunteers." My specific reason is that there is no process whereby the accused can mount a defense. Anyone placed here is automatically guilty. I cannot even use the word "verdict" since there's no formalized process to determine guilt. As a senior account creation date editor I find that highly irregular and extremely suspect. Since that does indeed appear to be the case I respectfully submit that the incivility flag is open to abuse. I am currently researching which WP: topic to report my concerns to. This is not the place though. My apologies for making this such a contentious issue. Finally, In my three plus (almost four) years here I have never once been cited for incivility for pointing out clear and suspicious violations of wikipolicy. I'm letting this drop here; I'll be continuing my investigation and reporting on it elsewhere. William (Bill) Bean 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not entirely sure 2005 qualifies you as a senior Wikipedian, and seniority or age is not a compelling reason to exempt you from WP:CIVIL. Every person who's been uncivil has a first time. Regardless of what evidence you may or may not have about your clean record or what you didn't do wrong, you can "mount a defense" by politely and civilly explaining your actions. Not by hurling attacks and accusations at everyone. That's just digging yourself a deeper incivility hole. While I appreciate your apology for making this a contentious issue, I wish you would recognize that that's exactly the point. --Cheeser1 14:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck and best wishes on your 'investigation'. Dlabtot 15:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm on a civility page? That wasn't really necessary. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I should have found a better way to point out that William (Bill) Bean was continuing to make veiled threats. Dlabtot 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1: I respectfully submit (no sarcasm intended) that you missed my point; that being that I see a clear potential for abuse when every wikipedian cited here is "guilty." I cited my time here to demonstrate that I'm not just some "rube" that fell off the turnip truck. It's 2004 not 2005. And I have cited many instances where misstatements have been made regarding my responses; they've been roundly ignored. A defense is useless if it's completely ignored. Thus my assertion that a cite here is an automatic guilty.

Bfigura: This is not the first time. Please see this. In fact my statements to Dlabtot did not take a more stern tone until s/he posted that. I've asked that Dlabtot's account be checked for possible past abuses. I do note that Dlabtot threw his/her first civility flag a mere two days after joining. That alone seems suspicious to me.

Perhaps we should take this up elsewhere. As was pointed out to me earlier this really doesn't belong here. Suggestions? William (Bill) Bean 16:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are plenty of instances where complaints here are found to be lacking substance. This is not a witch-hunt, lynching, or cabal. It's a group of people who try to resolve civility disputes by taking complaints, evaluating the situation, and attempting to resolve it. We do not determine guilt, and more importantly, we do not assume that anyone has violated WP:CIVIL (or other policies) until we've seen the situation. I will not dig up examples, but there are plenty of complaints here that are almost immediately turned away as either not having any violations, or having violations that aren't WQA issues. Secondly, Wikipedians are allowed to make complaints at any time, be it two days or two years after joining. You can't defend yourself by saying you've been here for a few years, nor can you dismiss Dlabtot for being here for two days. Wikipedians are also allowed to create new accounts or use multiple accounts. It is not appropriate to assume that Dlabtot is new to Wikipedia, nor is it fair to dismiss his complaint because he might appear to be new. --Cheeser1 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge all of your points. William (Bill) Bean 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to interject with some reality to counter the untrue statement "In fact my statements to Dlabtot did not take a more stern tone until s/he posted that." 'That' being this diff 00:36, 20 September 2007, which actually took place, after, rather than prior to, William (Bill) Bean's vicious personal attack against me 00:22, 20 September 2007, which he still has not acknowledged as being uncivil. Dlabtot 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The only recognized authority on Wikipedia, in the sense you seem to be referring to (someone or someones who will make a binding decision), is the Arbitration Committee. If you feel that you need to open an ArbCom case to settle this matter, feel free; but there exists no "greater authority" of WQA who will come in and settle this. Wikipedia just doesn't generally work that way. ArbCom is generally the last resort of all disputes on Wikipedia, and I really don't think this has reached that point.

Also, please consider that if several people who are uninvolved in a matter say the same thing about your behavior regarding that matter, it just might be true. Referring to "lynch mobs" and "cabals" and so forth just smacks of paranoia, and reduces the impact of whatever reasoned argument you might be trying to make at the time. --Darkwind (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering this perhaps it is time to mark this as resolved, even if it has ended badly, it seems to have ended. Dlabtot 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wwefan980

Resolved

The user is blocked for two weeks. M.^(er) 05:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wwefan980 (talk · contribs) made this edit to the Sandbox. I chided him with this, which I thought was a civil reminder. He replied by blanking the comment and putting in this edit summary. I replied with a reminder to be civil, to which he replied with this. I thought my comments were proper, and would like a second opinion. Corvus cornix 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your own comments were perfectly in-line with policy and Wikiquette; although your second comment on his talk page was a bit… terse. His replies were definitely out of line. As a normal part of the WQA process, I'd leave him a note reminding him of the proper application of WP:CIVIL, but you mentioned you primarily wanted an opinion on your own comments. Shall I ping him and see what happens? --Darkwind (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind. I don't want to escalate this, so I don't feel I should make any further comments to him. Corvus cornix 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a message and watchlisted his talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented a little, but this user seems to take anything as an attack. Asking him to be civil is uncivil, according to him, and thus justification for him to retaliate ("They were rude first"). He's also baiting people to incite edit warring (see here) and threatening to report those of us who are intervening (to whom, ourselves?). --Cheeser1 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT taken to an extreme. --Darkwind (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is also extraordinarily troubling. I think these two may need more than some constructive criticism from the WQA. This is out of line too. --Cheeser1 00:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He has also made similar uncivil accusations on my talk page, seen here. I agree with a 1 week block next time the user is uncivil. M.^(er) 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is too bad you aren't an admin Miranda and you are too power hungry to ever be one. I say you get blocked for threatening me by acting like you can block me when you can't. How's that? Wwefan980 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The user is blocked for two weeks. M.^(er) 05:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AussieLegend

Work in progress; comments welcome

I'm having trouble editing the page Exetel with AussieLegend. The incivility, rude tone, and personal attacks are rife in his posts on the Exetel talk page and my own talk page. His approach to editing seems overly confrontational and defensive. I've tried to be civil and helpful, but this tends to aggravate him more. He's had trouble with other users on the page before, to the point of a conflict mediation. I'm not sure what else to do? Thanks for all the help! Sсοττ5834^talk 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott - could you provide some diffs in which you think this user's behaviour has been problematic? Thanks, Sarcasticidealist 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! They're right below in roughly chronological order:

• Not assuming good faith
• civility
• civility, assuming good faith, etc.
• more civility, name calling
• and even more civility

There's more (especially toward other users), but that's a sample. Sсοττ5834^talk 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott - thanks for the diffs. This case appears to have some context that I'd need in order to fully understand it, so I'm going to ask User:AussieLegend to provide a statement about his perspective on this before I take it any further. Hopefully, once that's done, we can get both of you on the same page and working constructively together. Sarcasticidealist 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A glance at Talk:Exetel appears to show a content dispute raging since 2006 about how critical the article should be about Exetel's policies, notability of Exetel's doings, and adequate referencing for statements about Exetel. The requirement that well-sourced content should not be removed except due to a Talk page consensus might have some value. Since this is a rather short article, and even in confusing situations it should be possible to neutrally state the various opinions, it's not clear why a compromise version can't be agreed upon. EdJohnston 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've experienced this "user" before. It's almost impossible to get anything done to the Exetel article, any good faith edits (with newspaper articles) are reverted because of "vandalism" (with the people who write the articles on the news sites being called hack/fake journalists), you get posted up on administrative/talk page areas as being a bad user, and then his squad of sock-puppets/extremely close "friends" then come in to back him up with page after page of rules-lawyering (and despite them being very new users with few edits, they have a in-depth knowledge of wiki-rules/guidelines) as soon as you leave for more than a few days they attempt to claim "consensus" (I've had to argue consensus with him and his "friends" who come out and say they don't think it deserves to be in an article.. how can someone argue consensus with people who don't want anything? Impossible) and move to have the page locked. His account is basically a single use account (as it was when I was trying to make the exetel article accurate) posing as an active user, all to prevent truth being posted on the exetel wikipedia article. Very sad. Macktheknifeau 06:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise in advance about the length of this but I'm trying to provide the full context of what has happened. Because this current issue involves a previous consensus and because Macktheknifeau has decided to weigh in on the issue it is probably appropriate to address Macktheknifeau's actions on the page since they were the catalyst for the mediation, administrator intervention, full protection of the page and the path to consensus. It's all documented at Talk:Exetel but there is a fair bit to read through there and you need to check out the full page history to get the complete story so I'll try to summarise here.

Macktheknifeau is an ex-customer of Exetel. While he was a customer he was banned from the Exetel help forums. Immediately after that event, apparently as a bit of pay-back, he edited the Exetel page and added unverified and false claims.[3] An unregistered IP address then added more unverified and false claims[4] which I reverted, explaining my reasons for doing so on the talk page.[5] Macktheknifeau restored the edits and made some minor edits that corrected one error but none of the rest. Nor did he provide citations for anything. After some minor vandalism by an unregistered IP I cleaned up the edits to make them more factual.[6] Macktheknifeau reverted those edits. He did not "correct" anything, not that anything needed correcting because what I wrote was true, he simply reverted every change including grammatical corrections. It should be pointed out that Macktheknifeau and I were both Exetel customers and active participants in the same threads in the forums on the Whirlpool website so we both knew exactly the same information meaning he must have known that what I wrote was correct so, while it may not have been obvious under the Wikipedia definition, I knew what he did was vandalism and tagged it as such when I restored the correct information.

After this other editors joined in. Macktheknifeau immediately accused these editors of being sockpuppets and reverted their edits[7] every time they attempted to edit the page. He also made same other ridiculous claims on the talk page such as claiming that I was an Exetel employee despite knowing full quite well that I am not. (I actually live over Template:Unit km from Exetel's offices) He then suddenly appeared to change his attitude and made an offer to allow the other editors the chance to edit the page without him simply reverting, or so we thought. In reality the offer turned out to be less than genuine as he continued to revert the edits of the other editors despite his offer not to.

Somewhere in all this (the timeline is a bit murky) I opened a mediation case. A few days later Macktheknifeau opened his own case (attempting to hijack mine immediately after doing so) but not before formally accusing all editors who opposed him of being sockpuppets and me of being the puppetmaster. He later withdrew the allegations.

I also approached an Administrator for advice. He protected the page and posted some guidance on the talk page.[8] Eventually consensus was reached by all active editors.[9] It can be seen that all editors except Macktheknifeau agreed that the "Controversy" section, which included discussion of the traffic shaping issue, should not be included in the article. It is clear in the discussion that the active editors at the time consensus was reached all had opposed inclusion of what Scott5834 has tried to include as the "Traffic Shaping section"

We now move to June 2007. Scott5834 edits the article adding information regarding a two year old policy that some writer on an obscure US blog site has just discovered. My thoughts, in a nutshell, were "It's a two year old policy that nobody has ever complained about or even commented on so it's really not worth including in the article". As an Exetel customer I received the original email announcing implementation of the policy. Since then, despite being a member and regular participant/reader of both the Exetel and Whirlpool forums I have never seen anyone even comment on it in either forum except for one instance that I'll get to shortly. The lack of comment at Whirlpool is especially significant. Whirlpool is often called "Whingepool" because so many people there, especially in the Exetel forums, seem to like a good whinge even if there is really nothing to whinge about which, not unexpectedly, is what happened with P2P depriortisation. (I'll address this in more detail later) In short, if people haven't complained about it on Whirlpool nobody really cares about it. With that in mind, if the customers of the ISP really don't care about that policy, why should anyone else especially someone from Texas who will probably never have any association with the ISP. However, this is not my only reason for opposing inclusion of this policy in the article. Another is that realistically you can't put everything in an article. There are lots of ISPs in Australia and none of the articles on Wikipedia detail individual policies. In fact, they're not really mentioned. (As an aside I should point out that Exetel isn't even one of the bigger ISPs. It's small compared to several others. Currently it has around 50,000 customers. Compare that to BigPond with over two million) This doesn't mean that policies shouldn't be included but you need to draw a line somewhere. Exetel has policies that all customers are billed on the first of the month, that users get static IPs (unusual in Australia) and that from 1 October 2007 users will have 200MB of webspace. Should these be included? I'd argue that they shouldn't because they really aren't important enough for inclusion. They might be interesting features to somebody thinking of joining Exetel but they're really just filler material. The same is true for the multimedia policy. If the policy is important enough for inclusion then why wasn't it discovered by the US two years ago when it was first announced?

Even when it was finally "discovered" the coverage was insignificant. The post at boing boing, which is somewhat misleading both in title and content, has had zero comments. Scott5834 will argue that comments were only instituted a month ago but I don't know if that's true. Regardless, there have been no comments. He will also argue that it was mentioned at techdirt but that's not actually true. Techdirt mentions the policy as an example of what happens without safe harbour provisions but the policy isn't the focus of the article. Exetel isn't even mentioned. This article is also misleading but that's another issue. Ars technica mentioned it too but apparently that's the extent of the coverage at the time. There was an article in The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, three weeks later but that wasn't related to the boing boing revelation. According to the article the relative of an informant found out one of their multimedia files had gone missing. To put this in the appropriate context you have to understand that the setup information on a user webspace very clearly explains the policy and the simple procedure necessary to avoid deletion. It is reproduced below:

IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT OF USING THIS FACILITY

Exetel has since it began offering ADSL services taken a hard approach to copyright issues; where we believe there is a clear violation of copyright content has been deleted, and in a few cases, directories blocked and 'frozen' pending further investigation by the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Based on the MIPI's actions in March 2005 aganst another ISP (People Telecom) and the actual finding guilty of a second ISP in July 2005 (ComCen), Exetel now believe there is a need to take more direct and pro-active action to monitor content stored on publicly accessible servers under its control.

Effective from 1st April 2005 scripts will be run nightly that will examine all disk content and delete any multimedia content with the extensions mp3, mpg, mpeg, avi, wma and any other multi media file type. Customers wishing to host files with these extensions need to do the following:

1. Email copyright-request@exetel.com.au and request to be excluded from the scan script.

2. State that you agree you are the copyright owner, have permission of the copyright owner or that there is no copyright on the material you want to store.

You can use this text as a template:

To: copyright-request@exetel.com.au
Subject: Please Allow directory for media storage
ADSL line number:
Webspace name:

I advise that I am the copyright owner, have permission of the copyright owner or that there is no copyright on the files I will place in the above directories, and therefore request they be exempt from automatic deletion.

Obviously, the either user didn't read or didn't follow the instructions. Had they done so their files would have been safe and there would probably have been no article. Earlier I mentioned one instance in two years where somebody mentioned the policy. The circumstances of that instance were similar to what happened in the Age article. Somebody didn't follow instructions. People don't follow instructions all the time. Should that be included in Wikipedia articles? I'd argue no because not only is it common it's also too trivial for inclusion.

These are the reasons that I opposed inclusion of the information on the multimedia policy. It simply is too trivial an issue.

Earlier I mentioned that people at Whirlpool like to whinge even when there is nothing to whinge about and I cited P2P deprioritisation or, as Scott5834 has called it, "Traffic Shaping". This is yet another example of how something insignificant can be blown out of proportion. This was an issue that was fairly widely reported but that was because people misinterpreted the announcement. The evidence can be seen in the thread at Whirlpool (I don't have a link at the moment) which reached a length of 102 pages simply on the basis of the announcement. The thread was full of doom and gloom before implementation. After implementation it was a far different matter. The thread virtually stopped dead. Only a few comments were added and they were basicly along the lines of "I haven't noticed anything". A separate thread was created asking people to make comment on the issue post-implementation but it too only attracted a few posts. Why? Because it was a big non-event. That alone probably does make it worthy of inclusion but the problem is that we reached consensus and WP:CCC#Consensus can change recommends discussion before changing consensus. I'm not adding it without discussion because WP:CCC#Consensus can change states:

No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed

I simply don't have the right to arbitrarily declare that consensus has changed. Nor does anyone else.

It's important now to look at the actions of Scott5834 since he is questioning mine.

After his initial attempts to add the information failed, and with three editors opposing him, Scott5834 decided that, rather than follow policy[10] he would submit a request for mediation. This was naturally rejected. He then made some rather puzzling claims as well as clearly unjust accusations that reminded me of Macktheknifeau. Since this is already rather long I won't detail them here. I think the relevant section on the talk page speaks for itself.

Despite the fact that I still disagreed with inclusion of the information I decided to seek a compromise and edited the article to include some of what Scott5834 proposed. His response was:

Though the section stills reads a bit glowing (and POV) in my opinion, it still is a great addition. Well done! Scott5834 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

After posting that he made no further edits on the Exetel page so you can imagine my surprise when, almost 12 weeks later, he started editing the page again, deleting valid information and exaggerating various aspects, most notably in regard to the coverage of the multimedia policy. However, I did not revert his edits. I did remove the section on traffic shaping and suggested he read the talk page discussion regarding that. Instead he immediately reverted my edit and chose to ignore consensus. In the ensuing discussion he started WikiLawyering, citing policy after policy. It also became obvious that "Keep Civil" is his new catch phrase when he doesn't have anything else to respond with. He's used it 5 times so far. Even commenting that despite finding my previous edits "a great addition" he's now seen fit to hack them to pieces resulted in it being used.

Despite the WikiLawyering, when it was pointed out that his own comments and sources breached some of the very policies that he cited he started making excuses in order for his own edits to ignore policy. He seems to expect others to obey policy but believes he should be exempt. For example, a reference to a thread at Whirlpool was presented as a citation for a claim that Exetel customers are unconcerned at the policy. He claims that analysis of the thread posts constitutes original research but when it was pointed out that the techdirt article doesn't mention Exetel and the only way to link Exetel to the article is to examine anonymous comments, thereby making it WP:OR using his own arguments, he claimed that was a stretch of WP:OR.

He has also started feigning ignorance as a way of avoiding addressing an issue. For example he argued that "we shouldn't be looking at notability guidelines to edit the article". (Wikipedia:Notability says "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles" indicating that while notability guidelines don't limit the content they are relevant) I responded that I had seen an administrator delete content from an article because of lack of notability. I even supplied a link to a specific page edit with the direction "Check the page history". If you follow the link and check the page history you see that the Administrator's explanation for that edit was "removed non-notable information about cheerleading squad". Scott5834's response was "I see a page about a high school..." There was no acknowledgement that an administrator had done as I said.

And of course the peculiar claims are back combined with heading off on a tangent in order to avoid addressing something. For example, he claimed that one statement regarding Exetel supplying free data in the off-peak period was unverified so I provided a link to a site where 6,863 different plans from 254 different Australian ISPs can be compared. The site in question is used as a source by many organisations including the Australian government, something I pointed out to him. That should have satisfied him but his response was to ask for something better because a newspaper article had "a pretty different take on the "free" bandwidth policy". After pointing out that the article he referenced was about a P2P deprioritisation policy which had nothing to do with the free data (the article doesn't mention the free data at all) he's now claiming that the two are related and the "free" period was implemented at the same time as the P2P deprioritisation program, despite providing no citation to prove those assertions, and yet he expects me to provide citations to prove that the free period has existed for a lot longer. For reference, the article he mentioned is here and a statement from the company CEO confirming the existence of the free period in March 2004 is here. You be the judge.

I think it's fairly obvious that if you're going to edit the content of articles then you should have some knowledge of the subject. You shouldn't just go in blind but Scott5834 has demonstrated with his edits and comments that his knowledge of Exetel is almost non-existent. This is understandable. By his own admission he lives 8000 miles away. He'll probably never have any direct involvement with the ISP so I'm puzzled as to why he'd even bother involving himself in the article especially to the depth that he is. I did ask but he hasn't replied. His only knowledge seems to stem from the boing boing article in June 2007 and the edits he is making are based on misinformation and pure guesswork. It's really not appropriate in my opinion.

One last point I'd like to make really shouldn't need explanation, just revelation.

At 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Scott5834 posted on the Exetel talk page

At 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) he posted here.

At 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC) he was back editing the Exetel article.[11]

So much for letting things simmer down.

Once again I apologise for the length of this but I've always found that if you don't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth people tend to get bogged down with the facts and innocent men end up on death row. --AussieLegend 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Sarcasticidealist, I look forward to hearing what AussieLegend has to say. When he does join the discussion, I hope he will comment about some of the statements he has made on Talk:Exetel, which do sound like they misunderstand Wikipedia policy. For instance, he has removed at least once a statement that Exetel has engaged in a practice called 'traffic-shaping', where P2P transfers are capped at 50% of the rate they would otherwise enjoy. This was a policy announced by Exetel itself that was commented on in Sydney newspapers, so it appears to be well-sourced critical content. However AussieLegend argued, Yes, it did make the newspapers but, as already pointed out, just because something makes the newspapers doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia... Though AussieLegend's argument is one that some editors make when they are trying to balance out a lengthy article by dropping unimportant information, this traffic-shaping is hardly a minor issue, it can be stated very briefly, and its truth is well-verified. Its removal seems to make the article more favorable to Exetel, and the overall effect of the removal looks like bias. EdJohnston 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained in the lengthy section above, the decision to remove the reference to traffic shaping was achieved by consensus. Scott5834 just went and put it back in, even after I'd removed it and warned him that he should read the talk page and directed him to WP:CCC#Consensus can change which states:

No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion to see what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons.

Scott5834 did not attempt to discuss his proposed edits, even after I directed him to WP:CCC#Consensus can change. He just decided that consensus had changed and edited. Had he attempted to discuss the issue as suggested by WP:CCC#Consensus can change there likely would have been a different outcome. --AussieLegend 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is determined Wikipedia-wide, not just on the Talk page of an individual article. If you choose to disregard settled policy by removing critical information, you need to deal with the body of all Wikipedia editors, not just those who work locally. Please provide a justification that all of us will find convincing. In what sense did you make the article better by removing the well-sourced information that Exetel engaged in traffic-shaping? EdJohnston 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CCC and the discussion on the article's talk page. In removing the edits I was acting to maintain consensus that had been reached in accordance with the instructions of an Administrator. It is up to Scott5834 to discuss the issue before he reapplies edits that consensus had excluded. Whether he discusses the issue at "talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion" is irrelevant. He needs to discuss it somewhere before doing so. He didn't. He just unilaterally decided that community consensus has changed and included the edits. --AussieLegend 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a typical aussielegend post, a huge post with very little actual content that actually deals with the matter at hand. My so called "Unverified" (which were made when I was still an exetel user) facts were taken directly from the Exetel forums, posted by the Exetel Administrator/Owner himself! At the time those posts were still around, and they dealt with in the various news articles I posted on the issue. Of course, some time after, the owner apparently "cooled down" and removed his posts. Of course it was too late by then, as they had been seen by thousands, and reported on in major newspapers (and their websites) as well as smaller tech sites. But apparently this is not verifiable to AussieLegend. At which point he removed them and engaged in the edit war. I like how that apparently his information is the one true gospel, and my information, which was verified with news articles, is vandalisim. Another tactic of his, brand the other person a vandal and that apparently gives himself free reign to remove any of their edits.

This is his strategy. Obfusticate, pile on paragraph after paragraph, over and over until the other people get bored on have to get on with their lives. Of course, he also posted one of the very first edits I made, which were subseqeuently edited by many other people, and then improved to make it more wiki-friendly, with verified articles included. Another tactic. The so called "consensus" was a false consensus reached by a small group of biased editors, instead of via establish wiki principles like I tried to do.

His account is a single use account regardless of any other edits or stated goals. It's sole purpose is to guard the exetel site that has been the accounts goal since practically day one, and bombard anyone who dare edit it with revisionism and lies. I have no idea what would compel someone to do this for so so long, unless they have a vested interest in the company. At the very least, he should be barred from editing the Exetel article. How long before yet another user would end up in the identical situation that both I and scott have both dealt with. Macktheknifeau 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Several brief comments, although due to the indenting above, I'm not sure who I am addressing. AussieLegend does not appear to be an SPA. (Based on my review of his last 1000 edits). SPA has a rather specific definition, which doesn't appear to be met here. I think you mean Agenda-Pushing, which while bad, isn't the same thing. Also, internet forums are not generally considered to be reliable sources. As far as the rest of the rather lengthy comments above, I haven't had time to review them, so I can't offer an opinion currently. (So this post isn't mean to address anything other than the SPA & verifiability issues). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to respond to any of Macktheknifeau's comments other than to address one ridiculous comment that Bfigura has addressed.

His account is a single use account regardless of any other edits or stated goals.

I have made 1,431 edits on Wikipedia of which 837 are mainspace edits. Of those, only 45 (<5.4% of mainspace edits) have been on the Exetel article.[12] That's hardly "a single use account" and the accusation has as much validity as the other unsubstantiated accusations that Macktheknifeau has made. --AussieLegend 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you use a more accurate representation, and take all out all his talk pages, and include edits related to his guardianship of the exetel article (including on other people's user pages, plus various administrative pages regarding the article, it's actually more like 15%, that being 177 Edits out of 1,448. Plus a huge amount of his non-exetel edits are extremely recent, only in the last few months has he done anything except post about the exetel site (and those are dozens of tiny edits to pages about his local area). Like I said, the original and currenty objective of his account is to guard the exetel page. It's as close as you can be to a SPA without actually being a true SPA Macktheknifeau 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

AussieLegend arbitrary section break

"Once again I apologise for the length of this.." If AussieLegend would express his thoughts more briefly there would be no need to apologize.

I've explained why the response was so long. There is a lot of relevant history and without a proper explanation, which can't be given in a paragraph or two, you don't get the full context. --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Web forum postings are not a reliable source, but newspapers are. That's why I ask the question about Exetel's traffic shaping, which was discussed in Sydney newspapers, and I'd like a clear answer as to why that information is being kept out of the article.

You've been given a clear answer which is further explained if you read the discussion on the article's talk page. That's the thing about discussion. You get to see exactly why people make the decisions that they do. --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is conceivable you might have felt there was a local consensus that the information wasn't needed, but that feeling appears incorrect in the light of well-established policies.

Regardless of whether it was incorrect or not, that's what the consensus was and WP:CCC is very clear that no one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed which is exactly what Scott5834 has done by including the information. --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain for us the removal of critical information from Exetel's article, which gives the appearance of bias.

Already done and done more than once. How many explanations are needed? --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that it is also explained in the section above that you seemed to think was too long. Apprently it wasn't long enough. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just put back the info on traffic-shaping, based on our new discussion here?

The discussion on this so far has been far too brief and limited. Consensus has not yet been reached. --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What is preventing you? EdJohnston 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy. Or do you think I should ignore policy after it has been hammered down my throat by Scott? --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If policy prevents you from making edits that are otherwise valid, verifiable, reliably sourced, and supported by consensus, you ignore them. There is a clear source, the information is clearly relevant, there are many editors who believe the info should go in the article, and the only opposition there seems to be is you, citing WP:CCC for some reason. Consensus can change is what the policy says. The fact that only one person initially objects to the old consensus does not mean that a larger consensus won't be formed. I, for example, believe the content does belong in the article. Also, please do not dissect people's comments. Leave them intact and respond in your own single response. --Cheeser1 05:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The disputed edits were not supported by consensus when they were made. Thats's not entirely correct. This discussion is only a few hours old. In the discussion on the Extel talk page the only editor that supported the inclusion was Scott5834. All other editors disagreed with their inclusion. I'm citing policy because in his attempt to have his edits included and to have others excluded Scott5834 has been selectively citing policy. When he wants the edits excluded he rigidly cites policy. When he wants his edits included he chooses to make excuses to ignore policy. I'm usually fairly flexible and admittedly I probably don't stick to policy as much as I should. If people want to kill my edits they usually can if they can cite a reason but when an editor tries to bludgeon his edits into existence and exclude the edits of other the way that Scott5834 has I become somewhat less flexible. I agree but you shouldn't just ignore consensus. All I'm asking is that some discussion occur first. Remember, this discussion wasn't implemented to discuss the changes, it was implement because of alleged uncivil actions and that only happened because Scott5834 wasn't getting his own way. He really doesn't seem to want to discuss the issue. He acts as if he's discussing but then just edits regardless. I'm sorry but I find it far easier to address the points somebody has raised if I do it that way. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is added to restore some semblance of order the above since Cheeser1 has placed my comments in an unintelligble format and I don't have the time to completely rewrite it:

If policy prevents you from making edits that are otherwise valid, verifiable, reliably sourced, and supported by consensus, you ignore them.

The disputed edits were not supported by consensus when they were made.--AussieLegend 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear source, the information is clearly relevant, there are many editors who believe the info should go in the article, and the only opposition there seems to be is you,

Thats's not entirely correct. This discussion is only a few hours old. In the discussion on the Extel talk page the only editor that supported the inclusion was Scott5834. All other editors disagreed with their inclusion.

citing WP:CCC for some reason.

I'm citing policy because in his attempt to have his edits included and to have others excluded Scott5834 has been selectively citing policy. When he wants the edits excluded he rigidly cites policy. When he wants his edits included he chooses to make excuses to ignore policy. I'm usually fairly flexible and admittedly I probably don't stick to policy as much as I should. If people want to kill my edits they usually can if they can cite a reason but when an editor tries to bludgeon his edits into existence and exclude the edits of other the way that Scott5834 has I become somewhat less flexible. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change is what the policy says. The fact that only one person initially objects to the old consensus does not mean that a larger consensus won't be formed.

I agree but you shouldn't just ignore consensus. All I'm asking is that some discussion occur first. Remember, this discussion wasn't implemented to discuss the changes, it was implement because of alleged uncivil actions and that only happened because Scott5834 wasn't getting his own way. He really doesn't seem to want to discuss the issue. He acts as if he's discussing but then just edits regardless. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I, for example, believe the content does belong in the article. Also, please do not dissect people's comments. Leave them intact and respond in your own single response. --Cheeser1 05:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find it far easier to address the points somebody has raised if I do it that way. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like chopping people's comments to bits, but that's now how discussions take place on Wikipedia. I explicitly asked you not to do so. Editing or rearranging other people's comments is inappropriate, most certainly when they ask you not to. I am especially concerned about this statement: "The disputed edits were not supported by consensus when they were made." Have you read the policy on bold edits? Of course there was no consensus then. He hadn't made his edit yet. Making a bold edit is an important way users contribute to Wikipedia. You seem to believe that you have "won" or something - that Scott consented to your consensus and that he is being devious and underhanded by introducing this content. Refer to this. You have not assumed good faith and have been uncivil. Perhaps he has too, being very insistent on having his information in the article. That is a fault of his, but that does not excuse you, nor does it resolve the issue: he has attempted to introduce verifiable, reliably sourced, relevant material to the article. You oppose him not based on some present reason, but based on past consensus. Past consensus is irrelevant: he's made a bold edit, and now it's time to discuss it. "You agreed to it 2 1/2 months ago" is inappropriate and pushy. --Cheeser1 06:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. We'll have to compromise though.

"Editing or rearranging other people's comments is inappropriate"

As you just did to mine?

"Of course there was no consensus then. He hadn't made his edit yet."

Let's rewind a bit. You said, "If policy prevents you from making edits that are otherwise valid, verifiable, reliably sourced, and supported by consensus, you ignore them." My point is that because his edits weren't supported by consensus he couldn't just ignore policy. The traffic shaping inclusion had already been rejected when Macktheknifeau attempted to include it so there already was consensus that what Scott5834 proposed should not be included. Because there was an existing consensus he needed to discusss the proposed edits first, BEFORE adding them. I gave him that opportunity and did so quite civilly. I reverted his edits and directed him to the talk page and WP:CCC for guidance but he chose not to seek consensus and just added the edits again without even attempting to discuss it. After I reverted his edits the correct thing to do would have been to reopen the discussion on the talk page proposing that the edits be allowed but he made no attempt to do so.

"Making a bold edit is an important way users contribute to Wikipedia."

And that's fine but there was an existing consensus that what he wanted to include was not appropriate. That's why I reverted his edits and posted the following on his talk page:

Before you do any more editing of the Exetel article I suggest that you thoroughly read the discussion on the article's talk page. Traffic shaping, which you've just added was a contentious issue that resulted a mediation case, adminstrator intervention and full protection of the page for 3 months. Consensus among editors was that the traffic shaping/p2p deprioritisation issue was not worthy of inclusion in the article so you shouldn't just go ahead and add it in again. --AussieLegend 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He obviously made no attempt to read the discussion because he immediately reverted my reversion. He really doesn't seemto care what others add to the article. He just reverts and adds what he wants. When what he said is countered he makes some excuse of heads off on a tangent and continues editing as he wants to without consideration for other editors.

"You seem to believe that you have "won" or something"

No, not at all. I do however believe that if an editor agrees with a series of edits and then changes his mind he should at least explain why he's changing edits that he has agreed to. It's just common courtesy. Scott5834 continues to show none of that.

"he is being devious and underhanded by introducing this content"

Well, he pretty much is. Since he started editing the Exetel page his actions have been a continual "say one thing and do another" act. He starts discussing an issue and while you're attempting to discuss it with him he heads off and edits the page. Take, for example, the techdirt article. We discussed that on the talk page and he knows quite well that the article doesn't even mention Exetel but has since restored the link to the article using the reason

not clear why this was removed as Exetel is mentioned as prime example

You can see the edit here. The reason is a lie. He knows that it was removed because the article doesn't mention Exetel and he knows that the article doesn't mention Exetel. We discussed that very issue.

He also feigned stepping back from editing. Only a few hours after posting "Perhaps we should take a break from editing the article to let things simmer down a bit?" he was back editing the article.

"You have not assumed good faith and have been uncivil"

I tried to assume good faith but I've seen what he tried to do before and what he is doing now. Despite that I've given him a lot of leeway in editing the article and have resisted urges to edit his edits. Instead I have attempted to discuss the issue with him but he has made some pretty outrageous claims, which I've mentioned in my large resposne further up this page and tried tosend me off on wild goose chases. I don't think I've been uncivil however his rather puerile use of "Keep civil" is rather annoying and I've made it clear that I find it annoying. I'm not going to apologise for that. Questioning his reasons for hacking a series of edits that he's previously claimed was "a great addition" is not being uncivil. Nor do I intend saying "Deja vue!" after seeing him say "Keep civil" yet again when he has no other response to something. His constant use of "keep civil" is like the schoolyard "I know you are but what anm I?". Still, despite my frustration I've continued to try to discuss while he makes edits based on misinformation or even worse, what amounts to pure fantasy (eg his insistence that the free period was implemented at the same time as the P2P deprioritisation) and completely ignores what others think and the efforts of other editors.

"he has attempted to introduce verifiable, reliably sourced, relevant material to the article."

He has also attempted to introduce information which is based on his own misguided assumptions and citations that do not support his claims and resists ignores all evidence that what he says is wrong.

"he's made a bold edit, and now it's time to discuss it."

As you can see by the talk page, I've tried. He pretends to discuss but ignores the opinion and proof of others and just forces his edits into the article regardless. --AussieLegend 07:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to add that it simply ins't sufficient to say you agree with the edits in order to gain consensus. There are several points that still need addressing. Boing Boing, for example, is a blog site and it seems to be that a lot of people, not to mention policy, agree that blog sites aren't acceptable sources. The techdirt article that Scott5834 relies on doesn't even mention Exetel so it's not a valid source either. These are just two examples that need to be discussed. Until such time as they are, Scott5834 is going to continue to force them into the article. I've already tried justifying why they aren't valid and he just ignores reason. --AussieLegend 06:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not rearrange your comment, I simply undid your absurd chopping-up of mine. This is a bizarre and unproductive way to have a discussion. I will not stoop to tit-for-tat bickering. I've explained how you've acted without assuming good faith (you yourself have assumed that when he asks you to be civil, that he's teasing you - there's no reason to assume this). You've been uncivil. That is what this noticeboard is about - a complaint was filed against you. His actions are not in question, and his misdeeds (should such misdeeds exist) are not a defense for yours. I'd ask also that you keep the content dispute where it belongs - not here. You claim that he has agendas, biases, misinformation, etc. Again, you should be assuming good faith (and, if you were honest, you'd admit that we all have agendas, biases, and misinformation). Now, even though the content dispute is not relevant to the WQA, I will again point out that citing past consensus is not reason enough to dismiss someone's claims. In fact, it's not even valid - consensus must be re-established in the event of any bold edit. Outright reversion to this "old consensus" version, and refusal to compromise, goes against consensus policy. I'm not going to nitpick the fine points of this debate with you any more because this is not the place for that discussion. Scott has suggested that you both cool down. I suggest you do so. You've made alot of edits and comments (some very lengthy) regarding this topic and moreso regarding your conflict with Scott. This may indicate that you are worked up or invested in this conflict somehow. Take a breather, get some perspective, and try to come back to this content dispute with compromise and good faith in mind. --Cheeser1 08:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"I did not rearrange your comment, I simply undid your absurd chopping-up of mine."

At least after my edits you post was still readble. All you needed to do was ignore the indented and signed edits. Your "undoing" removed formatting and signatures and turned my comments into a meaningless mess.

"This is a bizarre and unproductive way to have a discussion."

This "absurd", "bizarre and unproductive way to have a discussion" has been in use since well before I first started using Usenet in the mid-late 1980s and has served many people well over the past 20 (at least) years.

"you yourself have assumed that when he asks you to be civil, that he's teasing you - there's no reason to assume this)."

That's not actually what I said and any case there is a good reason as his comments and edits on the Extel pages show. As you are aware he suggested taking a break from editing but since doing so he's made at least 7 edits to the page so his susggestions don't really seem genuine. I've provided other examples above but it seems that they're not being seen.

"His actions are not in question"

His actions are entirely relevant though because they provide context taht was sought, which is why I've detailed some of them. As I said, I don't think I've been uncivil. I have been extremely tolerant of his misguided efforts to edit the article including his reversions of most other editors' changes and I've held back from making my own changes. In fcat I'vemade only 8 edits since he has returned, compared to his own 26 edits.

"Again, you should be assuming good faith"

I tried that in July and I even tried when I started participating in the discussion over his edits but when I saw that he was ignoring whatever I said and making whatever edits he wanted anyway I realised I was deluding myself. I think anyone who assumes good faith in his edits on the Exetel page is doing that. This is not to say that he hasn't produced some good work elsewhere. I've looked at some of his edits on other pages and I find very little that I'd really feel criticising but the Exetel page seems to be a different matter. I don't know why but I'd like to. I did ask but received no reply. --AussieLegend 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've said - his conduct may be pushy, but this is a complaint filed against you. Deflecting blame onto him may bring attention to his actions, but it will not remove any attention from your actions. Using months-old consensus to dismiss changes to an article is not in the spirit of consensus policy or bold editing policy. I can imagine such a response may have caused Scott to ignore your objections and re-insert the content. --Cheeser1 06:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cheeser1, but would also suggest that you may have gotten more interest in the actions of the other editor by first acknowledging a mistake in insisting that an opinion be unchangeable on your part. (Though I also want to say when one changes their opinion they should explain why it changed, otherwise the rest of us may wonder about the nature of such a sudden change.) Anynobody 08:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I never insisted that my opinion was unchangeable. I just posted the following on his talk page:

Before you do any more editing of the Exetel article I suggest that you thoroughly read the discussion on the article's talk page. Traffic shaping, which you've just added was a contentious issue that resulted a mediation case, adminstrator intervention and full protection of the page for 3 months. Consensus among editors was that the traffic shaping/p2p deprioritisation issue was not worthy of inclusion in the article so you shouldn't just go ahead and add it in again. --AussieLegend 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've already noted, he completely ignored it and just edited it back in.

"Though I also want to say when one changes their opinion they should explain why it changed, otherwise the rest of us may wonder about the nature of such a sudden change"

Thank you for saying that. I was starting to think I'm the only person who thinks that way. --AussieLegend 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Using months-old consensus to dismiss changes to an article"

That's not what I've been doing. I intially reverted his edits and suggested he look at the talk page. He ignored that and everything that I've said since. All I wamt him to do is discuss the edits before making them and to take on board what is said but he dismisses everything regardless of its validity.

"Using months-old consensus to dismiss changes to an article is not in the spirit of consensus policy "

That's not entirely true. WP:CCC says that no individual can declare consensus has changed yet this is effectively what Sott5834 is doing. WP:CCC also implies that proposals to change consensus should be discussed. It also says that wikipedia does not ignore precendt. All I'm doing is to try to convince him that there is a precedent and that he should discuss the matter which is in accordance with consensus policy. He just refuses. No, actually that's not true because he hasn't actually refused. He's made no response at all. He just edits andedits and edits, even when he's supposedly taking a break from editing the article.

Yeah, it's easy to get consensus when you obfusticate and batter people to wiki-death boring them with dozens of pointless paragraphs of wiki-lawyering. It's impossible to get any consensus that differs from AussieLegends view of the world because he will revert it as vandalisim and then cry with his mates about it.Macktheknifeau 09:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If he is willing to discuss the edits, so am I. I've indicated above that there probably is a case for including them. I don't know how many times I have to say this before somebody will take it in. I do, however, expect that if he expects that others should folow a policy then he should follow the policy as well and not expect to be exempt from the same rules that he expects others to comply with. Is that unreasonable? --AussieLegend 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You both appear to be discussing the edits quite alot on the relevant talk page - however, the discussion has strayed and become uncivil. That is not only his fault. Your comments have been uncivil and have assumed bad faith. This is the concern of this WQA post. Your actions. Certainly, he has been unduly pushing his edits on the article. But you've been pushing back, making this some sort of shoving contest. He, on the other hand, has been pushy but has asked repeatedly for you to remain civil, and has suggested things like cooling off. This is not a contest to see who's more at fault. It is a complaint about your incivility. I've told you what I have to tell you: your actions were uncivil. You seem to have assumed bad faith. You have not seemed willing to listen to him when he suggested cooling off or being civil. This is not appropriate. I'm not here to evaluate Scott's actions, and yet I have, and I have mostly agreed with you. I'm not even going to touch the content dispute, because it's totally irrelevant. The point is, your actions are in question here. And I've said all I have to say. Feel free to pick apart every sentence of this post to try to elicit a response, but I'm done here. I've done everything I can to explain how you've been uncivil in the hopes that you'll take it as constructive criticism, instead of trying to blame Scott for everything. --Cheeser1 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note the user in question has attempted to silence me by way of administrative and legal threats. Macktheknifeau 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

217.43.78.244

Stuck

At the list of light heavyweight boxing champions 217.43.78.244/86.134.241.52 continue to revert edits I make. When I attempt to discuss these edits on the talk page I get no response, just more reversions. Of course, I did get this response on one of his/her user talk pages: "MKil, you're a fucking idiot."[13]

I figured I'd bring it here instead of continuing the revert war game. MKil 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)MKil

Now it appears this same person is using 81.156.68.208 and continuing with the profanity.MKil 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)MKil

The List of light heavyweight boxing champions that was the victim of the improper edits has apparently been semi-protected until 22 September. EdJohnston 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we can't help you here - it's pretty obvious that there's no good faith coming from this user. If the problem persists once the semi-protection is lifted, you should take it to WP:ANI and look for a block of the IP. Marking as stuck. Sarcasticidealist 01:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Odd nature

Resolved

 – Article is under protection, and the discussion has ceased to be productive. --Darkwind (talk)

User resorted to personal attacks and other hostilities (not assuming good faith) when I politely explained here why his edits were problematic. In fact, the user blatantly and unabashedly admits to violating WP:ASG with this comment (and he cites non-specific extra-Wiki material to justify it). Jinxmchue 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So? Reading your blog is illegal? Really? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice misrepresentation of what I posted. Jinxmchue 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You caught on. Good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If we are to assume good faith, what should we make of "I don't really give a rat's ass about Wiki rules anymore"? Have you renounced that view? Ossified 12:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You tell me. Jinxmchue 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll tell you. If that's your renunciation, it's pretty weak tea. Ossified 12:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) This is a Wikiquette forum, sarcasm is hardly called for. That said though, Jinxmchue, I don't see any real violations of WP:CIVIL in this links you've provided. (I won't comment on content/editing though, since I haven't looked into it). --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So making baseless accusations of me of not understanding rules and of "white washing" articles is civil? Jinxmchue 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....That runs into an issue raised in WP:SPADE. But since I haven't looked into the details, I don't know who is correct (factually) in this case. (And I haven't read your blog, so I can't comment on whether his allegations have merit). But you are correct, even if he is right, his doubts could have been phrased more politely. I'm not 100% they constitute a personal attack, but they do seem mildly uncivil. I'll leave a note to that effect. --Bfigura ^{(talk)<;;/small>} 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with SPADE. Odd nature disagreed with my edits and defended reverts by uncivilly claiming that I didn't understand the rules (proof of that?) and was trying to white wash articles (which boggles my mind since the reference I removed was nothing more than a second-hand repeat of the reference before it - how can I white wash something when the information remains?). Jinxmchue 07:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone who has been working on the D. James Kennedy article start out by explaining the issues in User talk:Odd nature#Recent edits to D. James Kennedy? The thread under that heading is a source of much bafflement. Who is talking about removing what references, and for what reason? I see no need to consider what is said in an external blog. Removing references is supposed to require a Talk page consensus. Who among you is confident that he has consensus to remove references, and please point to where that was decided. Removal of tags should need consensus also. EdJohnston 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The reversions made were not made with any consideration as to everything that was being reverted. The initial revert here, which is described by Odd nature as "Restoring deleted content/sources," actually restores a defunct reference (the Coral Ridge Hour reference) which I removed because it doesn't work anymore due to changes to the source website (now it simply goes to the main Coral Ridge Hour page). The revert also was made with no consideration regarding verb tense changes due to Kennedy's death, added date brackets or added fact/citation tags.

I honestly have never seen anyone request consensus when adding or removing references before. Either this isn't a well-known rule or it simply doesn't exist. Jinxmchue 07:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, I find it fascinating that Odd and Guettarda are apparently hiding behind WP:SPADE to defend their incivility. Can I do that, too? Be uncivil and then just say, "Whelp, I'm just calling a spade a spade! You can't nail me for NPA!"? Jinxmchue 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:SPADE? First of all, it's an essay, not a policy. Second of all, it simply describes the fine line between telling the truth and being a jerk. OMG I said jerk. But guess what, if we're talking about somebody making personal attacks, that's exactly what being a jerk is. A jerk is a jerk. The fact that we don't have to sugar-coat everything we say is not an invitation for you to throw WP:NPA out the window, and you (ought to) know it. --Cheeser1 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"It's an essay, not a policy." No! Really? I guess I was confused about that because of how others were portraying it. And incidentally (or not), one person's SPADE excuse for "a jerk is a jerk" is a NPA violation to someone else. Who do you decide is right? Additionally, I could equally use SPADE to justify the things I have said about others. They weren't personal attacks. They were calling a spade a spade. Shall we continue to go around in this endless circle? Jinxmchue 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you refuse to participate constructively, no, we shan't. --Cheeser1 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm being constructive. It just appears that people don't want to deal with uncomfortable questions and comments. Jinxmchue 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, you really do have to call a spade a spade here: Odd nature is consistently rude and uncivil, unless he's tag-teaming with other users like Orangemarlin, FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, ConfuciusOrnis, Filll, or others in their clique. They are their own little "cabal", communicating "off-wiki", intent on berating and beating down any user who might disagree with their well-known and obvious POVs, using whatever means necessary to maintain the "purity" of WP for them, regardless of whether it drives WP into the ground for its (that is, their) obvious bias. And once they have "pegged" you as "not one of us," they will stalk you, hound you, arbitrarily revert you and harass -- even ban -- you until you leave WP for good, because they own WP -- at least their little corner of it. They are their own priesthood, a prole's vanguard of the great unwashed masses who writhe in the muck of their ignorance, and they will brook no dissent from heathen such as yourself.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jinxmchue. Best of luck. --profg 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This I know. Every time I revert their weak and baseless additions, they band together to get around the 3 revert rule. Jinxmchue 01:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the article on D. James Kennedy has been placed under indefinite full protection by User:AndonicO. That suggests we might be able to close this report, least temporarily. Further discussion and negotiation can take place on the article's Talk page. If there is something more that this noticeboard could do, please outline what that is. EdJohnston 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Guettarda

Work in progress; comments welcome

User also resorted to personal attacks and other hostilities (e.g. this edit about "temper tantrums") when problematic edits were pointed out. Jinxmchue 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPA? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Jinxmchue 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The incivility looks mutual to me, in tone and content. For example, you called his editing "mindless." I only followed the link you gave, so if there is more I have missed it. Bsharvy 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not incivility. That was a description of edits that were obviously not done with any consideration as to what was being changed. Jinxmchue 22:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And there you have it, folks. Everyone else is at fault but Jinxmchue. Odd nature 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Only I am at fault for anything regarding all this. Jinxmchue 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, I think you may not understand what people consider a personal attack. ANYTHING that is a comment about the editor or a quality comment about the edit, when previous comments about editors are present can be understood to be a personal attack. The two WA listings here seem to be a lack of good faith on your part as much as on others, based on the links you've shown. keep to neutral descriptions of comments (i.e., removing unsourced material) when you feel the need to revert someone. Also, try and keep to the talk pages of the articles. It is much easier to stay focused on the article, rather than the editor. Also, if your blog shows a particular point of view be careful editing to strongly towards it, because people will review your edits closely. --Rocksanddirt 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I really do think that most rational Wikipedians would agree that accusing someone of having a "temper tantrum" is a personal attack. Jinxmchue 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not when it's accurate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I see a lot of back-and-forth bickering right here in this alert that could be perceived as violations of WP:CIVIL. I suggest that you ALL read WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL, and take a few moments to examine your comments in that light. --Darkwind (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the last time this came up "Jinx" McHue insisted on replacing reliably sourced content with his own opinion. When other editors did not acquiesce, he complained about OWNership, and when no one reacted, he quit the project in a huff, attacking the project and fellow editors off-wiki. In other words, he threw a temper tantrum. That isn't an attack, it's a description of his behaviour. Now he's back and is up to the same nonsense, inserting weasel words like "purportedly" in front of the (sourced) information he tried to get expunged from the article back in June because he didn't believe the source (a report which quoted the leading scholar on the history of intelligent design). He has made his intentions abundantly clear. While one would have hoped that after his break he would have returned with a little more respect for our sourcing policies, his actions editing the article show that he still holds them in contempt. Per WP:SPADE, since he has resumed his pattern of editing, that I would be rather stupid to assume good faith on the part of an editing who has made it abundantly clear that he is not acting in good faith. Guettarda 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't realize that I typed my own handle instead of "Guettarda" above. My bad. Jinxmchue 07:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say there appear to be several ongoing issues underlying this. Resolving the specific issues mentioned in Guettarda's post should probably be addressed in some other forum within the dispute resolution process. As to the complaint which generated this thread, describing another editor's behavior is a tricky proposition because it can be very easy to slip into a personal attack if done incorrectly or if too much emotion is involved. Here, I think Guettarda was simply being blunt in describing the relationship between opinion and sourced material as well as their opinion of Jinxmchue's behavior. Anynobody 08:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we waste the community's time protecting POV-warriors, and attack reasonable editors like Guettarda. Excellent choice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Guettarda (and Odd nature) aren't "POV-warriors" at all. Jinxmchue 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Falsely accusing me of being a "POV warrior" is a personal attack. You really want to engage in personal attacks while complaining about Wikiquette violations? Please remove your personal attacks. Guettarda 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's just SPADE, Guettarda. Jinxmchue 14:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda please don't use personal information not disclosed by an editor to address them. While I don't think you were violating WP:CIVIL in this complaint it doesn't mean I think you're incapable of wrongdoing either.

Wikipedia has a pretty strict Privacy policy and right to vanish, and while using this site we should follow them as best we can. Anynobody 06:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Shutterbug

Work in progress; comments welcome

A violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF against myself and Jimmy Wales right here:[14]--Fahrenheit451 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks fairly uncivil to me also, and it seems the common tactic for an editer to accuse others of lying/deceiving etc. simply because they disagree with them is decidedly unhelpful. While I bet Mr. Wales could care less about Shutterbug 's opinion of him it does seem that Shutterbug would benifit from a cool down. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This user is the former User:COFS, who has an open ArbCom case. Any comments about this user's current behavior need to be brought to that case page, not to WQA. --Darkwind (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Struck per my comment below. --Darkwind (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true, see this:[15] That case is evidently closed. This is a Wikiquette matter.--Fahrenheit451 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't interpret that comment as meaning the case was not accepting further evidence, but since they do have a proposed decision under consideration, it probably is too late to add this matter. As for this alert, the user's behavior may be a violation of wikiquette, but I don't think WQA has the ability to make this particular user listen to reason when it comes to AGF/CIVIL/NPA, etc. However, if another WQA volunteer wants to take a shot, I won't complain. I've replaced the {{NWQA}} template on this alert with {{WQA in progress}} to facilitate interest. --Darkwind (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Granted, we don't have the ability to force anyone to do anything, much less listen to reason. But any reason for the doubts, or should I just drop a note on Shutterbug's talk? Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 07:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I witnessed an example of what Fahrenheit451 is talking about on L. Ron Hubbard. Shutterbug accused Fahrenheit451 of being a POV pusher. Fahrenheit451 disputed that description on the talk page. Long story, short it seems like good faith is lacking and some of Shutterbug's actions border on incivility. Anynobody 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz - AGF and baiting

Resolved

This user has assumed bad faith and uses sarcasm and baiting against me. From his talk page it's apparent that he's conducted himself this way with many other editors. At this point I'm so frustrated that I don't even feeling like participating in the project anymore. Popkultur 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any specific diff's that we should look at? --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter now. Thanks for your help though. Popkultur 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry to hear it, but best of luck outside Wikipedia :) --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann hari

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – BLP issue referred to WP:BLP/N --Cheeser1 04:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is concerning allegations inserted by the user Felix-Felix into the entry for British journalist Johann Hari.

To give some context, as reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described the British journalist Johann Hari (recently named as journalist of the year by Amnesty International) as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" , inserted into his entry fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced and legally disputed claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about. This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me.

Felix-Felix is currently arguing that he can insert a new section into the entry, designed by his own admission to suggest Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously impugned. He does not have BLP or NOTE standard sources for these claims, as three wiki administrators have said (you can find these in the archive).

There are four 'sources' felix claims to have.

(1) Private Eye. This is a British scandal magazine, which Hari was attacked by literally a week after he criticised its editor in print. One wiki administrator has said on this page it should be viewed with "a very jaundiced eye", another has said it is "at best 50 percent accurate", yet Felix is insisting on using it as a source. This fails both BLP and NOTE, since Private Eye attacks virtually all prominent journalists sooner or later.

(2) A website called Counterpunch,. which meets BLP standards, but has an extraordinarily trivial charge against Hari. They complain that he repeated in an op-ed column a story that had been reported in hundreds of newspapers. Even they concede that once it became clear the story was fake, he published a correction. This fails NOTE.

(3) A journalist called Nick Cohen, who was responding to a very critical review of his book by Hari. This is (rightly) included in the entry already, since it passes both BLP and NOTE.

(4) An obscure pro-war website, which is written by friends of Cohen, who simply repeated his charge. This fails NOTE.

I believe this is an inadequate basis on which to build a section suggesting Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously questioned by wiki-standard sources. Felix-Felix disagrees. We are deadlocked in our disagreement. Any outside comment would be very welcome. David r from meth productions 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you move this posting to the biographies of living people noticeboard, where experienced editors can respond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a BLP issue - it's better addressed at that noticeboard. --Cheeser1 04:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave, as I've requested you do before, please stop these personal attacks which range from grossly misrepresenting my edits to outright falsehoods. Please provide links to my edits if you disagree.FelixFelix ^talk 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not frivolously accuse others of making personal attacks (which is itself uncivil). It is clear and obvious that the two users filing this complaint are commenting on the content you've contributed to the article. This is absolutely, by definition, not a personal attack. --Cheeser1 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:A Kiwi

Resolved

 – User has retired. I hate it when this happens. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the personal speculation and commentary made by User:A Kiwi that is devolving into senseless and irrelevant personal attacks. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].

On one hand I don't think it is appropriate (or productive) for me to keep "rising to the bait" and getting into discussion with her, but on the other I don't think it would be very wise for me to let it go without refutation, as it is about me, not at all accurate and on fairly permanent record. Perhaps somebody could reason with her a little? --Zeraeph 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Already at WP:AN/I [26], has been there for several days. [27] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this is just a different, more informal, approach two seperate admins advised me to take instead. I did not even know this page existed until today. --Zeraeph 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PS here is an opinion on the last time I sought advice on a similar issue and User:SandyGeorgia tried to get me sanctioned for "forum shopping" [28]. I really believe that I have as much right as anyone else to seek advice and assistance in resolving disputes. --Zeraeph 02:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It seems there a fair amount of reading to do here. I'll take a stab at it, and see if I can come to some sort of conclusion. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am happy to try anything you can suggest to stand this situation down.--Zeraeph 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So, after looking through the diff's provided, I don't really see any egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL. There's clearly a lot of history here however, which is no doubt complicated by the off-wiki history, so it's entirely possibly I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to give me a brief summary of why you think there's a civility issue. (Since what I'm seeing now is a lot of back and forth that (for wikipedia) seems reasonably restrained on both sides). However, I would add that it's considered polite to notify someone when you file a complaint about them here or at AN/I. (I'll do that now -- since I didn't see anything on Kiwi's talk page). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I did notify her [29], you must have missed it because I put it in a PS with a hyperlink. I do not feel personal matters should be raised on Wikipedia, it isn't appropriate, I wouldn't be comfortable with it if she was sticking to the facts, which she is not. Surely it isn't in accord with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to use Wikipedia as a forum for expressing fictional personal negatives about other editors? I have to refute it or otherwise someone is bound to pick up the diffs and use them against me in a few weeks time as though they were hard facts. --Zeraeph 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the link there. And I agree, personal information has no place on Wikipedia. (Although you may have opened the door with this post that Kiwi dug up diff). That said though, Kiwi digging through the archives to re-post it isn't terribly polite (and I'll leave Kiwi a brief note saying as much). But aside from that, most of the content looks relatively civil. Hopefully the two of you can settle this amiably, since you seem to both be valuable contributors here. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look, you will see that User:A Kiwi actually made that post, not me. Doesn't matter, I have realised the dice are too heavily loaded against me whatever I do or say, I am scr*wed, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday soon and for the rest of my life. I am retiring. Thank you for trying. --Zeraeph 03:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to see good contributors leave the project, so I just wanted to extend my hope that you'll join us again after a wikibreak. If not, all the best. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Triddle Etiquette question: Can an admin issue warnings and then forbid a response?

Resolved

 – No WP:CIVIL violation. Editor who raised issue satisfied with conclusion. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Short story: User:Triddle who is an admin contacted me about my behavior that he considers incivil. I attempted to discuss and justify my behavior with him. Along the way, I got a block warning which surprised me since I thought I had explained myself. Today, he contacted me here, told me that discussing things with me was wasting his time, gave me more warnings about being blocked, and specifically said: "note the lack of an invitation to respond to me".

My specific concern is that an admin should not issue warnings and then forbid me to represent my side of the dispute. I am also perplexed about how I am wasting his time. If he is an admin, then I assume that part of that job description is to deal with discussion and dispute.

Long story: Background: I have been in a disagreement with another user User:Geo Swan. It is my opinion that he is engaged in large scale POV pushing on the subject of the War on Terror. In the course of making this argument, I will freely admit that I have used some intemperate language. I have resolved to remedy this issue by (a) Not directly engaging with User:Geo Swan and (b) Toning down my language. However, I believe that I still have the right to raise the concern that this POV pushing is occuring on such a large scale (hundreds of articles) that it is going to seriously compromise Wikipedia's credibility on this subject. (I can provide links to articles on request, but that is a secondary debate).

The entire conversation between Triddle and me consists of six sequential diffs: 1, 2, followed by no response from Triddle for a time, followed by 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

My particular objection is to the block warnings coupled with the firm suggestion: "note the lack of an invitation to respond to me". This sends a message that I am being given orders that shall not be questioned or disputed in any manner. There was no need for this kind of language, particularly when I had already agreed to a resolution in behavior. An admin should be held to at least the same standard of civility that he demands of others.

Maybe I am way off base and I am being the jerk in this discussion. I was going to say nothing and keep quiet, but I spent the afternoon re-reading the NPOV and civility policies, stumbled across this forum and would like to request an opinion on this. Kevinp2 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. My short answer to your alert would be that Triddle *did* give you a chance to reply, and you availed yourself of it. The fact is that incivility is never justifiable in any event, so there's not a whole lot you can say in your own defense except "I disagree with your application of WP:CIVIL," which probably isn't going to convince anybody. With that in mind, Triddle warned you that he considered your behaviour to be uncivil, you replied (failing to change his mind), he told you that his warning still stood. That really should have been that (for the incivility bit, anyway). If you still disagree with him, you can provide some diffs to the alleged incivility and I'll provide some thoughts on it (although you seem to admit that your language was intemperate).

Lastly, if Triddle ever does block you for reasons that you don't consider appropriate, you have an avenue of appeal via the {{unblock}} template. In this way, you remain free to question or dispute Triddle's "orders" even if he blocks you. If that really isn't satisfactory to you, you always *can* respond to Triddle (beginning with something like "I know you asked me not to respond to you about this, but I think that there are a few more points I need to make before I leave you alone entirely"), but don't expect a response and don't badger him if you don't get one.

On a final note, I do think Triddle's reaction was a little excessive (assuming the diffs you provided are the extent of the interaction betwee the two of you). Moreover, some of his phrasing ("Note the lack of invitation...") is hovering on the edge of civility itself. But to answer your main question, I don't think it's inappropriate for an admin to ask that an editor no longer contact him about an issue once there has been full discussion of that issue. Sarcasticidealist 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) After looking at the diffs which you provided, I don't really seen any incivility on Triddle's part. The gist of his statement seems to be: "You were uncivil to user X. It doesn't matter why, being uncivil isn't allowed. If you keep it up, you may be blocked. Also, I'm personally done with this debate." Now, I don't think he is/was personally threatening to block you, rather, it sounds as if he was just warning that if poor behavior continued, there might be repercussions (from someone else, at some point in the future, on some other issue). And as far as him saying "(paraphrase) Please don't reply", it sounds as if Triddle felt he had made his points, and had nothing further to say. And while it would be stellar if every admin could handle every issue, it's his right, given that there are better places the whole content issue could have been settled.

Still all of that said though, I appreciate you providing a brief, fairly neutral summary. And I recognize that it's frustrating to deal with other editors who aren't following policy. But rather than getting upset, try enlisting help, perhaps from Third Opinions, or Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project. Or just follow dispute resolution. Calling people names (even if they deserve them) doesn't always help (see WP:SPADE for an essay on the topic). Hope that helps, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of note, Triddle (t c) has already brought this up at the 3O talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Per WQA policy, I left a note on Triddle's talk page informing him of this discussion. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Thanks to all for your good feedback. I appreciate your feedback and time. I consider the matter closed (from my side anyway). Kevinp2 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing. And thanks to Kevinp2 for being rather mature and civil about the whole thing. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Hefner

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Rogue and I debated for many days on the Discussion Page of the Hugh Hefner biography. He has deleted my comments nearly a dozen times with little or no evidence to support his view that my remarks do not belong on this page.

The statement that Rogue Gremlin opposes is shown, in complete context, in blue, below. It comes from the top of the Hugh Hefner page:

Hugh Marston Hefner (born April 9, 1926 in Chicago, Illinois), also referred to colloquially as Hef, is the founder, editor-in-chief, and Chief Creative Officer of Playboy Enterprises[1]. He is the majority owner of Playboy Enterprise Inc.[2]For decades, Hefner and Playboy Magazine have been icons of American sexuality and a voice for the sexual revolution.

The Playboy empire peaked in 1972 when the magazine sold over 7 million copies. Today, total circulation is just over 4 million.[3] The company Mr. Hefner founded, Playboy Enterprises, has since 1983, been managed by his daugther Christie Hefner, and today derives only one third of its revenues from Playboy Magazine. The balance comes through the dissemination of adult content in electronic form, such as television, the internet and DVD's.[4] Much of this electronic revenue comes not from the soft nude imagery which made the magazine famous, but from hardcore pornography connected with the company's ownership of Spice Digital Networks[5], Club Jenna[6], and Adult.com [7]

In editing this, Rogue Gremlin argues that he "Removed the negative comments on the biography of a living person." This argument is falacious and the comments should be returned. First, the "negativeness" of ownership of pornography assets is nowhere proven. Second, even it were indeed negative, Wiki guidelines do not prohibit such material from being in the biography of living persons. The actual language is: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." None of these conditions hold true as every single thing I posted is plainly sourced.

I argue that Hugh Hefner as the largest shareholder (over 60%), controlling shareholder, and most highly paid officer of Playboy Enterprises Inc. must be measured in no small part by the business results of that company. Once cannot reasonably divorce Mr. Hefner from all that happened since the day after he created Playboy Magazine in 1953. The image of Mr. Hefner as the sophisticated playboy may have once been connected with reality. Today, the business he owns is quite different than the one he started. The magazine itself does not make money. It loses it. Real money is made mostly in the TV and web business in which Playboy (under other trademarks) disseminates hardcore adult entertainment. My citations prove these points. I have not sought to comment on any of this. Only to report it. JerryGraf 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You should try either WP:BLPN or WP:RFC. Best of luck! Sarcasticidealist 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Resolved

 – Two good faith editors, settled. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lately, this user and I have been discussing the an article for deletion. I've tried my hardest to state my position on the article without sounding offensive. I tried my best to do so, but this user persists to make rude comments towards me. I was hoping someone could step in and evaluate the situation. Thanks in advance! Icestorm815 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that both you and the user were entirely civil until the Noroton's last comment, when he did cross the line (so "persists to (sic) make rude comments towards me" is probably a little strong). I'll leave a note on his talk page. In the meantime, though, I'd suggest that if you see any WP:COI issues with Noroton's contributions (and for whatever it's worth, I don't), WP:COIN would be a better place to discuss them than an individual AFD. I'd suggest that both of you let the particular thread drop, since you've both stopped talking about the deletion of the article, and are instead arguing over Wikipedia policies that are only tangentially related. Sarcasticidealist 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I concur here. Also, I personally didn't see any hints of COI. (COI would apply is he worked at the school, not if he had written an essay to suggest that he thought schools were notable). Just let the AfD handle itself. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation: just stop. You've both !voted, you're not going to change each others' minds. And while I've known Noroton to have some--ahem--particularly strong opinions, I've never known him to have an agenda other than wanting to improving articles. Cmprince 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. Unfortunately, this was my first time citing Wikipedia policy in a dispute, so I'm not quite familar with the specifications. I'll be sure to learn from this experience and will avoid making the mistakes I made again. Once again thank you for all your help. Icestorm815 03:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with basically what's been said. AfDs should really not include huge drawn out debates between two people. It appears that perhaps he is wrong incorrect, but honestly, if you've said what you have to say, then stop. The closing admin will review what you've said (and the other votes) and draw the appropriate conclusions. You don't have to convince him, you just have to make your case and wait for the AfD to close. --Cheeser1 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would disagree that there was no incivility before I finally got a little sarcastic. Accusing me of COI could be the result of a mistake, so the first time Icestorm815 did it, I politely referred him to WP:COI and suggested that he show me how comments on my userspace could possibly be a violation. Then he repeated the allegation, again without any reasoning that linked anything I'd done with WP:COI. That's something more than just being mistaken. There's even a specific link to a spot on the WP:CIVIL page for just that kind of thing: WP:ICA. Wasn't that action by Icestorm815 uncivil? I think it's a bit odd that this editor can repeatedly bring up unfounded accusations of policy violations ("ill-considered complaint[s]" as WP:ICA puts it), even after I've asked him to back them up, and then only my sarcastic reaction is called a little uncivil. i don't understand why there's no note on his talk page asking him to be civil. Please advise. And, ah, thanks Cmprince, although in this particular case, I don't think my opinions were particularly strong.Noroton 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've made a pretty strong case that there was a technical violation of WP:CIVIL by Icestorm815. That said, he was arguing policy rather than personalities, was new at arguing policy, and pretty obviously believed in good faith that you were in violation of WP:COI. WP:CIVIL has to be interpreted in context, and I think context in this case is pretty kind to Icestorm815.

As for posting a civility warning on his talk page, I certainly could go over there and write "Hi Icestorm815 - you've violated WP:CIVIL by making unfounded (albeit in good faith) accusations of COI against another user. Please don't do it again." Instead, I responded to his alert (in part) by advising him that his COI allegations were ill-founded.

In any event, you're obviously two good-faith editors, and I don't think any further parsing of blame for this particular incident would be productive. Icestorm815, please be more careful in the future about making this kind of accusation, and thank you for apologizing to Noroton. Noroton, in the future please don't respond to incivility of any kind (whether good faith or otherwise) by becoming uncivil yourself.

Now, go forth and improve the encyclopedia. That's obviously both of your primary purposes in being here. Sarcasticidealist 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I was wrong to finally respond to Icestorm815 with sarcasm after repeated provocations. Icestorm815 turned that deletion thread away from issues and toward accusations against me after exploring my user space and finding some things he somehow thought were somehow policy violations. I take that kind of focusing on personality rather than issues as a serious mistake on his part and one that causes me concern. He's told me he's dropping it, however, so as far as I'm concerned, this is over. Noroton 04:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me like a gross misunderstanding of WP:COI (on his part). I'd say that, in general, don't bother responding to provocations on AfD pages. If a user makes an absurd, irrelevant, or invalid point (especially one that reflects non-comprehension of policy), the closing admin will discount that user's opinion appropriately. Responding unnecessarily starts a sort of back-and-forth thing that isn't very helpful. --Cheeser1 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hal Cross

Resolved

 – It appears that the etiquette problems have subsided, at least for now. The editors involved have begun more discussion on this matter, and I believe the WQA-related disputes have been resolved. I may be wrong, in which case this complaint can of course be reopened. --Cheeser1 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

I'd appreciate an outside opinion on the conduct of User:Hal Cross. He's been editing at American Family Association since July, and his approach to the community leave an awful lot to be desired. He seems to have ownership issues with the page. He is uncivil -accusing other editors of being vandals, engaging in information suppression, violating policy, etc etc. He engages in tremendously long circular discussions, usually ignoring the responses he gets to his points, and the result has been that just about every over contributor to that page has drifted away. If you want the full history then have a look at Talk:American Family Association/Archive 2 and Talk:American Family Association/Archive 3, but be warned - they're very long.

Recent examples (a small selection from a long, long list):

• [30] - WP:CIVIL (calling other editors vandals and POV pushers), poor interpretation of WP:NPOV
• [31] - Accusation of creating a POV fork. What actually happened is that a long list in the main article was split out into a sub-article, so nothing was removed.
• [32] - Accusation of information suppression, WP:OWN.
• [33] - Arguing in circles, ignoring previous points, protestations of innocence.
• [34] - "Please watch carefully and learn from me and other concerned Wikipedia editors" - I'm not sure if this breaks any policy, but it's not a particularly useful way to talk about a content dispute.

After the third archiving I essentially gave up responding to the same points made over, and over, and over again, so if you want to read my specific responses to his arguments then you'll need to have a look at Archive 3 - but this isn't about the content dispute. It's about the user who is obstructing the discussion so much that he's making consensus almost impossible to achieve or follow. If you want a contrasting example, see here: User talk:Citadel18080/AFA Discussion with Orpheus. Same article, same content dispute, but a resolution in two screens of text that pleased two editors who were opposed at the start. The difference is that Hal Cross wasn't involved.

Also see this AN/I that he filed [35], which was roundly ignored by administrators, but is a good example of his vexatious approach to editing.

Orpheus 09:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Counter-Complaint

Hello all. I am a fairly new editor here, so I would also like some advice on using Wikiquette correctly to handle this long standing situation on the AFA article. I have already been getting some feedback from other editors and admins, and Orpheus has been hassling me about it on my talkpage [36].

I feel its unhelpful to simply point you to archives, so here are some diffs. Feel free to check them to see if they are representative:

• Long term context: Category dispute. Orpheus and CMMK want the homophobia category to be applied to the AFA article because anti-AFA people say that the AFA is anti-gay. I (and other editors) do not want the category because it circumvents NPOV policy, is used accusatively, and it adds nothing to reader’s understanding of homophobia. To my mind adding pop singers to a Michael Jackson article is useful, but homophobia serves no use as a mere accusation towards AFA. Lists have always been encouraged as an alternative[37].

• The past month or two: I have been working to enrich the article with reliably sourced views from the AFA and those with views about the AFA. E.g. [38] [39] That diff was the result of me adding information on beliefs. CMMK and Orpheus objected and removed the information, and I made subsequent improvements and additions. Orpheus both here and above ignores the fact that I have dealt with all objections and Orpheus still makes no effort to discuss the specific points to and adjustments of the edit. [40].

• After I make the adjustments, I restore the new information and it gets deleted. I make civil discussion for why it is deleted. No discussion is made in return for my discussion or questions. Discussion is often dismissed or is highly unconstructive [41][42][43][44][45][46] and some editors are often unhelpful to other editors [47].

• Myself and other editors are getting tag-teamed by Orpheus and CMMK [48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. As far as I know that’s a classic example of WP:OWN. Again, it often happens within the hour and without any discussion, or Orpheus makes reference to discussion that happened a long time ago, and ignores multiple changes that have been made [55]. Orpheus refers to a non-existent consensus [56].

• Those reliably sourced additions tend to get deleted within the hour without any discussion [57]. Unreliable negative information gets added, and any positive information, with more reliable sourcing, gets deleted [58]

• Orpheus and CMMK make a lot of edits without any discussion at all, and they fail to reply to civil discussion [59] [60][61][62] despite there being a lot of activity over that information on the article.

• Any one sided comments or headings I will try to make balanced or neutral [63]. From my beginners understanding of Wikipedia policies and recommendations, what Orpheus and CMMK seem to be doing is pushing a particular POV by constantly disallowing relevant views, by POV forking which removes information about why the AFA boycotts certain companies, and via information suppression [64].

• To my knowledge I have done nothing to WP:OWN the article. I have requested outside views on the subject from a variety of editor viewpoints [65][66], and been constructive in my communications with other editors and admin [67][68].

I know it’s a controversial subject that can involve high emotions. For example, CMMK has made discussion rather personal on several occasions [69][70] referring to editors as liars and information as “lies”. I understand that this is a controversial article and that its important not to get personal. To my knowledge I have never removed reliable sourced criticism of the AFA, yet Orpheus and CMMK have constantly removed any information that shows the AFA as having genuine cares and concerns about society [71][72]. I have discussed objectionable subjects as neutrally as I can with reference to sources. If you can offer me any way to adhere more closely to Wikiquette, especially in a way that constructively improves the article, I am very much open to your suggestions. Hal Cross 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, please read WP:SELFPUB Dlabtot 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll be the first to comment and hopefully I'll help. First, I'd like to say that the bulk of this is more of a content dispute. It's hard to evaluate this situation without taking into consideration the content dispute at hand. I'll step past that for a moment. I don't think there's a whole lot of Etiquette problems here so much as misunderstanding particular rules and/or disagreeing about content. I do believe User:Hal Cross is making some false accusations, but it would appear that these are being made genuinely (not uncivilly). He may honestly believe you are trying to create a POV fork, and saying so doesn't amount to breaching WP:CIVIL or anything - it's not like he called you stupid or made other sorts of personal comments.

• Content - On the other hand, I would like to discuss the content dispute, and the various policies that are being cited. First of all, most anti-gay groups assert that they are not homophobic. Some go so far as to say that they are the only ones who are really helping LGBT people, by turning them to the right path. This does not mean that it's true. LGBT people don't necessarily have a cohesive set of goals or an agenda, but groups and individuals have particular desires - to marry, to be treated as equals, to have their sexuality not scrutinized so much. Whatever the case, opposing those goals (in the name of "the American family" or what have you) would appear to be anti-gay prima facie. This is also almost certainly verifiable, it is at least mentioned, I'm sure, in gay-interest magazines. So that's what I see going on in the content dispute - giving the organization's opinion of itself more weight than the reality of its actions and the views of other groups/individuals.
• The complaint - As for the particular complaints against Hal Cross, I believe he may have been acting contrary to policy, but perhaps not in an uncivil way. This is in the sense that none of the diffs you've provided are particularly hostile or rude. On the other hand, Wikiquette also applies to the sum-total of one's actions. It does appear that Hal Cross is being fairly stubborn, and unyielding in his (mis)interpretation of things like WP:NPOV. There is also a complaint that he has been reverting in other people's userspace (see his talk page). I believe that requires a bit of intervention - since he's already here, I'll forgo commenting elsewhere, but would ask that he think things over.
• The counter complaint - To speak specifically, there are a few points. (1) I don't see any POV fork issues at all. These accusations seem totally unfounded, and may serve to make the discussion hostile. (2) Hal Cross consistently reverts people's reverts of his bold edits. This is troubling - it creates an atmosphere of edit warring, and does not seem to reflect well on Hal Cross's willingness to work towards consensus. Hal - you cannot remove content without consensus. If people object, you have to establish a consensus (meaning everybody needs to agree) before you remove it again. (3) The only accusations of incivility I see are things like "he called me a liar." However, this came after what appears to be a gross misrepresentation of policy to support a particular side in this argument. That could easily be considered lying, and I don't think saying so is out-of-line. Orpheus has made efforts to engage you in discussion without edit warring, but the revert craziness seems to go on. Other editors have also asked that this edit warring stop, but to no avail. There was also no "hassling" - Hal Cross (apparently falsely) said that he had been seeking outside views on his editing - Orpheus obviously would have liked to see those views - this does not constitute an attack, hassling, or an invasion of privacy. When it became clear that Hal Cross was either being deceptive, or not forthcoming with the result(s) of any review(s), Orpheus came here to get actual outside opinions, which Hal Cross may have mistaken as an attack. (Again, all this is on Hal Cross's talk page).

The bottom line - the bottom line is that neutrality is hard to maintain. It makes things contentious. It's a hotly-contested content dispute. However, criticism does belong in the article, and categories should reflect that. The fact that the AFA continually opposes gay activism and LGBT people's goals is pretty well documented. Furthermore, this article is not a safe haven for the AFA's idea of itself to flourish. We should be doing our best not to use the AFA's website as as source of information, or at least not considering it a source of unbiased or complete information about itself. The AFA wouldn't be considered a reliable source anywhere outside of this article, and its contributions to this article should be kept in perspective. I think Hall Cross fails to see this, and fails to understand several other important policies. The heated atmosphere is due in no small part to his repeatedly reverting reversions of his bold edits, and his misunderstandings of things like POV forking. His counter-complaints appear to be more or less without merit. I'm not sure if this is incivility or a breach of etiquette, but Hal Cross should accept reversion of his bold edits from now on, and work to form consensus. This will require him to familiarize himself with what is and is not reliable sourcing, what is and is not POV forking, and how to construct a balanced article. --Cheeser1 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and considered reply Cheeser1. I agree on not using the AFA article as a source of unbiased or complete information about itself. To my knowledge, I never have, and have always sought other sources on their opinions. Should be kept in perspective: Yes completely. I am working on context all the time. If you can offer ways for me to add more reliable context to the article I will be grateful.

Concerning POV forking. I agree. I am uncertain of how to proceed and would like your advice on the issue that AFA boycott certain companies for certain reasons. How do you suggest that I can present those AFA views neutrally in the article without them being removed to other articles?

The information I have been referring to on reliable information is [73] and [74]. The finer points of those articles are not presented so I would appreciate your input on how to apply these articles in this situation. I have used AFA related articles and web pages, in combination with other information I have obtained from Proquest databases. To my knowledge, that satisfies the crux of those requirements in the articles, though I would like to hear more about your recommendations. The article states “Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.” That is what I have presented and Orpheus and CMMK have gone against those articles I believe. They have used the argument that these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, which goes against the recommendations. I know you are only suggesting caution, though they are acting on total removal of views. In line with your suggestion I would like to know how best to apply caution.

Forming consensus has been hard. Its made harder due to some editors seeming to refuse discussion, or offering dismissive comments and unconstructive suggestions. How do I handle that constructively according to your view of this situation? Regards Hal Cross 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, I believe that you are refusing discussion as much as (or more than) the other editors, especially by reverting reverts (probably the best way to avoid working towards consensus). Dismissive comments may be warranted when certain contributions merit dismissing. Removing boldly added content is not necessarily nonconstructive. Listing the beliefs of this organization in great detail would not necessarily be encyclopedic, nor would doing so by simply repeating what is found on their website. Listing the boycotts, for example, would be the same as listing (for example) every single protest lead or sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition, instead of simply reporting the notable or encyclopedic content. There is a clear statement of the group's beliefs in the lead of the article - concise and in the group's own words. To continue to elaborate (ad nauseam) every single viewpoint or boycott of the group would make this into a pulpit, instead of an article. I realize you aren't trying to include every detail, but much of the details of their views would be considered more or less irrelevant - we need not make this article a list of all the things the AFA supports, opposes, boycotts, etc. Furthermore, the POV of the group may be important to consider, but it should not unduly shape the tone/content of the article (especially in the criticisms section). For example, "first amendment rights" is not the same as homophobia or anti-gay activism. Sure, you could call it that (and that may be what the AFA calls it), but that's sugarcoating/dodging the issue. Calling it anti-gay/homophobic is not non-neutral. The group has stated its opposition to LGBT activism and LGBT rights, and there are reliable third party coverage to document these views and actions. These sources should be used wherever possible, instead of citing the AFA. These content considerations should be discussed on the article's talk page - however, there seems to be difficulty based on your edit-warring and your (mis)use of other policies (as in your counter-complaint) to distract the issue (perhaps unintentionally) and keep consensus from forming based on the policies in question. --Cheeser1 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Cheeser. If you look at the deletions more closely, Orpheus and CMMK are not actually removing all views that are solely supported by the AFA. They are inconsistent in that matter. They are leaving plenty in. [75] but they are removing AFA supported views that put the AFA in a considerate or concerned light. It seems that it is ok for CMMK and Orpheus to have negative information supported by AFA sources, and any positive information is deleted. Hal Cross 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, PS, to my knowledge, since I have been here I have not once removed criticism of the AFA from the article. And I reiterate I believe it is blindingly obvious that Orpheus and CMMK have consistently and repeatedly removed NPOV compliant information that sheds a positive light on the AFA. If anyone can give me your views and suggestions on this main point I will be grateful. Hal Cross 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not picked through the entire history, the diffs you provide do not seem to demonstrate anyone acting without neutrality. Much of what they seem to remove is simply a positive statement of the group's opinion by the group itself. Such material is arguably "spin," and shouldn't be introduced into the article. --Cheeser1 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective Cheeser1. I am not a member of the AFA, loved members of my family are homosexual and well accepted, I am not a practicing Christian, Muslim, or any other type of Abrahamic religious follower, and I don't claim to be neutral at all. There are outside opinions from other sources that would probably never be called spin. If you can see your way to at least considering that information we will be getting some way towards resolution. Oh, by the way, if I am allowed to present information that you consider spin, will I be ok to present it as spin by attributing you as a source? Hal Cross 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to specifics. There is an AFA view that Yahoo provides pedophiles with child pornography. Now that may be considered spin against the homosexual agenda. Basically the AFA believes that the homosexual agenda is full of people such as NAMBLA who like obscenity and their activities will lead to the encouragement of pedophilia. The view is also reported by PR Newswire according to Proquest databases [76] and removed by Orpheus only a couple of hours later without discussion [77]. Now do I censor the AFA as it is "spin"? Do I accept it because I am following WP on reliable sourcing? Hal Cross 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, I accidentally replied above in the wrong section. Please read WP:SELFPUB. The American Family Association should not really include any text that is based on their own website. This really is a content dispute, not an etiquette problem - none of the diffs you've provided really show any violations of WP:CIVIL that I saw. I'd suggest starting over on the American Family Association article, with a version based only on independent sources. Dlabtot 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dlabtot. Again I am very much in need of guidance here. Which of these points specifically applies?:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Hal Cross 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I believe I've addressed this below. Namely, an individual action alert is not relevant to the AFA's notability (unless there are other sources that address the alert in a non-trivial way). Since it is an accusation against Yahoo, it could also be seen as contentious and involving a claim about a third party.

In other words, if the Random Organization filed a complaint that FooBar Corp. was giving porn to minors, there's no need to include it here unless the accusation has had reliable, independent coverage. (Which doesn't seem to be the case here, as discussed below). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll sort it outHal Cross 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer "Which of these points specifically applies?" - all of them. What the policy is stating is that unless self published material fits that very long and exacting list of requirements, it should not be included in an article about the entity that did the self publishing. Dlabtot 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dlabtot, I was in the process of applying that long and exact list of requirements and was told off for it [78]. There is other more relevant and encyclopedic information to add to that section. Which is why I did not remove the heading. Work in progress. Hal Cross 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitratry Section Break

Hi there. If I can chime in: I agree with you that such content shouldn't be removed without comment as it isn't blatantly violating WP:RS. However, I'm not convinced that Wikipedia should report an action alert from the AFA unless it's picked up mainstream coverage (ie, USAToday commenting on the AFA Boycott). Otherwise it does come across as spin-y. (Since Wikipedia isn't for PR, we probably should have more than a press release, given that there are a relatively large number of action alerts issued). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A minor point - it wasn't without comment, it was with this comment. Otherwise, I agree with your AU$0.04. Orpheus 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the diff. That certainly is a reasonable justification. For next time though, if there was a reference to the talk page comments in the edit summary, perhaps Hal wouldn't have made unfounded accusations. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bfigura. I agree and have been consistently working to provide whatever mainstream coverage I can get hold of. Where it is not supplied, it is consistent with the context of the secion of the article in question. I am not interested in spin. My main concern is to make sure the actual views of the AFA are not suppressed. From what has happened over the past few months, it seems that suppression is utterly rampant. It will be really easy to obtain secondary sources and in that case all relevant views will be presented again. There are a lot that I have not used because I believed that facts will be more accurate from the horses' mouth. Your solutions seem to be coming together pretty well in my mind. Its just a matter of presenting the other sources I originally left out. Cheers Hal Cross 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can show how a particular self-published citation meets all the requirements of WP:SELFPUB, it should not be included, even if it means that the 'actual views of the AFA' are therefore are not promoted in the article. Putting something in the article simply to insure that the AFA's view is presented seems to violate the spirit and the letter of the policy. Dlabtot 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine Dlabtot. The key views of the AFA are described by independent reliable sources so those views can be presented despite the efforts of Orpheus and CMMK towards one-sidely removing them. WP policies will be satisfied. In fact the views will most likely be clearer, more fair, and more compelling this way. Cheers Hal Cross 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

But you've been presenting them verbatim or paraphrased from the AFA website. That's the problem. Sourcing is key, and you cannot simply parrot the AFA. Orpheus and CMMK were reverting your changes because you've been adding material that is improperly sourced (and from a nonNPOV source to boot). --Cheeser1 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I know the problem by now. Many of Orpheus' and CMMK's deletions were of reliable sources other than the AFA website and publications. There are many reliable sources where those came from. I'll make sure that AFA views will be supported using independent reliable sources. I have no problem at all with Orpheus and CMMK removing unreliable sources. Its the removal of reliably sourced AFA views that I believe will be the more pressing problem on the AFA article long term. Hal Cross 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Thanks again for your input folks. I found the advice conflicting and contradictory in a fairly humorous way, and I am making sense of it as best I can. The only things I would actually disagree upon is the assertion that I have not communicated any more than the other two editors, as I believe I have made more room for discussion than any other editor I have seen. I fully agree with suggestions on how to move forward though. Orpheus and CMMK seem to be back into discussion at least to some extent now you have applied a bit of scrutiny, and I am grateful for that as I feel it at least temporarily stops what I see as month upon month of tag teaming. I would appreciate any follow ups from any of you. On overall reflection, I think you have been pretty fair considering the circumstances. Regards Hal Cross 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Getaway

Work in progress; comments welcome

I have noticed a pattern of incivility from this editor against a number of users. I first encountered him when I gave him a warning for telling another editor “That's so liberal jam your opinion down their throats Wikipeidan of you” [79]. He responded with multiple tirades telling me I was “dead damn wrong” and “you are wrong and that is your problem, not mine.”[80] [81]. An admin asked him to tone down the hostility a little. Since that time, others have come into conflict with him, and he has responded in the same manner. After being warned about cut-and-paste edits, he responded with “you came along with your silly, incorrect comments and warnings… You should be ashamed of yourself.” [82]. More recently he has responded to criticism with comments like this: “I never stated that you were ‘deliberately falsifying sources.’ Making that charge against me without having anything to back it really must be embarassing for you.” [83]. I think he should be warned about his incivility.--Dcooper 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I did not state that Seicer was falsifying sources. That is flat out lie.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with the pattern of incivility. He has been blocked many times in the past for this and for 3RR violations. Here are some diffs --

* [84] The user does not agree to stop willingly insert comments into the middle of replies, which violates WP:TALK. See [85] [86]. His comments also err close to wiki stalking.

* "I will respond however I want to respond. It is not up to you to decide."

* "I will be following my own decision making process and your advice or lack there of will not be concerned or even remotely referred to."

* [87] Revert war on a smaller scale. He claims that the "burden is on you" whenever an editor does a change that upsets his method of editing.

* [88] Accuses other editors of harassment.

* He constantly accuses others of POV violations, such as at Sean Hannity, and when his edits are challenged, he asks for "burden of proof."

* ^ Same at Robert Byrd, where he reverted an edit, calling Slate an op-ed piece and claiming that I falsified a source. [89] I added portions of the article here.

* Similar editing style to WYLAH. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. This is not true. I do not state "burden is on you" whenever an editor does a change, that comment is simply not true. And, yes, when an editor is going against concensus then the burden is on them. That is fact and nothing to be ashamed of or warned about.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Not true.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will be. Nothing wrong with that.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is harassment when an editor comes to my talk page and write inappropriate comments such as this one: So, essentially you will be wikistalking my edits and violating WP:TALK in the future? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, when an editor does make a comment such as the one that I have quoted Seicer to have made on my talk page, I take that as a hostile, inappropriate and threatening comment and I WILL refuse to engage in anymore conversation with the threatening editor. This forum and other forums and rules will not be enough to make me interact with that editor, which of course in this case is Seicer. As far as I am concerned from this point forward this forum and anything else concerning this topic is merely a forum to discuss how we deal with nasty, threatening comments such as Seicer's that you can review here: Go down the section named In the future.... And once again, I would ask Seicer stop harassing me. I will not apologize for asking Seicer to stop harassing me. It is inappropriate for others to attempt to stop me from asking Seicer to stop harassing me. The harassment must stop.--Getaway 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not know what this is in reference to.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I never, ever stated that Seicer falsified a source. That is just a flat out lie.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't know who this person is. But I would encourage any of the admins who have access to the appropriate tools to check the edits and you will see that it is not me. I've learned that you have to nip these types of false charges in the bud very quickly or they just grow and grow.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of stuff to comment on here, but I will just point out, that the statement: "I will be following my own decision making process and your advice or lack there of will not be concerned or even remotely referred to." is not at all in the spirit of consensus. Dlabtot 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of stuff to comment concerning your comment, but when an editor comes to my talk page and makes the comments that Seicer did then the discussion should be about how we stop Seicer from harassing other editors. Also, Seicer's comments do not exhibit the charms of someone who really cares about consensus, of which you claim to be concerned.--Getaway 20:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There was general consensus to add the bit at Robert Byrd regarding his renouncing of former racial ties. Most of the discussions against it were in regard to the Slate source, where some were comparing Slate to an "op-ed" piece, and disregarding the Charlotte Observer article as being "inferior" to a CNN article. (my initial restoration); (I restored an accidentally removed cite just above); [90]; even Getaway (talk · contribs) agrees.

Furthermore, he attempted the same tactic at Strom Thurmond, where there was general consensus. (Getaway replaced a Slate source (same one used at Robert Byrd) with one that was nothing about); [91] [92]

Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello all - this is quite the situation. Before I begin, I want to make clear that I'm dealing only with Wikiquette issues. This means that I'm not dealing with accusations of sockpuppetry (which should be reported to WP:SSP). I'm also not dealing with the question of whether User:Getaway accused User:Seicer of falsifying a source; until I see a diff in which Getaway makes such an accusation, I'm assuming that no such accusation exists.

All of that said, I think there are a lot of Wikiquette breaches going on, here. On User:Getaway's side, some of the diffs provided are certainly violations of WP:CIVIL. Moreover, you seem extremely unwilling to assume good faith on the part of people with whom you are in dispute - you are quick to accuse them of deliberately misrepresenting you (instead of assuming that they honestly misread what you wrote), abusing Wikipedia to further their own political opinions (instead of believing that they're genuinely trying to be NPOV), of being too lazy to provide sources (instead of considering that they might not consider a source to be necessary, or some other good faith explanation), etc. Also, your writing style, whether intentionally or otherwise, gives the impression that you are positively foaming at the mouth with rage as you write. I think that it would be useful to focus on short, succinct posts (like you've been making on this page) rather than long drawn out ones. I also echo User:Dlabtot's comments about consensus. Finally, WP:TALK (a guideline) does discourage using responses from breaking up the posts to which they are responding, and you seem to do this rather often; please try to respond to entire posts at once rather than breaking them up.

There is some blame on User:Seicer, too - notably, I don't think what he wrote on your talk page could reasonably be summarized as "So, essentially you will be wikistalking my edits and violating WP:TALK in the future?". That appears to have been an unecessarily inflammatory response.

I think given the bad shape your wikirelationship is in, I'm going to see how you respond to my comments before I start talking about possible solutions. As a first step, you each need to take responsibility for how you've aggravated the situation, and I want to see if you're both willing. Sarcasticidealist 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the citation for Gateway assuming that I was falsifying a source:

1. Stating that the article I cited does not exist.

2. Asserts that the 'burden' is on me to provide a citation.

I explained to him on his talk page that not every citation requires a URL or an online source. Given that there are thousands of citations on Wikipedia that are from books, newspapers, and etc. that are off-line, it would be unbearably difficult, if not impossible, to give summaries or snippets (the latter which I provided at talk:Robert Byrd although it is a copyright-vio) of every citation.

Per the wikistalking comment, it is in regard to this comment: [93]

"I also noticed that your edits seem to protect Byrd and condemn Thurmond. Since they are both avowed racists, you really should think about why you feel the need to provide aid and comfort to an old racist like Byrd. And, yes, you did. You're argument is basically, "See, Byrd isn't as bad as Thurmond!!!" Which is not only wrong, but strange. I'm going to respond to that silliness with a response that goes to your argumentative level, "At least, Thurmond was never in the KKK!!!" Look forward to more of your edits on the Robert "KKK" Byrd article."

I took note on the last sentence, which may indicate he will be monitoring my edits at Robert Byrd and possibly elsewhere for the explicit purpose of reverting them based on my prior edits. Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the second issue first, I don't think it's fair to infer an intent to wikistalk from his comments - he said he was looking forward to more of your edits in one specific article. All this means is that he's going to monitor the Byrd article for your edits, and presumably for others' as well. It *could* be interpreting as a threat to wikistalk, but I think doing so is precluded by WP:AGF.

The second issue is a little more complex. His edit summary said that the article "didn't exist", which intially appears to be an accusation of falsifying a source. However, if you look at the reference you put in with regards to the Charlotte article, it included a link to the slate article. What Getaway could well have meant is that the Charlotte article didn't exist at the end of the link that was supposed to lead to it. If that's what he meant, he certainly should have been clearer. But this illustrates the importance of WP:AGF: in cases where an editor could have meant different things by his/her words, we should always assume that his meaning was the most innocent of the available reasonable explanations.

This is not to say that Getaway has been behaving perfectly reasonably, and that you stepped in and unfairly ascribed a whole bunch of nefarious motivations to him/her. I think that your interpretation was quite reasonable. However, so was the interpretation I offered above, and I think that we should function on the assumption that it's correct (especially since he/she is adament that she/he never accused you of source falsification) until we see a compelling reason not to.

Thank you for your response. Hopefully User:Getaway will respond as well, and we can start working towards resolving this. Sarcasticidealist 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He initially removed the Slate citation, calling it an opinion reference, and the statement as a whole due to that. There was debate regarding the Slate source, with the users in question calling the source an "op-ed" piece. The Slate citation was restored and the source for the Slate article was the Charlotte Observer, where they conducted an interview with Strom Thurmond. The Charlotte Observer citation was not to reference the comment regarding Robert Byrd renouncing racism, but to provide verifiability to the Slate article.

At Strom Thurmond, the Charlotte Observer citation, in conjunction with the Slate article, provides a solid citation for the comment regarding Strom Thurmond not renouncing racism.

Kind of confusing. Let me know if you need additional clarifications. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with the use of the Charlotte Observer as a reference, even if it's unavailable online. The problem was that the Charlotte Observer footnote (not the Slate footnote) included a link to the Slate article. Users, such as Getaway, could have clicked on that link, expecting to be led to a Charlotte Observer article, and instead finding themselves as Slate. This could easily cause somebody to conclude that this was a faulty reference. Sarcasticidealist 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that was my mistake (looking at my original inclusion). But that could have been handled far better and in a much more civil manner, IMO. The citation could have just been edited, since the citation immediately below it contains the exact same URL (I was copy/pasting the template). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could have been handled more civilly, and I hope that we can get to that once User:Getaway offers a response to my original comments. I just wanted to resolve the question of whether User:Getaway had accused you of falsifying a source. I think that it's fair to assume that he/she said something that was not intended as such an accusation, and that you (not unreasonably) took it to be such an accusation. On that specific question, I think there was a blameless misunderstanding, and hopefully we can stop dealing with that in favour of the various other issues raised by this alert (of which there are, sadly, a great many). Sarcasticidealist 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I am the editor that User:Dcooper is referring to as the target of User:Getaway's "...jam your opinion..." comment above. I would suggest that readers have a look at some of Getaway's edit summary commentary on the Sean Hannity article and discussion pages from around the end of August. In particular, this diff, and this diff are quite illuminating. Please keep in mind that I was (and still am) a new editor, and that these are Getaway's responses to my attempts to achieve consensus. There are limits to WP:AGF ("This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary). I assert that Getaway has demonstrated ample evidence of lack of good faith, as well as frequent bouts of incivility. Furthermore, I believe that Getaway has a prior, abandoned account User:Keetoowah in which he demonstrated much the same behavior. The existence of prior warnings (including warnings against legal threats and being placed on personal attack parole) under this username should be taken into account in determining whether User:Getaway is a regular violater of Wikiquette. Ossified 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those diffs are uncivil. I do need to advise you that this page isn't primarily for determining whether anybody is a regular violator of Wikiquette; instead, we try to identify instances in which Wikiquette has been violated and try to prevent future violations by the users in question. Obviously, this requires good faith on the part of all involved (quite often, all it takes is a third party such as myself advising an editor that his/her edits are uncivil, to make that editor look in the mirror and change his/her ways). If we can't accomplish that, there really isn't much else we can do. The next step is generally WP:RFC/U, but we always hope that it won't come to that.

For the time being, let's wait to see how User:Getaway responds to my comments; hopefully that will give us a basis on which to move forward. Sarcasticidealist 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I would certainly prefer to avoid any future conflicts with the editor in question. Ossified 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gayunicorn attacking other people's religions

Resolved

Would someone please have a word to Gayunicorn (talk · contribs) concerning this edit and his/her refusal to retract it? Corvus cornix 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm less concerned that the comments are offensive, and more concerned that this user seems to be labouring under a serious misapprehension as to Wikipedia's purpose. I've left some comments to this effect on his/her page. Hopefully that will help clear things up.

In the meantime, it might be best that you avoid interacting with this user unless necessary. Regardless of the wisdom of your words, it's apparent that he/she does not wish to read them, and little good will come of continuing to post on her/his talk page. Sarcasticidealist 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gayunicorn 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)for the record I am just stating that our North American culture is based Judeo-Christian beliefs and that the media is a reflection of this, I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Thanks for the heads up though I will refrain from personal comments in the future.00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Don't be combining my belief set with yours. And frankly, you're incorrect. And lastly, it would be appreciated by all of us if you take the time to learn about signing your posts. Thanks OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a note regarding his signature on his talk page. As for the religious comment by Gayunicorn (talk · contribs), I added on the talk page of the AFD that a person's religious beliefs should not weigh in as a valid opinion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely just a nonsense AfD vote. The closing admin will surely disregard it, as would be appropriate. It appears as though others have already pointed the user to the purpose of Wikipedia and now it's not a catalog of majority or normative opinion. --Cheeser1 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User blocked due to inappropriate user name, and also tagged as suspected sock of User:Tweety21. Marking as resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs)

User:Gaetanomarano

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Beyond Wikiquette and into subtle vandalism / linkspam. Referred to ANI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This user put links leading to his website on talk pages of many articles. He adds links to the talk page in the Reference section. He reverts editions that delete his links. This user also claims that Google (and other "lobbies") censor him . Check his entries fore more details Scorpene 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more of an issue for the administrator's noticeboard. This seems to have gone beyond Wikiquette. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will have a look there, thank you for the tip. Scorpene 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User Precious Roy

Resolved

 – Closed, Wiccawikka indef blocked for being a sock --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)*apprears to be attacking voters in coven(short film)

• making allegations towards me of being a "sock puppet", I dont know what this person is talking about, but not appreciated.
• Appears to be bringing in a personal fight into a voting forum. (has a history of quarelling with a user Tweety21 and other users, and writing derogatory statments in the voting forum)
• Appears to be border-line attacking religious freedom.

Wiccawikka 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

These sockpuppet accusations are made on some pretty inconclusive grounds. I would say it's pretty uncivil to label everyone a sockpuppet of someone just because they agree. Not sure where to proceed - others, do you have any ideas? --Cheeser1 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The puppet Tweety21 was using yesterday, Gayunicorn (now indefinitely blocked) was very vocally anti-Wicca. (Also note, I haven't accused the other "keep" !voters of being socks.) I can list many reasons why I say Wiccawikka is Tweety21's puppet if you want, or you could wait for the Checkuser results. Precious Roy 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You can list the reasons? You better. If you don't, then your accusations are unsubstantiated and uncivil. And until the RFCU in question is finished, I'd suggest you not use its possible outcome as the explanation for your actions. You're supposed to assume good faith, which includes assuming someone is not a sockpuppet - if you have substantial evidence to the contrary (now, not evidence you might have pending the RFCU), you must present that, and you should do your best not to repeatedly make your accusation. Labeling most/all of the user's comments as "this is a sockpuppet" or "this is an SPA" (not to mention repeating the warning/accusation) seems quite premature. --Cheeser1 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't jump all over me. I wasn't saying anything about the possible outcome; I was giving you the option of either asking me for my reasons, or waiting for the outcome—conclusive or not. Also, I have not "repeatedly" labeled her comments. I put a "suspected sockpuppet" tag on her talk page, and labelled one of her comments (the first one) on the AfD page. Precious Roy 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to ask. Accusations like this require an explanation. As for repeating your accusation, you've accuse her in several places of sockpuppetry. One accusation, with at least minimal justification, would suffice, until conclusive (ie not circumstantial) evidence is found. Wiccawikka is clearly a new/inexperienced user, and confronted with accusations like this can be confusing and disheartening. When these accusations come with no explanation or justification, it becomes fairly uncivil. I'm not saying she isn't a sockpuppet - I have no proof, but I've assumed that she isn't until we know that she is. This means you should treat her civilly and explain your accusation, including explaining what you're accusing her of. No one should have to ask, especially not third parties like me. --Cheeser1 18:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding her experience level, take a little time to review Tweety21's level of expertise. She'd been around longer than me (almost 2 years) yet edited like someone who had just started; helpful tips (even down to telling her how to sign her comments) went unheeded. The asking part I was referring to was in regards to this forum. If you want an answer, you have to ask me. Precious Roy 19:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for suspecting WiccaWikka is Tweety21 include 1) the time of day the edits started 2) that she went immediately to the Coven AfD (which her last sock, Gayunicorn, was causing problems in yesterday), 3) when she leaves comments on people's talk pages, she almost always posts them at the top and usually leaves them unsigned 4) she frequently makes multiple sequential edits 5) in the AfD she says "I usually don't get involved in these kinds of forums" yet she is familiar enough with the formatting (Tweety21 was involved in a number of AfDs—2 examples:1, 2), including "Strong keep"' 6) problems with spelling 7) makes baseless accusations (that I'm "attacking voters", I "writ[e] derogatory statments [sic]" in the AfD, that I have a "history of quarelling [sic] with a user Tweety21 and other users", etc). I could go on but I realize that none of this is ironclad proof. You're the admin, you tell me—do I have to open a new sockpuppet report on this user? I'm hoping the checkuser will settle matters but since it's the first time I've used it, I'm not sure what to expect. Precious Roy 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood this process - no one here is necessarily an administrator, we're not here to take administrative action, but to mediate disputes between people who are (in general) editing in good faith. Even then, administrators aren't here to tell you what to do. These things are circumstantial. 6 is irrelevant. You opened the window for 7, since you brought up Tweety21. 5 means she can mimic bullet-points. 4 - plenty of people do that. 3 - many new users do this. Again, none of this is conclusive, but alot of it can be explained by the fact that she's new. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you've elicited a complaint, and your conduct may have been colored by how dismissive you were (due to the assumption of sockpuppetry) and the fact that you didn't explain yourself (which can only be justified by the hypothetical future outcome of the RFCU). I will admit that you've raised suspicion, but when the user asks "what's a sockpuppet?" directing the user to the person to the sockpuppet complaint against GayUnicorn isn't helpful. My only point here has been, from the start, that you assume good faith - this includes assuming that this person is not a sockpuppet (no matter how erratic her behavior) until you have more-than-circumstantial evidence. --Cheeser1 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I do plead ignorance to the process here (I've never visited before today). I did say outright that none of it is really proof; I know it's all circumstatial, but people have been convicted in court solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The poor spelling is not irrelevant; it, like the rest, establishes a pattern. Regarding #7, the only one I've "opened the window for" would be a history of quarrelling—but only with Tweety21, not "other users" (being partially based on fact does not make something true). I've never "attacked" anyone, made derogatory statements (not even when accusing of sockpuppetry), or attacked religious freedom. #5 It was more the usage of "Strong keep" than the bullet points. And #3+4, yes plenty of new users do that; it's not any one of the things I've listed—it's all of them put together. As I said on your talk page, I have taken what you've said to heart and will be more gentle in the future with any suspected sockpuppets. Precious Roy 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I overlooked her claim that I'm "attacking religious freedom". I've never made a single edit that could be misconstrued as attacking religious freedom. Ever. Unless one considers nominating a film called Coven for deletion an attack on religious freedom. Precious Roy 19:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling out the reasons. Next time thought, I'd at least provide a link to the place where the reasons can be found (the checkuser, or RfC, etc). As far as reporting goes, can't you just add onto the old sockpuppet file? --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As a note, this is also on ANI in this thread. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New Complaint

I've moved the following comments from a section below, as I think the user meant to place them here. (If wrong, please let me know). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)User:Precious Roy

Wiccawikka 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)User: Precious Roy again engaging in Harassment, has already been warned once before, constantly accuses me of being a sock puppet

I was alerted by another user of the following abusive comment he left about me (below comment by Precious Roy after being warned against abuse) he constantly puts sock puppet on my user page, I'm pretty fed up with this abuse, was warned by User Cheeser1 I am quite concerned about his fixation with abusing me. I noticed he has an entry about a serial killer as well.

Hello m'dear!

My pleasure. Music is the one area where I would dare claim advanced levels of expertise (20 years working in music, don'tcha know). Every once in a while I've gone behind an editor's back and created an article that had already been declined. In most cases I had to do a little extra work because references or content wasn't up to WP snuff (like today). I've been busy dealing with a sock whose user has been a thorn in my side for about a month now. It's my own fault for getting involved but it bums me out that I could've been doing actual helpful stuff around WP but instead spent most of the day dealing with nonsense. C'est la vie. Precious Roy 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Wiccawikka 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I need to continue to defend my actions here or not; I thought this was considered resolved. Here is the post that Wiccawikka has included above. Notice that there are no names named—she is assuming I am talking about her. I don't recall being "warned against abuse"; I think I was cautioned to WP:AGF, which I agreed to do. If you feel I am not living up to that, please point out specific edits where I have failed. Precious Roy 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This has really gone too far. He was not warned for making the allegations, I simply reminded him (a bit too sternly) that he needed to justify them. He was not being abusive, he was simply jumping to conclusions without explaining himself. There are actually a number of things that indicate that you might be a sockpuppet of the other user - similar IP addresses used when posting anonymously, similar topics, your account started up when the last sockpuppet was banned and participated in the same discussion. Is this conclusive? No. But it is suspicious. Saying so is not against the rules. --Cheeser1 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I don't there's been any civility violation here that hasn't already been dealt with. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Madrus

Resolved

 – Impersonating user indef blocked. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has copied all of my own user page and most of my talk page unmodified to his userpage and his user talk. Here's his contributions page. User Madrus is a new user since 19.09.2007 14:00. I learned of all this when he announced about his new pages on my talk page.

The difference between his and my usernames are two letters: mine is Mardus, his is Madrus. In Estonian language, they also mean two different things, so it doesn't appear that much to be a username hijacking, but it still feels like that.

I didn't want to notify him of this alert, because he has copied all of my talk content to his talk page. I checked the different resources on user conduct, but couldn't find the correct specific place (other than here) of alerting about the incident. What can be done about it? -Mardus 02:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the type of thing WP:U#Doppelganger accounts addresses.

It is acceptable to pre-emptively create another account with a username similar to one's own, with the purpose of preventing impersonation by vandals.

What to do when it actually occurs is probably best handled on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Anynobody 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I blanked it for the interm with the edit summary: "Blanked as it is a direct copy of user:Mardus: Possible conflicting username that should be brought up at WP:UFA". This needs to be brought up there. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't had any chances to attend much of the above, so here's thanks for resolving the issue. The copied pages and notification of these in my Talk came as an unwelcome surprise. To pre-empt doppelganger accounts, I would have used a different method. I was also more interested as to who did that and where. -Mardus 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

69.115.34.186

Stale

 – No response from editor in question. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This IP adress keeps reverting my edits on LeChuck. My images are a lot better than the previous, and they don't really display the character itself. The best thing would be to either block the IP adress or semi protect the page. The Prince of Darkness 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute, not a Wikiquette issue. Further, it appears the two of you are close to breaking (if you haven't already) WP:3RR. Also, after looking at the page, your comments here appear to strongly violate WP:CIVIL. I'd suggest that you be WP:COOL and read there are no angry mastadons. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The only Wikiquette issue is the incivility with which you are both behaving. A block of User:69.115.34.186 would be absolutely inappropriate. I'm personally of the view that page protection would be excessive, but you can take it to WP:RFPP if you'd like.

In the meantime, though, you should take User:Bfigura's words to heart - User:69.115.34.186 is no more in the wrong than you are, here. Sarcasticidealist 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree; to quote a famous historical figure, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Don't open a Wikiquette alert if you're not prepared to have your own behavior examined, and comments like "I will keep on reverting you till you give up"[94] display a fundamental lack of understanding about the wiki process. --Darkwind (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A note was left on The Prince of Darkness's talk regarding this discussion, but given the lack of response, I'm marking as stale. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also commented at the article in question. --Cheeser1 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing POV

Stuck

 – This is essentially a content dispute involving a disagreement about content and a

User Jtrainor is trying to push his POV on some articles about russian military tech. For example here and here Necator 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll check the edit history, you will find that it is Necator who is adding unsourced irrelevant material and trying to establish a POV. Jtrainor 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks a lot like a content dispute. If either of you thinks that it is in fact a Wikiquette dispute, please provide some specific diffs. Sarcasticidealist 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My conclusion too. Aside from the two of you ramping up into an revert war, I didn't see anything terribly objectionable. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that its violation of Wikiquette in terms of

• Don't ignore questions.
• If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.

Because Jtrainor does not provide any sources when asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs. Sarcasticidealist 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As an example [95] -> [96] and here [97] Necator 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the original sentence merely stated that this capability was claimed, I agree that there's no onus on any Wikipedia editor to prove that it's physically possible. I also agree that it is inappropriate to add a claim that such a capability would be physically impossible without sourcing it. I'm still not sure that this is a Wikiquette issue, though, so I won't provide any further comment here, and would encourage you to open a WP:RFC on this issue if my opinion doesn't solve the problem. Sarcasticidealist 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be a subject of WP:RFC if there were some constructive discussions. But i, myslef, did provide severeal sources to prove my opinion and Jtrainor didnt provide even one. Necator 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Again, to me this seems to be a content dispute, but since we're all here: I agree with Sarcasticidealist that the only source needed is a source proving the claim (regardless of how true it is). Remember, the guideline for wikipedia is: verifiability, not truth. Now, if Jtrainor would like to counter that claim, he needs to provide sourcing, otherwise it's pure original research. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Now, if Jtrainor would like to counter that claim, he needs to provide sourcing, otherwise it's pure original research" But the problem is Jtrainor does not provide any sources at all and keep pushing his original research by brute force. There is nothing about content. Its about behaviour. Necator 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. And since he's participating in this discussion, he should have seen our comments. Just to be sure though, I'll leave a note on his page. If he keeps it up after being warned not to, take it to AN/I. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... he keeps it up [98] Necator 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From Jtrainor page: "The consensus seems to be that a source is needed to justify the the claims about the missile withstanding the blast (regardless of how true it is)" It seems like you are not clear with what is going on. It's not about one article. There at least 2 different mentioned by me above. And if you check the list of his contributions, you'll realise that such kind of behaviour is normal for this user. Necator 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Also, don't try to ignore the issue with S-400_Triumf. You are clearly pushing POV with your edits to that page-- people should check the history there and make comparisons to how it was before Necator started editing. With regards to the Bulava, as long as it's made clear that it's purported capability to survive nuclear detonations is simply claimed and not fact, I have no issue with it. Jtrainor 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue with S-400_Triumf is absolutely the same. I did provide you sources you did provide me phrase "I will continue to revert your attempted POV-pushing" The diff [99]Necator 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As mentioned above, this is not a content dispute forum. We only deal with cases of Wikiquette, which this has ceased to be. If you're interested in getting someone to give you an opinion on a content dispute, please try WP:3O or Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* Works for me. Necator wanted to bring you folks into this, not I. Jtrainor 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in that I agree with Bfigura. This is a content dispute, more or less, so it's not WQA material, but I would say that a source is a source, especially when we say "____ claims that ____" - trying to contradict a sourced claim (especially one like this) with an unjustified claim should be reverted, and it shouldn't be re-added until a source is found for this "it is physically impossible" statement. There's no burden on the editor to prove the claims of the Russian government. --Cheeser1 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of that? [100] Sources were provided and once again changed to original research. So, i can not agree that this is content dispute. There is no dispute at all. There are sources from one side and reverting from another. I've change the template back Necator 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Has the S-400 been tested against or shot down a stealth aircraft or not? If it has not (it hasn't), then any claims to it's performance against stealth aircraft are just that, -claims-. Jtrainor 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor - it's not up to Necator to verify the claims that can already be verified in reliable sources. It's also not up to him to prove your assertions wrong. You are making the fallacy of assuming things without evidence, based on your belief that statements to the contrary require proof. This is not valid. Certainly, we expect something to be physically impossible until it is known or proven to be possible. But you have no proof of its physical impossibility, nor do you have a source saying so. That means there's no basis or source for your claim]. (Here I'm referring to the missile thing, but it's the same across the board.) If you want to call attention to the fact that these are claims, or that these assertions (despite being in reliable sources) are not scientifically proven, then maybe you can discuss making such a change, and if others agree, then do it. Pushing those disputed changes on the article isn't going to help. Please abide by these policies. --Cheeser1 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious you are only paying attention to one aspect of this dispute. Unless you're going to look at BOTH articles and Necator's history on both of them, I have nothing more to say to you about this as you are not paying attention. Jtrainor 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor: I'd like to reiterate what was said further above: Wikiquette Alerts is a forum for resolving interpersonal disputes and difficult communication brought on by violations of Wikipedia's civility policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc) and guidelines (WP:COOL, WP:POT, et al). We are not in a position here to resolve content disputes or to take sides in matters of content - if one of us can contribute to a content dispute, we will take it up in the appropriate article talk page. In short, WQA is here to help people get along and to educate them on WP civility policies - to help cool you guys down and get you back to a point where you can discuss the matter civilly.

If the situation is such that one person is pushing POV and ignoring consensus (I haven't read the whole discussion, so I can't judge), a more appropriate forum would either be WP:AN/I or WP:RFC/U, depending on the severity. Please also consult the dispute resolution page for more information on the overall process and the various options available to you. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding a rude editor

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.188.24.125 has been insulting me nonstop despite my trying to calmly explain something to him and I'm just wondering why such a rude person is allowed here to begin with. I'm not the first person he's shown a bad attitude to. He's very egotistical, ill-mannered and obviously lacks the ability to show common courtesy to others. Wouldn't it be better for the site if he was permanently banned? Bokan 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan

In general, IP's are only banned in severe cases due the risk of collateral damage (i.e., if the IP is dynamic, innocent bystanders can get whacked). That said, I'll leave a warning on the talk page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed here - even anonymous people who are rude. Until they are banned, they are still welcome on Wikipedia. This user seems extraordinarily disruptive, and may require more banning - possibly: it may be difficult or inappropriate, since it's an anonymous IP contributor (which might ban more than one person, even innocent parties who share a computer). Based on the conversation on his/her talk page, the editor may have no intention of obeying WP:CIVIL, so I don't know if we can help. If the user vandalizes any page or does anything else actionable, you may request administrator action at the administrator's noticeboard. However uncivil his comments here might be, please keep in mind: (1) your edits are original research and actually don't belong in that article and (2) you brought up his/her past editing history (which may not even belong to the same person) as a way of discrediting him/her in the content dispute - this is actually a violation of etiquette guidelines. Clearly this user has a history of incivility, and has made no exception with you, but responding with incivility back-and-forth isn't going to help. --Cheeser1 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Try AN/I or Arbcom given the severity of the issues and the history of the editor. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have recently walked into an ongoing "feud" spread over several articles between a number of users, one of which is a subject of a current arbitration case (Liancourt Rocks). I call this a "feud" because of the persistant animosity displayed by this editor against those who he does not agree with, whom he subject to automatic POV labelling. For example, arguments presented on the basis of WP:NPOV are repeatedly only met with accusations that editors are "using WP:NPOV to further their agenda" [101]. He even goes as far as to refuse a RfC on the basis that the general Wikipedia community is biased [102]. He publically states his disdain for other editors [103] and persistantly resorts to uncivil / childish language in response to perfectly reasonable comments [104][105][106][107][108][109][110].Phonemonkey 14:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

An arbitrator has proposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Proposed decision that this user be banned from the entire project for a year, so the matter has probably gone beyond the point where a Wikiquette alert is going to be helpful. If extreme disruption continues, you can post to WP:ANI for an admin to consider a block, or request a temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop. Newyorkbrad 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

Stuck

 – Parties involved do not seem willing to mediate - please escalate via WP:DR, or drop, as deemed appropriate

I haven't always agreed with Tony, but I've long respected him and valued his contributions. This is why I'm quite distressed to find myself unable to resolve a dispute that evidently arose for no reason other than the fact that we disagreed with one another. I've tried very hard to communicate with him in a courteous manner, only to find all such attempts rejected. I want to once again be on good terms with Tony, and I seek advice on how to accomplish this (and hopefully avoid further conflict in the future).
The dispute began at Phil Sandifer's talk page, where I was expressing my disapproval of Phil's decision to overturn a bureaucrat's closure of Kelly Martin's RfA. Tony expressed strong disagreement with me (which was fine), but he did so in an uncivil manner. Eventually, the discussion migrated to Tony's talk page and began to have less and less to do with the RfA. The original thread (up to the point at which Tony removed it from the page) is preserved here. The most recent replies were posted after said removal (which occurred while I was asleep). I brought this to Tony's attention, and he declined to continue the discussion.
My perception of the events that followed is conveyed in a reply that I posted to Tony's talk page earlier today. I now reproduce it below (following the message to which I was responding):

---

I shall not apologise for saying that to tell an editor in good standing that he cannot edit a wiki page is unbelievably stupid. Certain editors should be bloody well ashamed of their conduct towards others, and I will not be hounded to withdraw this well founded opinion, by the fact that the despicable conduct has now been turned on me for saying that they're wrong, These attacks disgust me as they should disgust all Wikipedians. Further attempts to hound me will also be ignored. Clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to note that from my perspective, this isn't even about the RfA any longer. Speaking purely for myself, I never once requested that you alter your opinion or apologize for expressing your belief that people were wrong. I merely argued my own opinion, which you then referred to as "disgusting," bullshit," "idiocy" and "pure wankery" (while removing the discussion before I'd had an opportunity to respond). You also referred to the closing bureaucrat and other unspecified editors as "loonies."

When I attempted to politely discuss my concerns regarding the above, you removed my message (which you deemed "utterly unacceptable") and took it upon yourself to also remove a good-faith discussion (once again labeled "wankery") from Phil Sandifer's talk page. When I politely requested that you explain how my previous post was unacceptable, you removed that message as well (this time claiming that I was "badgering" you).

I find it remarkable that you would accuse others of attempting to silence your opinions while simultaneously purging (and refusing to address) all criticisms directed toward you (and engaging in blatant incivility and personal attacks against everyone with whom you disagree).

As you condemn other users' "despicable conduct" and demand that they clean up their acts, I once again ask that you step outside of your glass house and examine your own behavior. I assume that you shall remove this response (presumably with a rude edit summary), and I can only hope that the Tony Sidaway I've long respected, defended and supported soon returns to the wiki. —David Levy 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Sure enough, Tony removed the message (with the edit summary "More attacks and false accusations ignored as promised.").
As noted above, what frustrates me the most is that this is not some random editor. If it were, I wouldn't bother pursuing the matter. But this is Tony Sidaway, and I hate being on bad terms with him. I don't believe that I've engaged in "attacks and false accusations," but I welcome any advice concerning where I've gone wrong and what I can do to resolve this dispute. I'm inviting Tony to take part in this discussion and convey his viewpoint (which obviously differs from mine). Thanks in advance for any assistance that you're able to provide. —David Levy 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, my off the top advice is to drop it. What he's taking your comments and questions for now is harrassment, and will not respond to it. So, if you drop it, in two months after the issues is dead and gone he might see that you had a valid point, but not if you bring it up. He will need to come to this realization himself. good luck. --Rocksanddirt 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm displeased by some of Tony Sidaway's comments and tone in the past two days, but it seems clear from his last edit that he is disdainful and dismissive of this forum and/or of the concern that has been expressed, so I am not convinced that further discussion here will be productive. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in seeing the edit history on this topic (including seeing it removed by the party in question and then restored with an edit summary saying that the WQA forum itself should be deleted) that it doesn't seem further discussion here will be helpful. Marking as Stuck. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already made my extreme distaste for this issue plain, and have asked the offending party to stop hounding me. He persists despite my every attempt to make it absolutely plain that I regard his attacks on others, and on myself when I intervened, as unacceptable. Carrying it to this forum is hard for me to regard as other than an attempt to keep this bleeding sore open. I strongly urge David Levy to stop trying to rake over this extremely painful matter, and hope that others will enjoin him to disengage, too. I myself have made every effort,without being intrusive about it, to communicate my extreme pain over David's conduct to him. He will not take the hint. My disgust remains but I expressed it and want to move on. Hopefully David will stop hounding Phil Sandifer, too, but it will be noted that I have not harassed David in any way. I ask him to extend the same courtesy to me. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Can someone (I use that term because Tony obviously isn't interested in continuing this discussion.) provide some diffs for these "attacks" that I've allegedly perpetrated? If I have written something that constitutes an attack, I want to know about it (as that certainly wasn't my intention).

2. Is it crazy for me to believe that our policies regarding civility and personal attacks are important and must be followed? Am I wrong to feel that Tony has no right to hurl such insults and then declare the conversation finished (claiming that anyone who expresses concern is harassing him)?

Was it unreasonable for me to attempt to discuss my concerns with Tony on his talk page? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

Not once have I called Tony any names or accused him of acting in bad faith. I made it very clear that it was my respect and appreciation that led me to pursue amicable conflict resolution, and he responded by referring to me as a "troll" (as he removed this thread). Where have I gone wrong? I'm doing my best to set things right, and I'm truly depressed over my failure to do so. —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)