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

User:Tezza1 disruptive editing pattern

Stale

User:Tezza1 persists using disruptive editing Railpage Australia. The user is strongly anti the subject of the article, has openly stated he does not believe the article should exist and campaigned for its deletion in an AfD. The AfD decision having been keep, the user engaged in disruptive editing to devalue the content by adding unencyclopedic content, and "warning" that the article could be nominated for deletion again for containing unencyclopedic content. Further actions include repeatedly adding and restoring unencyclopedic content, demands not to remove unencyclopedic content, accusations of COI for anybody adding new information to the article, threats to invoke WP:3RR for users removing unencyclopedic content he has added, unilateral reverts of collaborative edits to a non-consensus version, agenda pushing, WP:POINT and listing an article for speedy deletion immediately after it was unprotected. The Null Device 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Null. I am looking over the edit history and am responding to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1. I see clear evidence of numerous policy violations by this user, as well as possible sockpuppetry. I believe that, for the most part, you and the other editors in that article have remained civil and have kept the discussion on topic, and for that you should be commended. I did leave a note in the Talk page against one set of comments that stepped over the line with respect to WP:NPA, but otherwise, I agree with your assertion about Tezza1's disruptive patterns.

If the RFC/U against Tezza1 fails to resolve the conflict, your next step may be to take this to Arbitration. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it sounds like you all have taken reasonable steps to resolve this issue already, and they haven't worked thus far.

Good luck, and let me know if I may be of any further assistance. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, It's a content dispute about a commercially owned site passing itself off as something else.I've only said it should be encyclopedic. As it stands parts of the article could be considered as spam WP:SPAM. As for the user The Null Device, he is only a recent participant (from 23rd July) in editing this article [1], no doubt because I submitted the article for independent Peer Review on the 19th July as his flood of edits occurred after 23rd of July which I consider was a blocking strategy. My complaints about this users editing "flood" and report to the COI noticeboard, probably explains why he posted his complaint here. This user has yet to follow the first three steps of the dispute resolution guidelines [2]Tezza1 13:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to respond to this point by point:

1. There is a longer history between you and other editors on that page than has involved Null Device - this is true. However, it appears that Null Device is simply continuing the dispute resolution process against you that was taken up by previous editors - therefore, he is not required to go through other methods first. Plus, WQA is actually listed as one of the first dispute resolution methods anyway, so I need to ask, what's the problem with what he's doing?
2. COI is a serious allegation - almost as serious as harassment and libel. As such, you need to have significant proof that a person is in a conflict-of-interest situation when you go to report them to the COI noticeboard. Given what I was able to see in the situation, you've leveled this accusation against quite a few people in the Railpage article, and that seriously detracts from our ability to assume that you're editing in good faith.
3. As has been pointed out multiple times, whether a site is owned by a commercial company has no bearing on the site's own profitability status. Non-profit organizations are very frequently owned and overseen by commercial companies, but that does not automatically make them for-profit, commercial organizations. I don't know the specifics about Railpage Australia, so I can't speak to this particular situation from a content standpoint.
4. It appears that there is a strong consensus among other WP editors there, and you appear to be consistently rejecting that consensus, resorting to WP:NPA and accusations of WP:COI in an attempt to discredit those editors. I would strongly advise that you stop going along that route.

I hope this helps clarify the situation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Null Device has been a participant since March, not 23 July.[3][4] The article is not considered WP:SPAM as it has been nominated for {{db-spam}} on several occasions (including by Tezza1[5]) and this was rejected by administrators. His actions display many of the characteristics of problem editors. The COI accusation against the regular editors of a page he actively campaigned to get deleted is bordering on harassment. This seems like a campaign to discredit not just the regular editors but anybody who doesn't agree with him, including Wikipedia itself. He did not take the RFC seriously, described the dispute process as "BS"[6] and did not accept the offer of mediation. Thin Arthur 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I have to repeat yet again that the so-called "flood" of edits were collectively a series of collaborative bold edits taking into the account the collective opinions expressed in the then most recent AfD debate and on the talk page. Tezza1 then unilaterally reverted these reliably sourced changes. To quote WP:TE, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption."[7] That is the basis of this WQA. The Null Device 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment In response to KieferSkunk coments.

1. Maybe someone can jump into recent discussion and lead the dispute resolution process. I'm not an Wikipedia expert in this, but one administrator has said this was premature and other had the The Null Device withdraw [8][9].
2. Yes COI is a serious allegation, but recent edits and discussion about technical details is more than a passing interest in the article. It's more than "the average man in the street would know" or be of interest to.[10][11]
3. True, many commercial organizations have "non profit" ventures. But the difference here is that it is usually the norm to set up an separate transparent structure such as a trust and register for non profit status under Federal and State Government laws. Railpage seems intertwined with its owner [12]. An example of a commercial organisation setting up a non-profit venture is Ronald McDonald Charities [13] - interesting to note they have an "written like an advertisement" tag in their article (03 Aug). I have asked other users to provide evidence for Railpage "non commercial status" [14]. To this date they have not. Asking for "donations" by a commercial organization like Railpage Australia [15] , is technically a "voluntary payment for service". There is no transparent disclosure process where the donated money actually goes, and any "donations" would be classified as income generated by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd [16] and subject to tax. I have even tried to compromise, stating "Commercial - Yes, Free membership, Voluntary payment for service"[17]. ALL this discussion, just for ONE box [[18]]in the top right hand corner of the article!!!!
4. I consider the number of active "contributors" in the Railpage article could be counted on one hand.

Tezza1 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot respond directly to point #3, as it involves more detailed information about Railpage Australia than I have handy. But I'll respond to the Wikiquette issues:

2: There is a difference between being well-informed and having a conflict of interest. Let me give you another example: I am heavily involved in WikiProject Video games, and I have made a lot of edits of a highly technical nature to many of the game articles within that project. I have what you can call much more than a "passing interest" and "street-level knowledge" about many of those games and the machines they run on. However, that does not automatically mean I have a Conflict of Interest in those articles, as I do not work for any of the companies that made those games (I did work as a tester on Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge, so there's POSSIBLY a remote COI there, but not within the scope of WP's policies), and furthermore I have no vested interest in publishing any specialized content that only I would know about.

The editors you've accused of COI on the Talk page have all had reasonable explanations about their involvement with Railpage - namely, they are members on the Railpage forums and/or they've volunteered some of their time with the organization; they found technical details straight from the Railpage site itself or from other publicly accessible sources (in other words, the information they put up was NOT insider info); and they have made it clear that they are not intimately involved with the organization's inner workings.

4: The number of currently active contributors to the article does not have any direct bearing on the state of consensus. Looking through the history of the Railpage Australia article and related articles, I've seen more than a dozen different people contribute, and it appeared until fairly recently that they had reached a consensus on much of the article content there. Now, just because a consensus exists doesn't mean it can't be changed - WP:CON is very clear on this point. But when a consensus exists, the onus is on you to change it through meaningful, fair and balanced discussion, and what I've observed from you, Tezza1, is a tendency to simply reject the consensus and attempt to discredit the other editors, rather than to discuss the matter in a civil and fact-based manner. In effect, you have put yourself in a possible position of Conflict of Interest, but more to the point, you have made it difficult for discussion to take place there.

Again, I hope this clarifies the situation somewhat. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You were willing to comment on "commerciality" before, so why can't you make a comment now? Yes, you are correct, that I reject the "consensus" on the main point (commercial) even though I disagree strongly with some elements (not all!!) of the article, If you look at the recent history I have refrained from editing content in the actual article. The purpose of the discussion page is the discuss and debate!!!! Arguments against the consensus should be allowed even if people don't agree with a POV. As long as its non defamatory, and backed up by creditable online references, it should be allowed. Even the editing war back in March 2007 was about an incident was supported by documentary evidence (newspapers and the Railpage Forum itself), I did not originally post that information on Wikipedia, but I supported and argued its inclusion. Look at my comments on the discussion page, have I not put references and links to support my arguments?. On a closing note, to use a legalistic term, I have stepped out of the "arena" in the Railpage article, KieferSkunk, based on some comments made, you unintentionally seem to be descending into it.Tezza1 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing commerciality from a general standpoint, and simply pointing out what other editors had already said in the article. However, I am not qualified to make a judgement about whether Railpage Australia IS commercial or not. That's the distinction. And I am purposefully limiting my comments to discussing the manner in which you pursued the discussion, not the content of the discussion itself. That's all I am attempting to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This WQA has been sitting idle for a while. Anything more going on with it? Or should I mark it as stale? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has been very disruptive with a negative POV, does anybody have any idea's or further comments? Is WP:PROB too early at this stage?203.122.101.142 09:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than what's already pointed out above, can you cite any specific examples? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, there is an FAQ article on Railpage that states where the donations go to. Read it: http://www.railpage.com.au/faq-1.htm#80 Doctorjbeam 01:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving this comment on Tezza1's User talk page, as he may not be reading this WQA anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:KieferSkunk He'd be better off reading this COI User:Doctorjbeam and taking note of it, given time I have a few more fish to fry, including one who spends most of his active day editing Wikipedia. Tezza1 13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't see how other people's editing habits are any of your business or why it's your job to "fry" them. Thin Arthur 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple disputes involving B9 hummingbird hovering

Stale

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

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

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

• 2 August (5:02) User:B9 hummingbird hovering inserts the Bucknell et. al. book into the References section, but it is not used in any footnote or otherwise mentioned: [19]
• 2 August (5:04) Since WP:LAYOUT calls for the References section to contain only works cited in Notes, I remove the uncited book: [20]
• 2 August (9:27): Book is reinserted, this time with a quote: [21]
• 2 August (12:56) User:IPSOS removes the quote as irrelevant to the article: [22]
• 2 August (13:23) Book is reinserted: [23]
• 2 August (15:44): User:GourangaUK reverts insertion as inappropriate and requests discussion on talk page: [24]
• 3 August (1:51): Book is reinserted: [25]
• 4 August (04:50): I remove the materia as irrelevant and note that it is being inserted on multiple articlesl: [26]
• 4 August (13:18) Book is reinserted, with personal attack on me: [27]
• 4 August (13:55) User:IPSOS removes the content as irrelevant, noting lack of consensus: [28]
• 4 August (14:15) Material is reinserted: [29]
• 4 August (22:51) I remove it, categorizing it as content spam: [30]

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

• 2 August: B9 hummingbird hovering Creates page for the book The Twilight Language: [31]
• 2 August: Five_Dhyani_Buddhas: [32]
• 2 August: Om_mani_padme_hum: [33]
• 2 August: Chakra: [34]
• 2 August: Mandala: [35]
• 3 August: Yantra: [36]
• 4 August: Mudra: [37]
• 4 August: Mantra: [38]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here is a fresh example of WP:OR: [39].
• Here is a fresh addition of unsourced content which conflicts with the basic facts in the article: [40]. Buddhipriya 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Stale

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

I posted the following message to WP:AN:

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

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

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

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

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

Stale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Children of the Century

Stale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad feeling between User:Canadian Paul and Ryoung122

Resolved

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

The initial exchange in Wikiquette alerts

==User:Canadian Paul, part I==

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

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

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

===Canadian Paul's Response===

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks include:

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

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

===RYOUNG122's RESPONSE===

Actually, I JUST FOUND MORE EVIDENCE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==User:Canadian Paul, part II==

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

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

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

More background information:

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

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

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

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

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

2. The article was nominated for deletion here:

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

3. User Canadian Paul turns the discussion personal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryoung122 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

6. I respond.

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

+ ==Bad Faith Accusation==

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

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

Now, back to the remainder of your note:

I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles,

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

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

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

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

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

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

All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, where do we go from here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===Additional Information===

Greetings,

In regards to this posting:

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

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

===Additional Response===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but you have continued to attack me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User: Anynobody

Resolved

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

This person is one of the regular editors on Barbara Schwarz. The other day he made a couple of comments on the talk page which seem to show hostility towards the person who is the subject of the article and to other editors. The tone of them, to me, seems almost to that of threats: One to report a person to INS and the other to reveal "secret" information to discredit the person. [41] [42] -Steve Dufour 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue is resolved, clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fashion Icon

Resolved

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

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

Certainly. They are as follows (look at the edit and the summary): [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], this one particularly, [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] in response to [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. I can produce about 7 more if desired.--Rambutan (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Accusations of sock-puppetry

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threats and Power abuse

Resolved

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

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

Possible incivility by User:Bakasuprman

Stuck

I've been involved in some editing conflicts with User:Bakasuprman, and I find some of his contributions to our discussions a bit uncivil. Bakasuprman is upset with me, primarily because I endorsed his indefinite block on WP:ANI in April 2007; the discussion is here. The matter went to Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2), which found no grounds for blocking Bakasuprman, and he remains an editor in good standing. Another reason for Bakasuprman to be upset with me is a discussion I initiated on ANI (here) in July 2007 that lead to him being briefly blocked for edit warring.

While it's understandable that he dislikes me, I find some of Bakasuprman's comments towards me vexing, and possibly in violation of WP:CIVIL. The latest examples can be found on my user talk page and User talk:FCYTravis; for instance this comment, accusing me of religious bias and being a "maladroit hack", following my restoration of a talk page comment at Talk:Romila Thapar, and this comment, where the link to Hanlon's Razor is apparently supposed to mean that I am idiotic, not malicious.

This is not an isolated occurence; ealier Bakasuprman called me "uneducated, dishonest, and irrational", as well as apparently accusing me of anti-Hindu bias (full discussion here).

What I'm looking for here is primarily some outside perspective: is this kind of discourse the kind of thing I should expect on India-related pages, as Bakasuprman contends? (n.b, after his statement that "Editors of India related articles are always incivil" he later said that "its rhetoric", so that is not an acknowledgement of incivility.) If so, I should just suck this up, or remove the few India-related pages I edit from my watchlist? On the other hand, if, as I think, Bakasuprman's comments are outside the bounds of civility, I'd appreciate it if someone else would let him know; he doesn't seem too inclined to accept my input. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Its obvious you are on a witch-hunt since I obviously should have been banned. I dont deal with abuse nicely, and will refuse to interpret WP:CIVIL in a manner which allows facilitators of admin abuse to whine about incivility. I have not been legitimately blocked since september 2006, and the recent defecations on my block log are in no small part to akhilleus personal crusade against myself.Bakaman 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is "defecations" actually the word you wanted, or is this a typo? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If so, it's a typo he makes with surprising regularity. Hornplease 04:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Its disturbing to note that Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs) is probably editing right now while Akhilleus, entrusted with the admin tools to serve the 'pedia is using a questions semantics to facilitate a witchhunt against users in good standing. Defecation, yes.Bakaman 04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman routinely gets called names and abused all the time by one side (your side?) of a particular divide (see his userpage). And I havent seen you use your good offices to try and put an end to it. And on that page you were restoring a comment that was clearly in bad taste. And like you concede yourself, you supported an indef on him on the most bogus grounds(as the arbcom pointed out). So stop trying to appropriate the moral high ground for yourself. Sarvagnya 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has ever called Bakasuprman a name that remains an editor in good standing. People are routinely polite to him and requestful of civility, which he fails to return. Unless you can substantiate your justification of his abysmal behaviour with diffs, I suggest you withdraw that.Hornplease 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The amount of self-delusion required to make such a statement like that is amazing. Dbachmann seems to still be here, even after utilizing politically charged terms and racial slurs. Of course, dab is not incivil, because he is not a "Hindu nationalist communalist sockpuppeting troll". Hornplease has a big axe to grind here, so Bakaman 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Presenting past evidence of your incivility is hardly grinding an axe on this page. (Thank you for linking to that evidence, by the way.) Both dab's comments you've linked to indicate that you are considered a single purpose account; that in itself is not incivil. I still await substantiation of the claim that Baksuprman is exposed to incivility on a daily basis. He is not; judging by the comments on this page, he seems to labour under a delusion that he is being persecuted by a cabal of tendentious editors and racist admins. Such a delusion is not a basis for the abandonment of a core policy. Hornplease 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not incivil? Dab really does not need a wikilawyer. Incivility is something you create by misrepresneting statements made by myself and other users. Those who you are in agreement, such ads dab are not incivil. Those who you ideologically are opposed to are reoutinely dubbed "incivil" which has turned into a term of doublespeak. I am exposed to incivlity on a daily basis, an insight into my userpage history would establish this. The "core principle" is being misrepresented for ideological gain by users such as Hornplease, who have much to gain with the loss of constructive editors from the India pages.Bakaman 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this edit summary is just another example of the level of discourse we can expect in this area of Wikipedia, where WP:CIVIL does not apply. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sad, and true. Note that Bakasuprman has indicated nothing in the above statement except that he believes that these concerns about civility are the product of 'misrepresentation'. And as for being exposed to incivility, all of us face trolling regularly. As I pointed out earlier, trolling by anons or users subsequently banned is no excuse for incivility to users in good standing, none of whom are rude to Bakasuprman. Note, finally, his dismissal ofthis entire process here. Unless he is told sternly that random incivility and motive-questioning poisons the atmosphere here, he will continue in his ways. Hornplease 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It stands to note that the only two editors pressing the issue are editors that wish me banned and have broken Wiki rules multiple times to attempt to do so. Masquerading as a "concerned user" and presenting oneself as a victim really adds an emotional touch. "Bakasuprman is a demon that deals with everyone incivilly" is nothing short of misrepresentation and defamation. The policy on civility is not objective. Users trying to gain the upper hand in conflict take advantage of the subjectivity of the policy to stifle discussion and engage in ad hominem demonization. This case is nothing short of caprice, considering this "process" has been hijacked by partisans hoping to broadcast their opinions.Bakaman 04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a single "wiki rule" I have broken to "attempt" to ban you. I am not even sure whether a reply is warranted here, as it should be obvious by now from this discussion alone that ad hominem attacks on you are not the rule; instead, you continue to be engaged by established editors with the patience and good faith that is mandated by our core policies. (Nobody, for example has called you a "demon".) Incidentally, wikilink to 'objective' aside, your complaint about the subjectivity of policy has completely mystified me. Hornplease 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral editors reviewing this post may also like to comment on this revert by Akhilleus.nids(♂) 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman has announced on several occasions that "civility does not apply" in contentious areas of Wikipedia. (Contentious areas are anywhere he edits.) My last words on the subject - when he repeated this "defense" yesterday, which Sarvagna seems to share - are here: [59]. Please do read them. Hornplease 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If holders of virulent bigotry continue to be praised when editing, some mildly charged rhetoric is nothing to worry about.Bakaman 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is great Hornplease. All Bakasuprman stated was "willfully making false statements" and there is a long line of commentary by you and Akhilleus. When we take a look at a larger diff around the same discussion [[60]] we Restating something in different words--how is this now uncivil? Kkm5848 11:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Civility is an official policy in Wikipedia. It is always something to worry about. It can be hard to remain civil in a highly charged atmosphere; but there is no excuse whatsoever for dismissing this as a minor consideration.
• No personal attacks is an official policy in Wikipedia. You are not permitted to throw around accusations of virulent bigotry. If virulent bigotry is impacting upon articles, you must deal with that through appropriate channels, and not by just making personal attacks on the bigot. If a virulent bigot is making personal attacks themselves, then deal with that through appropriate channels, not by attacking in return. Otherwise, if the bigotry is not affecting articles and not leading to attacks, then I am afraid the official Wikipedia editing policy applies; anyone can edit.
• Assume good faith is a behavioural guideline. It is not set in stone; there can be exceptions and common sense applies. But the idea is a fundamental principle, and exceptions are never a basis for disregarding the official policy on civility and no personal attacks.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Hornplease brings up uncivility and violation of WP codes of conduct when he takes part in much the same. Hornplease has routinely pushed his pov on the Hindu Students Council page and posted citations in bad faith [[61]] and removed WP:RS sources w/o discussion [[62]]. I don't edit all that much on WP, but do notice improper behavior when I see it. Kkm5848 10:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is about incivility. Your remarks about POV-pushing are not striclt relevant, like BAkasuprman's similar ones above. (Incidentally, if anyone's interested, those articles need massive cleanup.)Hornplease 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment is in regards to the person bringing the charge of incivility on another editor of WP. And specifically, the person bringing the charge frequently violates WP policy and thus does not have a lot of credibility in bringing up charges against another user. Kkm5848 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Akhilleus has a lot of credibility. If you cannot point to these 'frequent violations' of WP policy, perhaps you should withdraw that. Hornplease 18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In the same vein that The Onion has credibility among the journalism community, so too does Akhilleus among this community.Bakaman 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This thread is making me wonder about this noticeboard's utility. Instead of getting outside comment about the issues at hand, this thread is simply offering Bakasuprman another venue to cast aspersions on my character, credibility, etc. If we're not going to get any comments from uninvolved parties, this "discussion" ought to be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree. It's apparent by the ongoing argument here and the fact that Duae Quartunciae's comments above about civility policies were almost completely ignored, that continued discussion on this board will probably not accomplish much. We can only help mediate when all parties involved are interested in resolving the dispute. We cannot really help when one or more parties are still jabbing at each other throughout the process. I would recommend you move on to a higher form of dispute resolution, such as informal or formal mediation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendation--but my understanding is that dispute resolution is for article content. This is an interpersonal issue that has almost nothing to do with any Wikipedia article. Do you still think mediation would be an appropriate way to deal with this? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process also applies to interpersonal disputes. Check out WP:RFC/U. And the mediation processes are there mainly to help resolve issues between editors, so hopefully they can help you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really think a WP:RFC/U is likely to attract univolved editors, but thank you for the advice. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Stale

For some time I am having a discussion with this user. During that time he felt the need to refer to me as "troll", "POV-pusher,"[63] and more such compliments.

Nevertheless, I had the impression we were finding compromise. Then out of the blue he starts making ad hominems regarding my person and apparently has decided to invoke all kind of abusive editors to evade discussing his unsupported edits. For some reason he insist on mentioning those disruptive contributors in a totally unrelated RFC[64] to support his view that the UN charter can be ignored by the Bush administration. The relevancy of these other and different discussions he fails to explain.[65] Also, he conspicuously states those discussions were on the same subject, eventhough it was him who first voiced the opinion the US is not bound by the UN charter and I never had that discussion with anyone else. Then of course his need to start a RFC on my person without even contacting me to see if that is needed, while invoking abusive WP:SPA GATXER seems unusual.[66]

Aside from this behaviour I find the deletion of extensively sourced material troubling.[67]

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

• Update: this user is now contacting uninvolved editors,[68][69] [70][71] he does not know and that I do not know, in an attempt to promote his idea to start an RFC on my person to resolve the content dispute he and I are having. His request admits that the users in question might not even know who I am! In the absence of any prior attempts at WP:DR would this not violate WP:HARASS, WP:POINT, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Stuck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violation by Spyke1077

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spam reversing on Ilinden Uprising group of perpetrators

Stuck

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

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

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

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

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

Capricornis 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behaviour by User:TharkunColl

Work in progress; comments welcome

Editor TharkunColl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems to have been causing undue disruption across a number of articles for some time now, including at English people, God Save the Queen, Passport, Commonwealth of Nations, Head of the Commonwealth, Monarchy in Canada, British monarchy, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Second city of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth realm, etc. There seems to be two main, though intertwined, issues with his overall actions:

1. TharkunColl's main modus of operandi is seemingly tactless and irrational reverting; in the edit summary he either offers no explanation at all, claims to be removing POV, or claims to be reverting vandalism, of which only the second reason could possibly be seen as valid.
2. Following on the above, when prompted to participate in discussion about that which he alleges is POV, TharkunColl simply dismisses presented evidence that contradicts his claims, and puts forward little to none in support of his view, thus making his edits original research. This obstinacy can, and has, resulted in ceaseless debate on talk pages, edit wars, page locks, and his being blocked from editing.

Overall, TharkunColl's moves show that he:

• is tendentious; continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopaedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
• rejects community input; resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
• has violated Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Hence, TharkunColl's general actions seem to place him squarely under WP:DISRUPT. His talk page and block log show some of the extensive evidence of his conduct.

WP:RFCC has been considered, however I wished to start this informal RfC first, and, perhaps, have others directly communicate with TharkunColl regarding his behaviour. --G2bambino 18:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - as User:TharkunColl's talk page is currently locked, I have not, as of yet, notified him of this posting. I will do so at the earliest possible opportunity. --G2bambino 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to have an 'Administrator' notify him (or allow you to notify him). GoodDay 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if the blocks and such haven't yet served as notice to him that his behavior is unacceptable, I'm not sure what additional good a WQA will do (i.e. a user who's already been blocked for disruptive editing isn't likely to respond positively to the kind of gentle reminders WQA volunteers typically leave). I'd refer this to RFC/U if it continues after the block expires. --Darkwind (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I considered RfC/U, however a minimum two people who have already previously contacted the user in question regarding his/her behaviour is required to file one. I currently have no such counterpart. Hence, I wanted to bring his actions to wider attention. Hopefully another editor discussing TharkunColl's attitude with him would be sufficient for him to take a second look at himself; yes, multiple warnings and blocks seem to have done little, but maybe - just maybe - a frank opinion expressed to him might work (?). If that does fail, then said other editor could thus be the second person required to file an RfC/U. --G2bambino 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is G2bambino's obsessive pushing of a certain POV across all pages relating to the British monarchy. This complaint here is part of a pattern of disruption that includes excessive arguing on talk pages, using all possible administrative processes (such as this one) to cause further annoyance, and general editing of articles to suit his POV. He calls for discussion on talk pages but often refuses to answer direct questions, hardly ever provides citations, and derides other people's citations as irrelevent or out of context. He instigates disruption on articles by inserting his POV, leading to edit wars and article locking. Almost every article he has altered in this way has been subject to disruption. TharkunColl 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there are more than enough citations in the relevant articles themselves to support what's inserted, either at the same article or elsewhere - and you should be aware that I didn't create all that content myself (I'm never sure why you continue to convince yourself of the opposite). You have been directed to said articles time and time again; that you refuse to either look at or accept the cited content therein is nobody's issue but your own.

And here is where the root of your issue lies: it is your arguments that are mostly unsupported by actual evidence, and, indeed, your edits that contradict other Wikipedia content. Your refusal to accept this, along with your personal attacks, revert wars, talk page trolling, and the like, is why I've started this process - I want to see it cease so that editing can be more productive. I want to see less annoyance, not more.

The record stands: by all four criteria of WP:DISRUPT, put together with your block log and comments on your talk page, you seem to be a disruptive editor. That's not to say you can't change, but as it stands, things don't look good. --G2bambino 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I essentially concur with Thark's assessment. User G2bambino (aka Gbambino/Gbambino06) has a long history as the epitome of a tendentious editor, going back to his inaugural attempt to put "Canada is a kingdom" into the opening of the article on Canada. While I don't condone some aspects of Thark's behaviour, G. is much the more disruptive of the two.
-- Lonewolf BC 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I caused shit early on in my time here; mostly out of ignorance of the processes of Wikipedia combined with bouts of tempermentality. I never claimed to be perfect. But, let's let the records speak for whom is more disruptive than whom - yourself included, Loner. --G2bambino 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In my observation you've never ceased to do so, but merely gotten craftier about it. However, let the full records say what they may to anyone else. -- Lonewolf BC 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

G2B is equal if not worse than tharkie, with his edit warring and downright bizarre views and changes to articles that would be misleading to readers. What tends to happen is G2B goes to an article and changes it according to his particular beliefs and obsessions. Then Tharkie comes across the article and changes it in line with his views/normal rather than convoluted views. These are in effect content disputes between these two editors in particular, over a range of articles with themes about the commonwealth etc. G2Bambino has been blocked for 3RR for this himself in the past over this. From what Lonewolf said above, as you can see I am not the only one with this opinion about the ongoing G2B vs tharkie issues. Call it a 'personality clash' or a clash of agendas/POVs.Merkinsmum 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's frustrating: here we have 'two' editors G2B & Tharky (both who obviously care about the accurarcy of 'Commonwealth' related articles) ripping each other apart. They have more in common then they both care to admit- 'strong willed', 'intelligent', 'demanding accurary', in otherwords 'well meaning editors'. If only the All are equal VS UK, first among equals schism could be sorted out. Perhaps both should take a break from those articles & see how the 'rest' of the Wiki community edits them. GoodDay 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he and I obviously face off often. However, he's been riling people up at other pages and has been blocked for his actions there as well as where he and I cross paths. --G2bambino 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The situaton can be assessed by G2B's own words "Yes, I considered RfC/U, however a minimum two people who have already previously contacted the user in question regarding his/her behaviour is required to file one. I currently have no such counterpart. Hence, I wanted to bring his actions to wider attention." i.e. No-one else objects to Tharkie's stance on this issue enough to upbrade him about it, and G2B has to go telling tales and canvassing in order to try and get someone to do so.Merkinsmum 21:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you actually have no evidence that counters what presently speaks for Thark's behaviour. --G2bambino 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You've provided no evidence yourself, though, it's just wingeing. Please provide diffs of what you claim he has done wrong, and no doubt dozens could be provided as examples of your bizarre behaviour too. My point is that tharkie might be stendentious but you are too. I don't have to defend thark it's up to you to back up your claim in the first place. Thark would not be petty and buerocratic enough to go round pages like this trying to get people in trouble that's for sure.Merkinsmum 13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

His talk page and block log are evidence enough, and both show he gets himself in trouble well enough without my help. I've already admitted that I'm no saint, but I think the main difference between he and I is that I can be reasoned with. I don't know if others have, but I've tried to reason with him, many, many times; unfortunately, to no avail. Thark continues with his anti-British paranoia, and to throw jabs at people even when they're generally being respectful in return; and those are just a couple of the things I know of him, editors who contribute to Second city of the United Kingdom or English people, or other articles would have other things to say. If he won't be reasoned with, what other options present themselves to bring a resolution to the ongoing problems? --G2bambino 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If I can offer an observation: I respect both TharkunColl and G2bambino as editors who do their research and offer useful comments. I have been in lengthy discussions with both of them. I have both agreed and disagreed with them on a number of points. From what I've observed G2bambino and TharkunColl clash frequently on many pages. They seem to argue most about the relationship of the UK monarchy with other Commonwealth monarchies: in particular, the Canadian one. In my opinion TharkunColl does seem to ignore some points and sometimes offers (in my opinion) irrational arguments. But on that score you could castigate many of not most editors at some point or another. On the other hand, if you stay with him long enough and patiently enough, he will address your points. G2Bambino, in his discussions with TharkunColl seems to assume motive and resorts sometimes to personal attacks. He also on occasion ignores valid points TharkunColl makes. They are both red rags to each other, as many talk pages show. I think this issue is more about a personal feud. Both parties are equally responsible for disruptions. I agree with GoodDay: if you read a lengthy exchange them, they actually agree on more than they argue about. And yes, following another good idea from GoodDay, why don't you (Tharky and G2) both retire temporarily from the UK vs equal monarchy thing and see how it plays out without you? You might be able to get some fresh perspective. --Gazzster 07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this issue of Thark's behavious goes well beyond his interactions with me; as I keep saying, his talk page and block log show well enough the wide range of his offences, and where they take place. My opening this discussion here wasn't the start of some personal vendetta.

That said, it seems you, Gazzster, and GoodDay should know that I'm not unaware of what Thark and I agree and disagree on; I thought this comment I made on his talk page clarified my position on the entire UK first/all equal situation between he and I.

But what he and I agree on is of minor consequence here; the main issue is that the UK first/all equal subject already has been debated by a wider group of participants; the majority of people saw, in each case, that there were no grounds on which to give the UK primacy beyond certain specific occasions. Thark's reasons for elevating the UK in every and all instances – the non-UK countries are colonies, they are "non-kingdoms," they have vice-regals, and so on – certainly were not accepted. It's the fact that Thark refuses to recognise these decisions, and, of course, any of the provided evidence that supports them, combined with the aggressive reverting, and NPOV and NPA breaches, that makes Thark generally disruptive.

I have, however, taken seriously people's observations here regarding me. I certainly hope Thark has done the same. --G2bambino 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated WP:ATTACK from Shinealight2007

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Jenin; Removal of maintenance tags, exhausting circular discussions

A long-simmering dispute at Battle of Jenin has seen much heat and little light over the past several weeks. A {{POV-check}} tag was added, belatedly, on 3 August, and I soon changed it to {{TotallyDisputed}}, which I thought was a more accurate characterization of the debate. (POV-check is generally for minor issues, such as when a new article is created by someone who doesn't feel they can be entirely neutral, and voluntarily asks for a "sanity check" by a second editor.) Anyway, the tag was reverted and unreverted a bunch of times over the next few days, without explanation, until User:Jaakobou argued on 6 Aug that we "did not open a talk page subsection explaining this dispute", and that "i see no reason for the orange tag except that one side is unhappy that they look bad with the material in the article". Myself and other editors discussed this and the tags seemed to stick.

Over the past 3 or 4 weeks the dispute has certainly not quited down; if anything, it's become more heated. Those who follow this board (and AN/I and even CSN) have probably cseen some fallout from it. Anyway, the point I'm making is that we seem to be getting further from consensus, rather than closer. This being said, User:Jaakobou removed the tags saying that "factuality has been established and there's no massive neutrality issues. feel free to open the issues on talk in separete subsections." (Actually, that's another issue here - Jaakobou has been aggressively trying to structure the discussion to his liking, moving around comments to "on" and "off" -topic sections, insisting that he won't comment in a section if he finds the title "NPOV", etc)

Anyway, I reverted the tag with the summary "re-add tags; the fact that some editors have been worn down or driven off by excessively circular talk page discussion does not mean that issues are "resolved"!", Jaakobou re-reverterd the tag with the summary "rv, i don't follow your commentary/edit summary - what factuality problems are you contesting exactly ?", and User:PalestineRemembered restored it saying "This is a hugely disputed article..Lead stuffed with inappropriate "context", written to the "minority view" eg over whether it was a massacre, lots evidence missing." I have given in and written an extensive summary of the POV problems with one paragraph, which I believe is very typical of the entire piece.

I'd like opinions on two issues:

1) Under what circumstances are maintenance tags removed? Whever I've done it, it's been by posting on the talk page and getting unanimous consent. I realize this may not be practically required in all cases, but I'd never dream of removing a tag when two or three editrs disagree, without having some overwhelming exceptional reason.

2) What do we do when a discussion simply goes on and on without any resolution? Is it just time for mediation? I'm worried that the extremely wearying nature of this discussion is driving people to leave, or at least seriously reduce their involvement - causing those editors who stay to jump in proclaiming that the dispute no longer exists.

Thanks, and I apologize for the length of the post, and for the summary which will necessarily exclude all kinds of details - this has been going on for 6 weeks at least, with at least 6 or 7 editors posting extensively, so I'm sure I've missed many things. Eleland 13:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of the discussion is based on who called it a massacre and when. This is not really relevant to an encyclopaedia article on a battle, which should focus on current knowledge of strategies used and casualties; as a method of defusing tension, I strongly suggest you all take a break and consider creating a sub-article on the earlier controversies about body count. That is certainly more in line with the expectations from the encyclopaedia; the media battle and the real-world battle were two different things. If nothing else, I find that focusing on too many things at once on a talkpage can lead to extra frustration. Hornplease 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, another reason we need some help. You're saying that we're focusing on too many different things, Jaakobou is saying that the disputes are only really narrow and minor. Eleland 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We might both be right if what the central foci of difference are (the polemics surrounding the use of the term 'massacre') are, in a sense, tangential to the real subject of the article. Hornplease 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

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

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

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

Ben & Jerry's flavors

Resolved

There has been a slight battle over at this page from Chunk Champion. He created and actively edits the article, but I stepped in to try to improve the page. Since then, he's fought me left and right on edits. The reason I bring this issue here is that we had a discussion over what to name the section that refers to the discontinue flavors. I went ahead and got a third opinion that seemed reasonable and went ahead and made the edits, and he reverted them and left a fairly inflammatory comment on the talk page. This whole thing seems to stem from his not understanding how Wiki ownership works, and it's starting to bug me. Where can I go from here? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I've read is the conversation on your talk page, in which he's perhaps slightly sarcastic, but not totally out of bounds. I suspect that the larger issue isn't any violation of WP:CIVIL, but rather of WP:OWN - and reading between the lines I can certainly see a possible ownership issue there. However, before I can comment on it, I'd need to see some diffs in which he reverted your edits for the sole apparent reason of protecting "his" version of the page (i.e. without making reference to policy or otherwise justifying his reversions). Once I see those, I may be able to discuss the issue with him. Sarcasticidealist 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. Since we got the third opinion today, he twice reverted my edits ([72] and [73]); previously, he reverted an edit when I removed trademark symbols ([74]). Beyond that, I guess it's just the stubbornness against change. I spent a bunch of time putting everything into a wikitable, and his comment was "Maybe next time you could contribute some actual content." — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one more addition. Even after the third opinion today, he twice reverted my edits. We're getting kind of close to 3RR, but I still think that the suggestion given in the third opinion should be made. Should I go back to third opinion, or take it to RfC? Seems like a big step for such a relatively minor issue... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page encouraging him to accept the change (which I personally think is clearly more in keeping with Wikipedia's policies than is "Flavor graveyard", although I'm not here to adjudicate content disputes). I've also asked him to confirm that, if an RFC results in a clear consensus in favour of "Discontinued flavors", he will honour it. I'd give him a chance to respond and, if he continues to insist on "Flavor graveyard", start an RFC.

I hope this is helpful. Sarcasticidealist 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Qasim

Resolved

We have a newbie, but really much a newbie either in User:Intothefire. Have tried not to bite the newbie to educate him and try to get him to learn to make good contributions etc. however he seems to always see a conspiracy around him and resorts to questions of bad faith. Can someone step in and see if they can make a difference before the mood changes and things get ugly. I am not quite sure how to deal with this further--Tigeroo 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Its amazing to see this post ....Tigeroo has been hounding my posts with deletions after deletions spanning various articles ...inspite of my engaging in discussion ...the discussion page of Muhammad bin Qasim is a good record of whats been going on . The tone of his message is telling !

cheers Intothefire 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. You're clearly having a huge content dispute, and you're almost certainly going to need to involve other editors in that. In the meantime, User:Intothefire needs to be clear on a few things:

• The deletion of sections of material qualifies as "vandalism" only if the intent is something other than to improve that article. Looking over this article, I think it is ludicrous to accuse User:Tigeroo of vandalism on it.
• Your accusation that User:Tigeroo is thwarting you by pulling out "obscure Wikipedia policies" is misplaced. While Wikilawyering is certainly discouraged, it is very important - especially in content disputes - to make sure that you are acting in accordance with policy. This also means that people arguing their cases on the talk pages should, wherever possible, use policy to explain why their preferred edits are desirable.
• Much of what you write is, in my opinion, in violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. These two policies are extraordinarily important, as it is no exagerration to say that the project would collapse if everybody showed the disregard for them that you have.
• When you are disputing edits made to an article other than Muhammad bin Qasim, your comments should be left on the talk page of the article in question, rather than on the bin Qasim talk page.
• Not everybody always gets their way on Wikipedia. The tool that is used to determine who gets their way is WP:CONSENSUS. On the article's talk page, three separate users other than User:Tigeroo (User:Ugen64, User:IP198, and User:Bless sins) express their support for Tigeroo's edits. This means that on this question, Tigeroo has consensus behind him, and it is inappropriate to attempt to overcome this consensus simply by re-inserting your own edits.

User:Intothefire, I think you have the potential to have a long and enjoyable career as a Wikipedia editor, but I can promise you that that will not happen if you continue along the road you're currently travelling. Instead, you will either find yourself banned or you will quit in disgust after concluding (falsely) that experienced editors have formed some sort of a cabal to block your edits. Please accept my advice in the spirit in which it is intended: suggestions for a relatively new editor to make his Wikipedia experience as pleasant as possible.

All of that said: User:Tigeroo, if this behaviour persists, you will have no choice but to bring it to the mediation and arbitration levels. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Sarcasticidealist 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you on the conclusions you have arrived ....!

but be aware that through the use of placing highly selective content from sources
then aggregration of such informations ,
of sources
, secondary sources
, construction
, deletion
and presentation
on this article as is being thrust by Tigeroo has generated a contorted comentry that provides a false depection of the subject .

I did not see an objection from you on the sources of the content I have provided which I would like to have seen ....since that is really at the crux of the debate ...do the informations , sources ,secondary sources provided by me stand the wikipedia test or not ?

I see an important pont here and that is the importance of form ....which can be improved !!, as to the rule on WP:CONSENSUS ...well when the spirit of concensus is being held hostage to the mob I dont see how this is going to be overcome on this article .

I think I see the way forward then is a bit by bit approach , hope you will be attentive through the debate then

My congratulations to you for the speed of response on this complaint by Tigeroo and the quick conclusions you arrived at.

Cheers
Intothefire 01:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: I'm not taking a side on the content dispute. I haven't followed the content dispute closely enough to have formulated a position, and that's not the purpose of WP:WQA anyway. I'm here only to discuss editors' conduct, and I am concerned that you

• have been making unfounded accusations of vandalism,
• are frequently violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF,
• are disregarding Wikipedia policy when it is cited to you, and not countering with citations of your own, and
• are disregarding WP:CONSENSUS.

The last item is the most troubling, because consensus is the basis of all decision-making at Wikipedia, and if an editor is unwilling to adhere to it, he is essentially refusing to participate in the Wikipedia community. Your suggestion that you are justified in ignoring consensus because it is "being held hostage to the mob" does not hold water; it is easy for any of us to attribute consensus going against us as being the fault of some cabal or mob, but that does not justify disregard of a core Wikipedia policy.

There is no point to arguing this. My perspective was requested, I provided it, and you are free to take or ignore my advice. I sincerely hope you will opt for the former, because it will prevent this dispute from being escalated to a messier level and because I think it will help you have a much more enjoyable career as an editor. But I don't pretend to be able to direct you to do anything. The decision is yours. Sarcasticidealist 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for feedback ,considering your strong response to me , would now appreciate your continued interest in the debate on the discussion page of the article as it is going to determine the going ons on the article and the questions of civilised debate you have pointed to me .

Cheers

Intothefire 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As is my habit, I'll continue monitoring the issue for a little while to see if my suggestions were helpful. I won't participate much in the talk page, and I certainly won't get involved in the content dispute (I'd be in well over my head in any event), but I will monitor the behaviour. So far, there does seem to be some small progress towards building consensus, so I'm hopeful. Sarcasticidealist 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Need your help .

I am surprised to find a huge big edit ...the last one on the Muhammad bin Qasim page ...which I have not made but the page is showing my username .There was a small edit that I did ....but most of what is appearing is not by me ..what does this mean ?? has someone got my password and used it or is it a technical problem ??
Please advise
Cheers
Intothefire 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the relevant diff? That will help us determine what's going on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Greg L's behavior on Kilogram

Work in progress; comments welcome

Kilogram is a class-B Vital article that Greg L has been doing an enormous amount of work on. Unfortunately, the user's behavior on the talk page shows signs of ownership. There was a fair amount of constructive, collaborative editing sparked by Greg L's contributions, but one exception was the response of other editors to the huge expansion of the "mass versus weight" section. I initiated a Request for Comments on the issue, but Greg L has stated the he is not interested in what other users on the page have to say, and he has been attacking other user's suitability to edit the page.

Involved parties:

User:Yath deleted the expansion very early

User:JimWae is engaged in editing and discussion on the talk page

User:Enuja I am engaged in discussion on the talk page

User:Greg L

I would like advice on how to make editing and discussion on this article constructive again. Enuja (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To the committee: I’m sorry you’ve been dragged into what I feel is a dispute over childish behavior. While I am quite interested in the consensus of reasonable people, by Enuja’s own admission no consensus had been reached on an issue of great interest to her (see record of dispute here). Nevertheless, in bad faith, she suggested that since no consensus had been reached, that this was evidence that one somehow had been reached and proposed action based on this false premise. In blunt terms, but ones that fall far short of a ‘prohibited’^[1] “personal attack,” I told her what I thought of that stunt. It is a dispute over this issue that underlies her claim that I am “not interested in what other users on the page have to say.”

Please note that I’ve recently done to Kilogram article what I had previously done to the Specific heat capacity article: I completely re-wrote it. And in the case of Kilogram I also created the CG illustration for it. Both articles had degraded to the point that they were difficult to read and had significant factual errors. Please see this positive reaction on Specific heat capacity’s talk page regarding that rewrite. I also engaged in professional and good-faith debate with other editors during that rewrite (see example). Here’s what the Kilogram article looked like before I started on it 22 days ago. The authors over on the Specific heat capacity article behaved very maturely, welcomed the improvements, and sought to assist (one of them even solicited my efforts to merge a now-redundant article into it).

However, my experiences on the Kilogram article have been entirely the opposite. A small group of the people—those cited above by Enuja—have seemingly not ‘warmed’ to a newcomer. One of them seemingly sought out conflict by following me to Kelvin just to make a bad-faith edit by flat deleting a table that had been in the article for years. He deleted it only nine hours after I had edited the table (I had restored it to full size after someone truncated it). This was very suspicious timing given that his previous edit to Kelvin had been a year prior. Further, his post to the Kelvin talk page betrayed an underlying annoyance with recent events over on Kilogram (see that discussion).

As regards Enuja’s claim of seeking advise and guidance from you to make “editing and discussion on this article constructive again,” that strikes me as disingenuous posturing in an attempt to appear as a wise source of reason who seeks only to avoid conflict. The same applies to her claim that I am displaying “signs of ownership”; I believe the true facts to quite the opposite. I am particularly galled by her above statement of…

“I initiated a Request for Comments on the issue, but Greg L has stated the he is not interested in what other users on the page have to say…”

She withdrew (deleted) her own Request-for-Comments form after having receiving insufficient interest from others in her “issue” and obtained mixed results from those who commented (see discussion). Further, I said nothing about not being interested in what she and the others had to say before she withdrew the form; quite the opposite, for I posted my best case and waited for others to weigh in. My ‘don’t care’ reaction was only after she falsely claimed a consensus and solicited JimWae to start deleting recent additions to the article. Her above allegation to you seriously mischaracterizes the true facts and seems nothing more than another attempt to garner support for her cause. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for years and can assure you that all good-faith edits by others are treated in the proper Wikipedia manner and any good-faith disagreements with other editors that are discussed on talk pages are debated professionally.

Respectfully, Greg L (my talk) 04:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I took some time today to read Talk:Kilogram, and what I see there is slightly disturbing in the sense that you all started out so well, but then it quickly degraded. Greg L (t c), I agree with Enuja (t c) insofar as your responses to her and to JimWae (t c) do indeed have the ring of "I worked hard on this, don't touch my stuff." From there, your responses also start to lose the appearance of "assume good faith." I don't see that she performed any kind of "wholesale deletion," especially since information is very rarely permanently deleted on Wikipedia (and such requires the intervention of oversight and/or developers to effect.) Rather, I see she was trying to follow WP:SUMMARY.

Wikipedia would not be where it is today without contributors like you, Greg, who take the time and effort to improve our coverage of scientific topics. However, Wikipedia would also not be where it is without editors like Enuja, who take the time to ensure that each article covers what it should, and valuable but misplaced information is relocated. You compared the article on Kilogram to a Britannica article, and said "it's nowhere near as long" and "Britannica articles have some depth." The beauty of Wikipedia (and the World Wide Web and hypertext in general) is that you don't have to have all of the information on one page for the article (and the encyclopedia) to have depth. If the information is moved to, say, mass or weight, then a brief summary can be left in summary style, and the bulk of the information can be moved to the most appropriate article where someone who wants to find out about the relation between mass and weight will logically look first. Nothing is lost by doing this, since it's just a simple click away. Personally, I enjoy the aspect of being able to open linked articles in a new tab for additional information when I'm done perusing the first article. The exploration of additional linked articles is part of what makes Wikipedia fun to learn from!

That being said, I also think you were a bit quick to call a "vote" on the Mass vs. Weight section (on 12 August). Discussion is indeed the correct first step, as Yath (t c) pointed out. Someone has an idea, you respond, they rebut, you rebut, and by then or there abouts, if neither of you changes your mind, THEN perhaps ask for a third opinion, or perhaps consider RFC or a vote. I am also deeply concerned by your comment, regardless of the circumstances, that you "[weren't] interested in what ... regular editors feel." Regardless of the size of the group of editors expressing a concern, how often they contribute to the article in question or scientific subject matters, or how experienced they are at Wikipedia, you should always be interested in what your fellow editors have to say. That's the basis of consensus and the operation of Wikipedia and any wiki in general.

Your response here also indicates a lack of AGF. There was indeed a lack of consensus from the RFC on keeping the information on mass vs. weight directly in the article. A lack of consensus doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a lack of action. Enuja's attempt to move the detailed information to the specific subject article(s) was supported already by WP:SUMMARY, and no consensus was needed on that from the RFC. I suspect she opened the RFC to see if there was consensus to support YOUR view that the information should remain in Kilogram, since you seemed upset by the idea of moving it, and if such a consensus had formed, then I believe she'd have left the information intact in Kilogram.

Basically, Greg, I think you need to learn to let go a bit and allow the wiki process to take its course. Correct any obvious scientific errors that are introduced, but please acknowledge that others have valuable contributions they can make—if not to the scientific information, then to the formatting and layout of the article. --Darkwind (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Darkwind: Thank you for taking the time to respond to this issue. Volunteers such as youself serve a very valuable service since unresolvable disputes can really ruin the Wikipedia experience. A third party can be just what it takes to break logjams.

Most of what you’ve said above seems like good, common-sense dispute resolution advise. I take issue with one observation you made: A lack of “AGF” (assuming good faith). It is inescapable that humans often behave in ways that are clearly childish or not in good faith. People can do bad things. Wikipedia can experience its share of all of this; you can I both know this. Any reasonable interpretation of, for instance, Yath’s behavior in following me to the Kelvin article looking to create conflict, would lead to the conclusion that this wasn’t in good faith. As I explained above in the third paragraph of my statement, his motives are unprovable, known only to him and God. I’ve carefully studied the timing of the edits he made to the article and his posts to the talk page. He hadn’t edited that article in the previous year. So in that particular case, considering the totality of the history preceding that, a simple common-sense test shows he very probably went looking for conflict with a provocative deletion. This is not a court of law where the burden of proof must be “beyond a reasonable doubt” before society revokes life and liberty. This is not a civil trial where liability to the tune of millions of dollars is established based upon the “preponderance of evidence.” For the purposes of interacting with other editors on Wikipedia, only one common-sense test can apply: treat others as you would have them treat you and assume good faith until they demonstrate otherwise. Once someone has violated that trust and does childish stuff, the “presumption of good faith” is no longer deserved. Greg L (my talk) 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take the time to examine Yath (t c)'s behavior outside of the comments that appeared from him on Talk:Kilogram. What you say in reference to him may very well be the case, that he had less than honorable motives in his edits to the various articles involved. However, what I was referring to you when I mentioned the concept of AGF was the portion of your response referring to Enuja's motives in opening a WQA. I don't see her behavior at all deserving of a re-examination of her motives; and to see it in that light would really require you to have dropped your good-faith assumption about her behavior a while ago. I'm not just tooting a policy horn, here—I really believe that AGF is what greases the wheels of Wikipedia's operations, so to speak. When we start seeing ulterior motives behind every editor, then we spend more time addressing our paranoia and less time improving the encyclopedia. --Darkwind (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Greg L (my talk) 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Cyberia23 - incivility and bad faith assumptions

Resolved

I recently tagged Star Trek planet classifications with a copyvio tag because its content was blatanly ripped from a book (and despite plagiarism, the book wasn't even listed as a source). This user responded very rudely, including use of profane language, and assumed that my intetions were bad - that I was trying to get the article deleted out of some sort of spite that I apparently harbor. I asked him twice to discontinue his inappropriate behavior and to assume good faith, until he insisted that he was not violating policy, but rather "add[ing] more flavor" to the discussion. This is a relatively minor dispute, but this user's behavior seems to be in gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:GF, and possibly WP:NPA, and the user believes that it's fine to act like this. I was wondering if a third party could comment on this and hopefully help this user understand how/why to act appropriately on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Cheeser1 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser is blowing this way out of proportion. He/She is only doing this because he/she thinks I should kiss their ass, that I owe him/her respect because they're "enforcing the rules", and they apparently don't believe that if you accuse someone of something, like plagarism you'd get a negative reaction about it. But since the Ettiquite rules state that Wikipedians are to be emotionless and mindless robots and not allowed to voice an opinion ever, and I voiced one and made an argument and he/she is pissed off about it.

I must say that in regard to his first acusation of the article not being properly sourced, Cheeser must have been too busy adding the copyright violation tag, because had they actually took the time to read the article they would have seen that the material was sourced at the top part of the article in the header. Yes, I admit it was not the usual location at the bottom of the page where they would normally be, but this article was hit once before for violating copyright and I wanted to make it clear where the info was coming from. If it was in the wrong spot I apoligize for thinking that for once some people didn't have to be led by the hand around here. Anyway, if you look at the history it was referenced at the top.

All these other nonsense accusations are clearly because Cheeser needs to have the last word. I have no time for his/her stupid games. I cleaned up the article already, removed all questionable material, and moved on. Cheeser just wants to one up me because I "offended" him/her and this is how they get revenge. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a sarcastic bastard because I really don't take much in life seriously. I guess Cheeser wants a consensus to prove it. Cyberia23 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on User:Cyberia23's talk page, encouraging him to be more civil, but he seems to have pre-emptively rejected any such suggestion. If this is the case, I'm afraid that there's very little that a Wikiquette alert can do. Sarcasticidealist 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I consider the matter over since the original problem - the copyrighted material on the article - has been dealt with - (of course if anyone wants to verify that by all means go ahead.) The rest of what is going on is just utter lameness on Cheeser's part because he/she expects an apology that I'm not going to give. For the record - I'm not a suck up and I didn't come here to make friends, so if someone takes offense to how I handle things thats their problem not mine. Your all anonymous to me, this isn't a paying job and I'm not trying to win kudos for a higher position of authority like being an admin or whatever - so if there are a bunch of incidents stacked against me so be it. I really don't care. Therefore, when I'm accused of something I'll respond however I feel is necessary and if that includes smart ass comments and sarcasm then thats what happens. All I can say is that Cheeser needs to get over it because I really don't give a shit if he/she has an issue with me or not. Cheeser accuses me of saying "I own these articles" well I'd like to see where I said that. The copyright vio banner is something that can't be ignored unless you want to see the article annihilated. Yeah, I could have let the article go, but knowing full well no one else will lift a finger to fix it, it would of course get the admin "quick fix" and be deleted entirely. Because I spent time on it, I get pissed when I see work I did flushed down the drain because someone out there doesn't like it or thinks it violates something. I never said I owned the articles I work on nor did I say anyone else wasn't allowed to touch them. But whatever, this is the first time in the four years I been on Wikipedia where anyone's lodged a complaint against me - I think the record shows that I'm a civil person but I do have a short fuse for morons. Cyberia23 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere did I ask for an apology. The purpose of posting this alert is to (I'm quoting myself here) "hopefully help [you] understand how/why to act appropriately on Wikipedia." Please do not continue to assume that I was out to get the article deleted (or "annihilated"). It's not up to me to decide if we're allowed to plagiarize copyrighted material: we aren't. No one is asking you to "win kudos" or "make friends" - civility, however, is not optional. Feeling like after "spend[ing] time on it, [you] get pissed when ..." is covered by the policy I already pointed you to (which you refuse to acknowledge as applicable). It states prominently that if you do not want content to be mercilessly edited (possibly deleted), do not contribute it. And finally, if you read WP:CIVIL more closely, you'll find that you should be civil to anyone, even people who enforce perfectly valid policies or people you believe to be "morons." --Cheeser1 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, please note that concerns about your incivility and assumption of bad faith are not tied to the copyright violations. Removing the copyrighted material does not change the fact that your conduct was, and continues to be, inappropriate. --Cheeser1 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing all those great policies and showing me the wickedness of my ways. But, in this case, regarding my attitude toward you, it's time to cite Wiki:IGNORE - so please "explode" now. Cyberia23 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that policy is not carte blanche for you for do whatever you want. In fact, ignoring all rules is only provided for if you are trying to "to improve or maintain Wikipedia" - being civil and assuming good faith in this (or virtually any) circumstance cannot possibly hinder you from doing so. I'm not going to "explode," but I will continue to point you to the policies that explain why you are mistaken in this matter. --Cheeser1 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke dude. Cyberia23 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Cheeser1 - I think we've taken it as far as this Wikiquette alert can go. Wikiquette alerts are really only useful when dealing with users who *want* to adhere to policy, and User:Cyberia23 seems quite happy not to. You can take it to higher levels if you want, and you could probably eventually get action, but I think it might be easier to just accept that some people are jerks, and that sometimes the onus is (unfairly) on non-jerks to put up with them. I'm marking as stuck. Sarcasticidealist 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I would agree that we can consider this alert to be done (though not resolved). This is one of the easier-to-deal-with conflicts I've been involved in - I think when someone so clearly refuses to follow the rules, it makes things simpler, albeit with a less satisfying resolution. I don't think it needs to go up the ladder, unless this situation becomes more of a problem, for myself or other users. Thanks for your input. --Cheeser1 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What's there to resolve? You seem to be assuming that just because I'm a problem for you Cheeser that I'm some sort of threat to this whole website and that I supposedly treat everyone I encounter with the same disrespect I've given you. You're wrong. I simply don't like you because you're an arrogant jerk who likes to fan the pages of policy in my face like I don't know them and from what I read in your little essay about how Wikipedia fails when it comes to enforcing it's policies, you seem all for running this place like a gestapo camp. Now that you caught me you just don't wanna let go because you want to make an example out of me. I have news for you — you aren't Wikipedia's guardian knight, you're not a policy superhero. I've wasted enough of my day on this stupidity so I am done with this discussion. As far as I can see there's nothing to resolve except your arrogance and "can do no wrong" attitude — and I can't help you with that. So, I'd appreciate if you got off my back. If you're on some sort of crusade to straighten me out then you're wasting your time. You have a lovely evening now. Cyberia23 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I left an apology on Cheeser1's talk page about this incident. I admit I violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in a futile attempt at getting the upper hand in our disagreements. It was stupid of me to flip out and take my aggressions out on him and I hope he reconsiders filing a compliant to the higher echelon. It was a dumb argument and not worth how far it's gone. Hopefully now this is resolved but it's now his decision how he wants to pursue the matter. Cyberia23 19:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, Cyberia. It shows a good-faith effort on your part to restore civility to the discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am glad this has come to a positive conclusion. I've left a more extensive response on my talk page (since the more extensive comment from Cyberia was there). I had begun to lose hope that this would come to a positive resolution, but since it has, there's no reason to continue this process to any sort of RFC/U or anything like that. I'm happy this worked itself out, and would like to thank Cyberia for being good enough to work towards a resolution - I can imagine how hard it is to make this apology, and I appreciate it. --Cheeser1 02:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz - bullying and baiting

Ronz has been identified by many, many editors as a Wiki-bully. He is consistently rude with those whom he disagrees with. I know that I am only one of many who have complained about his blunt rudeness. Today, he started this exchange on my Talk page. And while this isn't the worst example of his bullying, it is one which ended with me telling him not to continue or I will report him. So here I am to report this. And though - as I mentioned - this certainly isn't the worse example of Ronz's bullying, I am reporting it to show that I will not stand for this rudeness anymore. This particular discussion/harassment on my talk page stems from a policy discussion found here. I know it is a little lengthy, but you will see how once a good policy argument is made counter to Ronz, he descends into name-calling and personal attacks. I will not suggest a remedy for this particular instance, as just looking at this one wouldn't seem to suggest the need for one. However, I would ask that you remember the user name "Ronz". Put it on your list on user names to look out for. See how many times other users complain about him. Hopefully, his poor behavior will end with this post here, but I know in reality either he (or one of his usual gang) will retaliate against me for posting this. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Without commenting on the editorial content problems, I will just state that this particular complaint is wholly unjustified. Ronz was questioning Levine2112's provocative and baiting response (a reply to Ronz that pretended and implied that Ronz was in agreement with Levine2112, when nothing could have been further from the truth. That's baiting and very provocative. Ronz took the matter to Levine2112's talk page (as is quite proper to do) and confronted him with it. Levine2112 will not admit to his use of a distasteful debating technique and has now brought it here.

While this has happened before as a common debating tactic he uses (and used by others I mention), this incident started in this section - Journal of Scientific Exploration and Joel M. Kauffman (just start reading it and it will immediately become evident what happened) - with this edit. I called him out on it, and Ronz took it to his talk page. Levine2112 would not admit he had used a very unfair and baiting debate tactic and has now complained here. He is definitely in no position to complain about baiting. POT! -- Fyslee/talk 18:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee is one on Ronz usual gang which likes to gang up on people. Quite frankly his lack of good faith here is appalling. When I questioned Ronz, it wasn't a baiting technique as Fyslee states. Rather, I was just trying to get Ronz to clarify his position on the application of the policies to the material at hand. That's all. But because Ronz and Fyslee assume bad faith in me, I can't even ask a simple question without them jumping on me, telling me what my motivations are. Please help rectify their behavior either proactively or just by monitoring the situation. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

After examining the facts, I have to say that I agree more or less entirely with User:Fyslee. It's even a little difficult to see this as a good faith alert, but because I am such a seasoned editor I'm able to. User:Levine2112, did you want to shed some additional light on how User:Ronz's questions for you constitute "bullying"? Sarcasticidealist 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, coming to my page to complain about something where there is nothing to complain about has become a tactic of Ronz's. He likes to get on my nerves and bait me into incivility. This time I am just reporting it to Wikiquette. That's all. By the way, Fyslee is now leaving posts on my talk page contiinuing to assume bad faith, even after I attested that my motivations at Talk:Quackwatch are just an inquiry and not something sinister. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I welcome anyone to examine my comments on Levine2112's talk page. Trying to calmly and civilly explain the situation is certainly proper. -- Fyslee/talk 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How is your initial comment - "The question mark doesn't save you. QuackGuru uses this distasteful, provoking, and baiting trick all the time" - supposed to be and example of your calm and civil explanation? To me it demonstrates that you assumed bad faith right from the start. I said it once and I will say it again: I was merely trying to get Ronz to clarify his position. I was not trying to bait him or provoke him. That you assumed that was my motivation shows a lack of good faith on your part, Fyslee. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"So you agree" that I acted in good faith? "I'm just trying to get you to clarify your position." -- Fyslee/talk 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment above (struck out) is an obvious illustration of precisely the situation that started this debacle. If Levine had responded negatively to my (now struck out) comment, it would be very understandable, and if anyone else objected, that too would be understandable. That's precisely what happened, and I used some of his exact words, which I will now show by placing them in quotation marks. I hope this illustration makes the point quite clearly, because if anyone read my comment and got irritated at me, then I have succeeded in recreating the original situation and have succeeded in stimulating the feelings that it created. -- Fyslee/talk 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the main thing to note is that I didn't respond negatively to your comment because I assumed good faith and knew exactly what you meant. However, if you feel that this type of dialogue is innapropriate, I wish you have pointed it out to QuackGuru, who you say does this regularly as a means of antagonizing. It would demonstrate a lot of goodwill to know that you come down on people on both sides of the debate. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical Information: This is now the third time I've seen a dispute between any combination of User:Levine2112, User:Fyslee, User:Ronz and User:Shot info. The first was another WQA between Levine and Fyslee, which later involved Shot info. The second was a post at WP:ANI by Levine against one of these editors. (It was quickly closed without action by an administrator.) All of these cases have arisen from disputes in Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch, and related articles.

While the situation might turn out to be different in this particular case (I have not researched it yet), Levine2112 has been shown in both of the previous two cases as engaging in troll-like behavior, mainly by provoking other users into acting uncivilly and then reporting them for uncivil behavior. I also chastised Levine2112 for abusing the WP:NPA warning templates and threatening blocks when they apparently were not warranted. I just wanted to point out to other WQA volunteers what I've seen regarding this group of individuals. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that infomation, but KieferSkunk I urge you to look at the situation at hand. If you are going to ask people to assume bad faith based on your past experiences, then how can I ever look good in your eyes? Ronz and Fylee are accusing me of baiting when all I was doing was trying to get Ronz to clarify his position. Please read the entire threads on these posts (on my page and on theTalk:Quackwatch page). I really am making a concerted effort to be civil. If you can show me specifically where I am not, I will stand corrected. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have taken time to review this, I'll respond more specifically. Levine, I believe that the way you began the discussion (the quote that Fyslee mentioned and you responded to) was very leading, appears to have misrepresented Ronz, and seems to have confused the matter in general. When Ronz said that there was no consensus, you then, in essence, said "Then you agree with me?", which to my eye he had very clearly said he did not before you asked. While I haven't seen examples of QuackGuru's tactics, I agree with Fyslee's comment that it looked more like baiting than a good-faith attempt to discuss the matter. You had gone into the discussion simply stating your point of view as fact and then apparently expecting others to agree with you without providing arguments to back up your point of view.

Additionally, I do not believe that either Ronz or Fyslee were acting uncivil toward you when they questioned you. Ronz took the discussion to your talk page, which was appropriate when the discussion appeared to be heading toward a personal argument and away from the article content. He simply asked you to clarify your statements. I think that your response to him, and later to Fyslee, was unnecessarily defensive, though I cannot say that it was in bad faith. I think you would have been better served by keeping the discussion focused on the content - if you had explained why you felt the author in question was a reliable source, rather than trying to defend your statement on syntactical grounds, things would probably have gone more smoothly.

To everyone involved: Please do not try to make judgements about a person's motivation when getting into a content dispute, as it's all too easy to make bad-faith statements, act uncivilly and make personal attacks while doing so. Nobody can read minds. We can only go on what we see, so if you keep your observations to simply what was typed, and avoid trying to figure out why they were typed, you'll probably avoid a lot of unnecessary drama. :)

Hope this helps get you guys back on track. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It does help. I thank you for your insight. Again, appearances are deceiving. I was first confused by what Ronz wrote and thought that he may be conceding that Kauffman was a RS, but clearly I was wrong in assuming that. Then when I asked for clarification, Ronz was wrong for assuming that I was baiting him. When he took it to my talk page, I believe that I had clarified the issue, but in my eyes he was continuing to harass me. Fyslee's involvement there (likening my behavior to QuackGuru's) was not helpful either and just seems to enflame the issue more. After I explained that I was merely inquiring and trying to gain clarity, I wish Ronz and Fyslee could have assumed good faith rather than assume I was lying. Anyhow, this whole debacle stems from a misunderstanding. Isn't that usually the way? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk (or anyone else), I would like your take on this exchage too. Is this a misunderstanding, baiting/bullying, or something else? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in that conversation I do see you acting in good faith and asking the right kinds of questions at the start. Telling Ronz that he is "baiting" you was probably not the best approach, as it does step into WP:POT and WP:NPA just a little, though it's certainly not nearly as bad as stuff I've seen from you before. Ronz did step over the line himself in that conversation.

If it's true that you were edit-warring on this issue before that conversation, though (which would have occurred outside of that conversation), then the initial poster probably had reason to believe that your motivations weren't sound. Plus, as I mentioned above, your track history can help to warrant accusations of bad faith - they're less likely to believe that you're acting in good faith now when you've shown a tendency not to do so in the past. It takes time to build that trust back with the community. Ronz in particular has interacted with you before, so I can see how he may have been frustrated. Nonetheless, as I said, I believe he stepped over the line a couple of times as well, so nobody in the situation is completely blameless.

This is another case where avoiding any statements that try to say what a person's motivation is or may be would be helpful. The original poster accused you of removing that category because of your own beliefs and opinions (indirectly accusing you of going against consensus). That's over the line I'm referring to, and led to a situation where you apparently felt you needed to defend yourself (not just your actions). Your telling him, and/or Ronz, that they're "baiting" you is also a step over the line. These are just examples, and I hope they'll help keep things in check for future discussions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My personal take is that Levine is trolling purely and simply. Unfortunately in Wikipedia, WP:DENY only takes one so far, because silence is consent. So one needs to step into the ever escalating fray. I note that when Levine was recently blocked, the edits and tone improved considerably in all affected articles. Rather than laying the blame at "all parties" how about we try laying the blame at the actual troll (unconventional yes I know but worth a try) :-). Even recently Levine was making off-discussion remakes, countered on them, and escalated them when countered, then said "it's all off-discussion" and attempted to lay the blame on everybody else except the person who started it...him. I do believe this is called "baiting" something that he is wont to call everybody else. Don't forget what the Cabal says "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." Shot info 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point.

Also, I'd like to add a response to something I missed in Levine's comment further above: If you are going to ask people to assume bad faith based on your past experiences, then how can I ever look good in your eyes?

My reply to this is that I'm not encouraging people to assume that you're acting in bad faith. What I'm pointing out is that this is the second WQA and the third incident overall that I've seen you involved in, and related to the same exact set of articles as what occurred two months ago. Therefore, some context would definitely be useful. My later comments on this topic were to tell you that BECAUSE you've previously made complaints about other people and have been found to be a large part of the cause of those problems, you're on shaky ground when you make further complaints, especially about the same people.

It's a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" thing (classic Mother Goose parable), where if you've given people reason to believe they can't trust you, then they probably won't trust you in the future even if you suddenly do everything perfectly and with the best of intentions. You need to work harder to build that trust back. I pointed out the historical significance to this discussion because I saw the same pattern in the ensuing argument as I saw in both of the previous incidents, and among other things, I wanted to save everyone some time, before we ended up rehashing all the same old stuff as before. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony1

Stuck

 – Issue escalated to WP:ANI

Tony1 (talk · contribs) is posting silly personal attacks about me and other people he disagrees with, and disrupting discussion with ad hominems, as well as by alluding to conspiracies and "ploys" against him, and calling people Nazis. Could someone have a word with him and get him to calm down? [75] [76] [77] [78] >Radiant< 11:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just on the basis of that fourth diff you linked, I left Tony1 (t c) a message to remind him about NPA and the usage of ad hominem arguments, but I don't have time to go over the whole situation at the moment. I'll come back later on today and give it another look. --Darkwind (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on Tony1's talk page and on Wikipedia talk:Build the web as well, pointing him to several civility policies and advising him that there are better, more civil ways to discuss a policy dispute than the way he's currently doing it. I looked through all four of Radiant's diffs and read through the conversations, and for the most part I believe Radiant has been remaining calm and civil (though citing Godwin's Law was not a good move, in my opinion).

Radiant: Some advice for you as well: Please ensure you're up to date on WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL and WP:POINT. I think you're allowing Tony1 to get under your skin a little too much - I'm referring specifically to where you cited Godwin's Law and told him that he'd lost the argument. While I agree that his calling you a Nazi was way out of line and generally discredits his arguments, you allowed yourself to respond in kind, thus inflaming the situation more. (Telling someone that they're losing usually only prompts them to fight harder.) I think you'd be better served by refocusing the discussion only to the policies at hand, and politely asking the other editor to remove all personal attacks from his comments and focus on the content discussion.

I do thank you for bringing this issue here, though. For the most part, I think you're doing a good job in the dispute. Just a few rough edges to polish off, that's all. We're certainly willing to help mediate, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While Tony does tend to be unusually aggressive, and believes that the MOS should be used to promote "modern" views on English, he also tend to cool down and consider arguments after a few days. I find this section particularly indicative on both tendencies. It happens to be political; but his idea that the MOS should simply mandate Socrates's is equally dismaying. (His habit of speaking of "MOS breaches" at FA suggests that he does not understand what a guideline is.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see a conflict erupt between Tony1 and Radiant, two good editors. IMO the problem actually originated with Pmanderson, and Radiant found himself in the middle of Tony1's exhausted patience after long-standing disruption to Wikipedia's manual of style by Pmanderson, while Tony has attempted to improve the MOS to common professional standards in use elsewhere. I have limited computer access for the remainder of this week and next, but I have left one small example of how difficult it has been to work on MOS because of Pmanderson's editing on Radiant's talk page. [79] I do wish someone would look into Pmanderson's behavior as part of this whole issue; I can't help but notice he's lodged what I consider to be a spurious issue two sections below this one, and suggest that someone might ask Pmanderson to consider his own editing style and the effect it has on others. I also note that someone actually left a template on Tony1's talk page, perhaps never having read WP:DTR. For someone who has worked as hard as Tony1 has to improve Wikipedia, that's just insulting and the whole point behind DTR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It does look like a strong case of frayed nerves. A dispute between Tony1 and Radiant can be quickly resolved with a couple apologies in both directions if that's all it is, and then work can resume on the content issues at hand. My advice to both parties stands, though.

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the new section "Block" on my talk page (unfortunate coincidence in a whole-ISP block I've been caught up in). I hope this is the end of the matter here. Tony 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, just discovered a bit of a conflict here, which I wasn't aware of before. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pmanderson 2 At any rate, I hope the analysis I left for Radiant of the issues that are occurring at MOS, and how difficult that editing environment has been, will still be useful. Perhaps it would be appropriate for Radiant to withdraw from this conflict? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because this issue has now been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Radiant!, I've marked it as Stuck here. I don't see that there's anything more we can do in this situation - the situation is apparently much more complex than we're equipped to deal with here on WQA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ludovicapipa: Lots of NPA and CIVIL issues

Stuck

 – Recommended higher form of WP:DR or Admin Noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been engaged in a protracted content dispute with Ludovica on a few pages, including Fernando Collor de Mello, João Goulart and 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. The disputes center around the application of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, but what has concerned me is her attitude in this debate. She has accused me of acting in bad faith, and issued numerous personal attacks. She has also petitioned administrators directly to block me, outside of the WP:DR mechanism. I would just ignore normally, but considering this expanding to other peoples' talk pages I figure a check from third parties would be good. Here are a few examples:

• Constant accusations of "acting in bad faith".
• User talk:Dalillama#Fernando Collor de Mello: Ludovica threatens me with a block (somehow): "If you insist, I will ask and administrator to block you, so you can refresh yr mind."
• [80] After I make a spelling mistake in Portuguese, she states: "Por aí nota-se que nível temos aqui", roughly translating to "that shows the level of person we have have here" (Google translate is similar), questioning what I'm assuming is my educational level.
• Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello#Last reply - " I dont´know how old are you..." Is it really necessary to insult me by questioning my age?
• Talk:Plano Collor - User tells me to go "find a doctor"

There are a few others but I have to go back and search through blanked pages.

Note: It's important to point out that this user has been blocked for one year in the Portuguese Wikipedia (here) for personal attacks. She opened her user account on the EN wikipedia a few hours after being blocked on the PT wikipedia on June 6, 2007. She consistently edits the same articles as the blocked PT username did, including adding the same sources and generally of the same POV (examples here and here).--Dali-Llama 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm not sure if there's really much we'll be able to do in this situation - it's quite clear that Ludovicapipa is acting uncivilly toward you (including a violation of WP:SKILL), and given her history of being blocked from the Portuguese WP, it may also be a case of open harassment at this point. If you feel it'll help, we can try to mediate with her. Otherwise, I'd probably recommend a higher form of dispute resolution and/or a report to the Admin Noticeboard. The fact that there is a block history for this user on another version of WP makes it less likely that you'll need to go through a lot of dispute resolution procedures before getting action.

Good job on staying civil, especially in the situation where Ludovicapipa questioned your age. It's remarkably difficult to stay calm when someone's deliberately trying to get you to respond to personal attacks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is by far the toughest dispute I've ever faced--aggravated by the fact that other users have refused to become involved and even third-opinion good samaritans (Coren and Carioca) have kind of given up. I doubt mediation would work, as she has consistently ignored others' opinions. Ideally I'd like to resolve this editorially (not administratively), but it's been hard (I've even been resisting putting up 3RR reports and just asking for page protection so it wouldn't be interpreted as me trying to administratively sanction her personally). But, to be honest, I'm at my wits' end. I'd be interested in posting something on WP:ANI, but I don't know if we should try to reason once more (and if so, how should we reason?), or go straight to an administrative position.--Dali-Llama 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay on responding to this - I've been busy with off-wiki stuff and have also been trying to field a barrage of edits to my own Talk page regarding this issue. It appears that Ludovicapipa does not understand WP:3RR and the reason why you warned her about it, among other things. I have been trying very hard to get her to separate the behavior and content issues, and I'm personally getting rather frustrated by the ongoing discussion there. One or two more exchanges like the ones we've been having, and I'm going to simply recuse myself from this Alert entirely. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do recuse yourself, I understand (you won't be the first nor the second). I will probably end up sending this to arbitration anyways, so I hope I can count on your support for my request for that if you do recuse yourself.--Dali-Llama 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've come to the conclusion that there is nothing more I can do in this case. The entire conversation on my Talk page is available to use as evidence that we tried to resolve this issue and could not, and I will happily endorse a MedCab or ArbCom request if the need arises. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Editions

One should click on the links where you see a personal attack I see a self defense against a constant persecution of my editions:

Why dont´also say that none of yr editions damaging Collor´s image and linking him to "Corruption and Downfall" (this one considered POV); why dont´you say you linked an image from "Veja Magazine" on which is said: "The year we got rid of him" (Collor)?

1. Why don´t you say you deleted the words "end of hyperinflation" and substituted for "hyperinflation" only? Collor Plan was not a failure --so many citations prove the following administrations still use his Plan Collor;

2. Also here, let´s see wht´s written abt yr editions: [81]

3. On Fernando Collor talk page you asked me to ask and discuss before revert or delete --that´s not wht you did on thsi same artcile --within few minutes you deleted and reverted without discussiong and even requested a page protection

4. The only full text you wrote so far concerns Collor´s "Corruption and downfall", trying to damage his image, you only talked abt corruption adn missed several issues --including his Senate ecletion. If it was not me, Collor would still be a convicted figure;

5. What abt "1964 Brazilian coup" artcile wto which you only used one source (Gaspari´s, a famous antiprivatization, antiCollor, procommunist?);

6. Now the lates blatantly happened on Plano Collor --you said Plan Collor is one thing and PND (Plano Nacional de Desetatização) is another thing --well the link I provided (since you neve provide sources) says PND is a part, one major step to move forward with Plan Collor.

There are many other examples of yr behaviour....

Ludovicapipa ^yes? 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my point here is that it's not the content dispute which is at issue--these are all perfectly valid points which we're trying to discuss. My point is that the manner in which you've conducted yourself in this discussion, added with the fact that you've ignored third parties' opinions and recommendations and have previously been blocked for the same offense on another project, should raise serious issues about whether or not you fully understand Wikipedia and abide by the rules on civility and behavior. This was echoed to me on my PT Wikipedia talkpage (here) by another user, who clearly stated that the reason you were blocked there was not because of content disputes, but because of your personal conduct in those disputes.--Dali-Llama 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dali-Llama's assertions here, Ludovicapipa - he has consistently pointed out that your opinions and statements are valid, and that to the extent that you're participating in a content dispute, your content arguments are worth considering. Whether or not your opinions are correct or go along with consensus is another matter - they are valid, and nobody is trying to tell you that they're not. What is NOT okay is the fact that you are personally attacking Dali-Llama (DL), and have been shown to do so in the past. By criticizing DL's use of the English and/or Portuguese languages, questioning her age (both of which are WP:SKILL violations), telling him to "go see a doctor", and otherwise calling him out in the manner you have, you have been violating WP:NPA and other civility policies. This behavior tends to discredit your own arguments, but more importantly, it also inflames other users, usually causing knock-down-drag-out arguments that can span multiple pages and cause many hard feelings on all sides. At that point, the discussions stop being about the content, and often become "He said/She said" personal attack arguments, which are not welcome on Wikipedia.

Please make sure you read WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL, WP:NPA, WP:CON and WP:NPOV. These are important policies that discuss not only how to stay out of trouble, but also how to be more effective in arguing your points in content disputes. Also keep in mind that if your arguments are against current consensus, the onus is on you to sway the consensus through civilized discussion and official sources that back up your point of view. Also keep in mind WP:WEIGHT, which deals with the issue of putting undue weight on one particular point of view - in cases where POV statements are appropriate for an article (such as in movie reviews), it is important to keep the article balanced such that it accurately reflects all relevant points of view, not just a single one.

Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kiefer,

Iam sorry if looks like a personal attack. Iam ONLY worry abt editions --not abt attacks, not at all. Iam sorry if sounds stupid, really. I must reafirm that I am facing an enormous wrok everytime I try to edit an article, whihc she/he deletes, reverts, without ask nor discuss. My goal is edit, he/she call it POV. I don´t, since I FULLY provide citations, sources, as you could see above. Since I started talikgn to him/her I did the same, but seems to be a waste of time. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In cases like that, if you feel that an editor is unfairly reverting your changes and refusing to discuss the situation, please look into a Request For Comment on the article. That will attract the attention of more editors who can offer opinions on both sides of the dispute. The important thing, though, is to not resort to personal attacks on the editor with whom you're arguing - if you do that, people will be much less likely to take your opinions seriously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what's frustrated me in this case. She repeatedly threatened me with a "block", and I told her several times to contact an administrator or log a complaint in any of the DR forums, like RFC or AN/I and she refused to do so. And the recalcitrant nature of her actions in two projects now really make me question whether or not I should bump this up the ladder.--Dali-Llama 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn´t threaten you --I suggested to the adms you should be blocked. Ludovicapipa ^yes? 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Epbr123

Does anyone else find Epbr123's part in this conversation gratingly condescending, particularly his idea that the FAC regulars are entitled to educate the rest of Wikipedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please try to avoid mischaracterizing someone else's comments as "educate the rest of Wikipedia". No FAC reviewer is obligated to make the changes to the article; some may choose to do so, but it's not generally wise, as some FAC nominators have ownership issues and editing "their" article is a good way to get your head bitten off. Epbr123's responses there were reasonable; perhaps you're being overly sensitive to other editors pointing out issues on the article you nominated. I assume you've notified Epbr123 of this alert? If not I shall do so now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did think Epbr's responses were less than helpful, but perhaps that's to be expected since the discussion in question started with a severe critique of the FAC process. Ironically enough, Epbr's responses could easily be seen as a demonstration of one of PMAnderson's criticisms--that the FAC process focuses on formatting and copyediting, rather than addressing the substance of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OT:That has been my interpretation of the FAC process, that the reviewers primarily were concerned with presentation clarity, not so much the content (though if it stinks, they point it out). But most articles should be close to not having content issues to be serious FAC contenders I would think. --Rocksanddirt 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Akhilleus. The fact that there were so many MOS problems with the article after it had been promoted shows that formatting was not heavily focused on during the FAC. Epbr123 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Epbr123's exact words are If reviewers fix articles themselves, the main authors don't learn anything. If you guys fix these things yourself, you'll be more likely to remember to do them with your future articles. If this is not the point of view of the country schoolmaster setting tasks to his pupils, it really needs recasting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, he has a valid point, even if it could have been stated more politely. It is a little condescending as written, and generally editors are encouraged to just fix obvious problems, as that is more efficient and helps promote the constructive and cooperative nature of a wiki. But I can see his point, that if he just goes and fixes the problems himself, the fixes may not necessarily gain the notice of the original editor, and thus the original editor may just go make the same mistakes later on, requiring more fixes. I believe his intentions were good in promoting the "fix it yourself" approach - wording could have been a little better, but I don't see any clear violations of civility here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

even if it could have been stated more politely. It is a little condescending as written - I find this a little bit condescending to be honest. I'm not complaining, but I just thought I'd point out the irony of a system where people are told off for telling people off. Epbr123 11:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my analysis seems condescending - I assure you it wasn't meant to be. As I said, I didn't see any particular lack of civility there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• No one else can make you wear a shoe if it doesn't fit; I don't see how Epbr123 can be responsible for you feeling like a pupil when issues that need to be corrected are pointed out. No reviewer is obligated to repair an article you bring to FAC, and the WP:FAC instructions encourage nominators to respond well to criticism. Epbr123's comments are not in the least uncivil; this alert looks unnecessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotta agree there with Sandy and Epbr, not that my word is worth much now. Tony 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony1 again

Stuck

 – Referred to WP:ANI

Tony1 (talk · contribs) Unfortunately, despite the thread above, his aggressive behavior continues unabated. [82]. >Radiant< 08:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary to start a second thread. Radiant! as others already stated above, I urge you to cool off and remove yourself from this situation. You've now threatened to use your admin tools to block me because I provided you with the diffs showing the past issues. I've summarized the conversation (with all diffs) at User:SandyGeorgia/RaToPm issue and started a thread at WP:AN/I asking uninvolved admins to step in. I suggest your personal involvement in this (including threats to use your admin tools) has escalated the conflict and taken this issue beyond the level of informal dispute mediation that can occur on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's very much beside the point. I suggest you let a non-involved editor look at Tony's continuing incivility and childish behavior. It is unfortunate that you first ask for outside opinion (on PManderson, whom you are in conflict with yourself) and then attack the person giving that opinion when he turns out to disagree with you. >Radiant< 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this right: "childish behaviour" is somehow not a personal attack. Now Radiant, please calm down. I've clearly upset you greatly by analysing your text at the Gender-neutral discussion; I can't resile from that—it was necessary. I'll be pleased when tempers go down five notches, because we need cool heads to negotiate the issues at hand at MOS etc. And PS, I'm kinda pleased you cite [82] above, coz I don't think people will see it as aggressive at all. Tony 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm closing this WQA for the same reasons as the first one - the entire issue has been escalated to the Admin Noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kieferskunk, though the diff posted to start this thread doesn't rise to the level that it's made out to. --Rocksanddirt 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert

Work in progress; comments welcome

This user is a prolific contributor, adding and editing facts on a wide variety of pages, but seldom leaves edit summaries or cites sources. Most of the added facts appear credible, but some are nearly impossible to verify (and of doubtful validity). His talk page has accumulated many polite requests for sources and/or summaries, but without results.--orlady 12:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a personal message on his talk page (not a template) with a request for him to cite and use edit summaries. We'll see what happens. --Darkwind (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a quick edit summary request to that respect earlier today. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think he needed a little more than the template. :) Hopefully he'll check out the edit summary prompt preference, and it's just absent-minded forgetfulness. --Darkwind (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert

Left this message on my talk page after I made these good faith AfD nominations: 1, 2, 3, 4. Epbr123 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Users João Felipe C.S and Dalillama

João Felipe C.S and Dalillama are united to manipulate the article Brazil. Both users do not leave other users make contributions to this article. For months nobody is able to post anything in the article Brazil. This article is totally stopped.

My last try I posted a picture of Brazilians of different races to represent the Demographics session of the article, and I was reverted with no justification. Other users were trying to post there before me, and were also reverted.

João Felipe C.S and Dalillama have an obsession with including the Brazil article between the best ones of Wikipedia. But, in spite of that, they are destroyng the article, diminishing the informations and reverting other users' good faith contributions.

The main thing is that both users have never written anything in the article and feel free to manipulate it. User João Felipe C.S cannot even speak or write in English, but is there reverting everyone. In this page they make a plan (in Portuguese) to make me be blocked. [83]

By the way, both users are writing in Portuguese in talk pages, to avoid English-speaking users to be able to understand their plans of manipulation.

You people must do something about it. Opinoso 04:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)