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. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA 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

Resolved

 – User in question seems to be a longstanding positive contributor who seems interested in resolving the content dispute, but was a bit frustrated. His response here indicates a clear willingness to continue to work productively and civilly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user and I have had disagreements over two or three articles and have tried to resolve thisissue on the articles' talk pages as well as on our own. His incessant stubborness and refusal to listen to my complaints about his edits is not so much the problem, but it is his abrasive, frustrating and insulting replies which are (See a few of the most recent examples here: [1][2][3][4][5]). He reported me for accidentally breaking the 3RR once, about a month or so ago, and I feel I should respond in kind in terms of his childish insults towards myself. If there is anything good I wish to come out of this, it is merely that Wiki admins be aware of some of this user's unacceptable behaviour. Thank you. Epf (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look over this just yet, but keep in mind that this is not an administrative noticeboard. Also, I don't know how much good you're doing if you've decided to "respond in kind" to something you seem to consider petty. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought this was a notice board to seek advice on future actions when dealing with incivility or personal attacks. If this is not the correct place to do so, then I'd ask if you could direct me to the proper location. I do not consider this that "petty" since it involves personal insults, but I merely responded by posting this issue here since I thought it was appropriate. Thanks for what help you can offer anyway. Epf (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it is such a noticeboard, but it is not staffed by administrators. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth a shot trying to resolve this here, provided there's good faith on both sides. Looking at the diffs, it seems that you're both being pretty uncivil with one another. I think a good first step would be just stopping that behaviour, unilaterally if necessary. Do you think that's possible?

I'll leave a note on User: Slrubenstein's talk page to the same effect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples of rude behavior on my part - which I admit to and regret - are from the last few days. Over the last several months, however, I have been patient and courteous with Epf. He has made POV-pushing edits to Ethnic group and one racist edit to Franz Boas and in each case I bent over backwards to address his view, explain my view, and explain the larger context for the issue. However, he has always responded to me with an utter absense of good faith and utter disrespect, and has reverted every edit of mine. My conclusion is simple and unavoidable: he has no respect for anyone who has a different view than his, and is a POV pusher. He is relatively ignorant of social theory and anthropological research but has contempt for anyone who knows more than he does. I can try to be courteous, but this will not resolve the underlying issue: he is a POV-pushing troll. That said, I did make a final attempt to be conciliatory here. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conversation here is a very positive first step, and I hope that it will lead to an improved editing relationship. I hope especially that you can both honour your commitment to refrain from incivility (and it's important for you to realize, User:Epf, that you've been uncivil as well - the problem isn't all on User:Slrubenstein's end, and it would be nice if you'd acknowledge your incivility in the same way that he's acknowledged his. The content disputes are beyond the mandate of this board, but if you're at an impasse I'd strongly encourage the use of WP:THIRD and/or WP:RFC to try to make progress on them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a witness to most of this problem, and while it certainly takes two to tango (in the sense that both Slrubenstein and Epf have edit warred and both have been incivil up to a point, especially lately - but I've seen worse), I will say that Slrubenstein has struck me as being the more reasonable of the two, and the one who has provided cites every time his position was challenged, whereas Epf's position came across as being his own, and not based on any particular body of literature. Also, I have seen Epf remove cited and sourced material which Slrubenstein introduced, on the pretense that Epf didn't seem to believe the sources supplied backed the information (which sources he admitted he didn't check). As far as I can tell, this looks like it might be better suited to some other DR avenue such as RfC, as there are both behavior and content issues to be sorted out, in my opinion.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ramdrake. I suspect Epf will respond that at Wikipedia credentials do not matter. The bottom line is, he refuses to comply with WP:AGF to the extent that he does not even read what I write — as an example, see this edit where I actually provided the AGF link: his first response was that he does not have to assume good faith [6] and then he insisted that I never provided him with the AGF link here and here.

He has admitted to the fact that the point of view he wants expressed in articles is his own: "The other point of view you're ignoring would be, umm, mine (I figured that would be obvious for you), but that is regarding other issues we had" [7]. He is a POV-warrior, and while I appreciate Ramdrake's comments I doubt they will make any difference to Epf. Even his response to my note of conciliation on his talk page is poisoned. Think about this sentence carefully: "You make some valid points I was already aware of but there is still some matters you continue to somewhat ignore." He admits I make good points - but only ones of which he was already aware ... in effect he is suggesting that none of my "good points" have any bearing on our current conflict, because he already knew these "good points." He is simply unwilling to accept anything I may have to say that he does not already believe; if he agrees with me, it is only because he already thought of it himself. Is this really assuming good faith, being respectful, and willing to cooperate with others? He makes no acknowledgment that I made any good points he had not already known. In short, he is saying that the time I took to explain my edits was a waste of time. Just think about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see if User:Epf provides a response to all of this. If so, hopefully we can continue trying to hash this out; failing that, you probably do need to go the WP:RFC/U route (for which you'll need a co-certifier - perhaps User:Ramdrake would be willing?). But for now I'd rather see what Epf has to say, especially since he/she was the original initiator of this alert. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes patience runs thin, in particular after making extensive efforts to address behaviors of users such as Epf. I have been in those situations myself, and keeping cool and polite when there is no change on the user's behavior is sometimes an impossibility. I would wait and see what Epf has to say. An RFC/U may be the way to go, despite being time consuming... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have any direct experience with the conflict in question, I'll say that I've found Slrubenstein to be an above-average editor on the religion pages. Leadwind (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User in question seems to have dropped the frivolous COI accusations. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user and I are having a disagreement on the Ctrl+Alt+Del talk page [8]. The user first submitted some information and sources that have previously been determined, by two separate administrators, to be in violation of WP:V and WP:BLP. This information has been removed numerous times in the past, and thus I reverted the information once again, as no new sources or evidence were presented to support the claims that violated WP:BLP. I then explained to the user on their talk page [9] why I had reverted their edits, and suggested familiarizing themselves with the existing discussion, to avoid rehashing old issues. The user responded on my talk page, and in the talk section of the article [10] by challenging my credibility and intentions. I have attempted to discuss this issue as calmly as possible, despite the fact that the user now insists on what I believe to be personal attacks, instead of discussing the content of the page. I have suggested a truce until we can get some third party interaction here, to hopefully prevent further argument on the talk page of the article.Thrindel (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the onus is on User:Alphus Omegus to bring up your alleged conflict-of-interest at WP:COIN if she or he think it's a problem. If it isn't, he or she should stop talking about it and get on with improving the encyclopedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at the ongoing discussion at the article's talk page here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your help.Thrindel (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just notified this user. Up until then, it doesn't appear that he was notified (although I could have missed something). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck

 – Referred to the WP:AN or another part of the dispute resolution process if editing continues to seem nonNPOV or otherwise inappropriate. The hostility/incivility seems secondary, but a warning was left. Hopefully this won't need to be escalated to an AN due to any continuing incivility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat stressed and upset by User:Mais oui!'s actions and comments which have taken place in the last 24 hours without warning and feel the need to get some input on his (and perhap my own) behavoir. I should make clear from the start though that this gentleman has been blocked before for 3RR and agressive behavoir (I have not).

The issue ultimately stems (as I understand) from Mais oui!'s political stance on the relationship with Scotland and the United Kingdom. His edit history invariably shows the removing of stubs, categories, and mentions of the UK (often in place of Europe) without discussion or explicitly open edit summaries on hundreds and hundreds of articles. Its a major problem, but one that I've not been involved with or made aware of before now.

That said, my problems seem to be with him removing WP:UKGEO Wikiproject banners from talk pages, again without discussing them on the talk page, or contacting the Wikiproject itself. Examples being here, here, here (which I interpret as a breach of WP:POINT), amongst others, such as this.

Having tried to restore the banner here, I felt I should pass comment about my concerns of ownership on Scotland here (which in retrospect was worded poorly). This seems to have enraged Mais Oui, who posted a huge transcluded civility template on my talk page and began reverting my contributions.

I asked him (most pleasantly, in a calm and controlled way) to discuss his grievance with maturity and civility here, here, and here. Please note Mais Oui's edit summaries, as I feel them to be uncalled for, dare I say (at risk of being ticked off), even spiteful and misguided. I was upset by Mais Ouis comments and made this clear here.

Now I feel unwelcome, dismayed and disappointed. I'm not a perfect editor, and made that explict here, but I feel Mais Oui has gone too far with his comments, and makes out that being a regular and involved contributor to Wikipedia is somehow socially unacceptable and an undesirable characteristic.

I feel that Mais Oui, with his actions and edit summaries, is not giving users the dignity they deserve; behaving like a cyber-bully, owning articles and projects and being spiteful to any and all who don't agree with him, or try to give him feedback. As it stands now, with two years service to Wikipedia, and an excellent relationship with the editting community, I feel at a low point that this type of thing goes on and hope it is dealt with seriously. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this, but I might say you need to escalate this to the ANI. Disrupting a Wikiproject systematically, with a zealous nationalist POV, that's a bit beyond the scope of this board because we're getting into content issues and large-scale changes to Wikipedia. While his actions are certainly not civil - making rude personal remarks beyond any reasonable scope - I believe the more serious issue at hand needs to be addressed. While his actions may not be such, they seem to amount to large scale vandalism of the UKGeo project, which is very troubling. Like I said, I would suggest taking this up to the ANI, but maybe you should wait for another person to weigh in. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to follow up on this. Is there anything that has happened since you filed this report? Has the improper behavior stopped, remained the same, gotten worse? Have you escalated this to the ANI or elsewhere? I'd like to help clear this up if we can. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not cared to follow this editors actions since, but don't believe I need to as such given the diffs provided already outlining the incivility. Certainly he's changed a few of my edits since and his edit history still consists of downplaying the UK in "Scottish articles" (which is fine, so long as it civil and within Wiki principles). I'm sure however he's aware of this report as I said I would seek advice on tackling this.

Per your input, I haven't escalated this yet until obtaining input from another contributor. I wouldn't be happy with "brushing this under the carpet" as I feel too aggrieved about the number of principles broken in this case, especially as Mais oui has done this before with other users. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've left a note. Hopefully the editor will take some constructive advice. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – They don't seem to be conflicting with each other. Hopefully, they just got hot-headed and won't have another spat of incivility with each other again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed my watchlist lighting up with some acrimony between the two users

• Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For some reason they are edit warring over some old bot messages on User talk:Freethinker1of1 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Freethinker1of1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joyous and cheerful edit summaries distil the essence of the holiday spirit:

• Calton: Not your call, Mr. Stalky McStalkerson. Say, didn't you just get in trouble for abusing TWINKLE? [11]
• Neutralhomer: Welcome to December...and who are you calling "Stalky"? [12]
• Calton: That would be you, Mr. Poor-Impulse-Control. Hey, whatever happened to your pious promise to stop the stalking and blind reversions? Was that taken away, too? [13]
• Neutralhomer: just stop vandalising pages Calton. Hey I lost TWINKLE for 96 hours, you got two blocks and pouted for 2 months. [14]

There's also been some nastiness on their respective talk pages. ([15], [16]). Both editors have a history of interpersonal conflict, and both have received blocks for incivility and/or personal attacks. I don't know the full story of these two, but I do know that a) it can't be good; and b) it's not going to get better if the two are left to snipe at each other. Both editors have been here for a long time and for thousands of edits, and both ought to know better by now. I don't know if they need to be directed to mediation, to RfC, to AN/I for a short block—or just to be told by a neutral third party to calm down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's alot of hostility. I've left a note at the talk page in question, and a copy here so that they can keep their responses off someone else's talk page:

Rather than contact you both individually, I'll just interject right here. Old messages are routinely cleared from user talk pages, and it is clear that this is what happened. Reverting such a deletion is not appropriate, but what's far more inappropriate is edit-warring and slinging insults at each other in edit summaries. There appears to be a great deal of hostility between the two of you, and you both should seriously consider cooling it before you are both blocked. You should both know better than to waste your time and energy bickering (especially over something this petty). The both of you need to stop fighting with each other and behave like positive, grown-up contributors to Wikipedia. Because this is someone else's talk page you're fussing about, I'll direct your responses to a copy of this message I've left at the WQA. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wait. reading the page history,Calton (talk · contribs) has been edit warring over that page alot. Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) is his newest opponent,apparently. I dunno if that helps,I was just commenting. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – IP editor who takes to profanity. Seems to have been warned, but doesn't seem to care. Little we can do. If another spat of incivility comes up (you know, tirades of personal attacks laced with vulgarity), just report him to an administrator's noticeboard. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to have a persistant IP address, as he usually is posting relevant contributions on pages specifically related to linguistics. However, he has a complete disregard for the rules of Wikipedia and major civility issues. Today alone, please see here and here. This has been going on at a low level for months, from light edit warring to deleting talk page messages to outright personal attacks and profanity. How should we proceed with dealing with him. CSZero (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected links. If you are linking with a regular URL as you did above, one bracket is sufficient; text description is separated with a space rather than with | . For easier reference, 208.104.45.20 (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Is it possible to wikilink (versus URL) to static version numbers? It looks much neater. I ask because somebody already came through and reverted his response to me and my response to him, so putting in the current, dynamic version isn't too useful. CSZero (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous versions of pages cannot be wiki-linked (nor can diffs). Just use the URL of the page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – Complaining user(s) are not happy with the assessment of "no incivility." --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has accused me of being biased, selective reading of policy, disruptive editing (in a project page, in a projject in which I had only made 1 edit at the time), and religious recruiting (which I honestly don't even understand). He has also reverted good faith edits, claiming they violated NPOV, which is not grounds for reversion, "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate." at Help:Reverting. Furthermore, he has removed multiple ^{[citation needed]} tags, claiming that somehow asking for citations is a violation of NPOV. He has consistently failed to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have asked this user multiple times to assume good faith, and he continues to not do so.

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design "Selective reading" at the end.

See User talk:Filll where I and another editor ask him to maintain good faith, and he claims that we don't understand policy.

See Objections to evolution revision history where he removes challenges to material, with no explanation, and reverts good faith edits without cause. He seems to have done so several times, to other editors, in this article.

See Talk:Objections to evolution "NPOV" where I am accused of religious recruiting.

This does not seem to be the first complaint regarding these issues with this user. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much more easy for us to assess this situation if you provided the relevant sequences of diffs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be with edits such as this. Fill reverted a fact tag on the basis that consensus was needed before adding it, which is totally incorrect. Given that the proceeding reference makes no mention of the disputed statement, a reference should be found or the statement removed entirely. At any rate, I reverted that edit on the basis given above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[17], [18]. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the same fact tag. Go for it dudes, why don't you write me up too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not a poor attitude, I don't know what is. Take it up with the mediation committee or request a third opinion as this is more of a content dispute. But removing fact/cn tags is not the way to go -- those statements are wholly unsourced and should either be cited or removed since they can provoke dispute. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, this edit makes more than enough sense to me. Being unnecessarily redundant or over-qualifying particular claims presents them as dubious or specious (ie not NPOV). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although that wasn't the same as removing fact tags throughout. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so where's the civility issue? This sounds like content dispute(s) or possibly a misunderstanding of WP:R to me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Objections to evolution he accuses me of "religious recruiting" (which doesn't even make sense). And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design he accuses me of being disruptive, several times, instead of assuming good faith. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs to make our lives just a little easier. There's a lot of discussion to waddle through. Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the diffs are listed above. In [19] see "NPOV" at the end. In [20] see "POV issues" where he refers to "people like you" and "Selective reading" where I am called disruptive. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing alot of content disputes and people with very different agendas (my assumptions of good faith notwithstanding), and there's alot of headbutting going on. What is a fact? What is falsifiability? Several of you seem to be up to your ears in a content dispute that doesn't seem very fun. That seems to have lead at least two people to file more-or-less frivolous complaints against Filll (above). So what's up with this one? Filll says you have a religious agenda, Filll says you are disruptive, and Filll says you are pushing a POV as if you're writing a tract. If he believes, in good faith, that you are, then he's entitled to say so (and it appears that this is the case). Is his tone less-than-complementary? Yes. Is he showing a lack of patience? Perhaps. But I'm still at a loss as to how "people like you" can't be interpreted as it seems to be meant: people on your side of your content dispute, who say the things that you say. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous? He called me a religious fanatic, with no basis whatsoever, and then he reverted fact templates! He has a history of doing so as well. I'm absolutely baffled by what you're saying. He can be uncivil if he believes it is true, in good faith?GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read my comment correctly, and have jumped to some pretty odd conclusions. Please take the time to read what I said thoroughly. For example, saying "you are disruptive" is not an example of incivility, unless the accusation is made in bad faith. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that, by it's nature, made in bad faith? Isn't calling someone disruptive necessarily assuming that they are not acting in good faith? What am I misunderstanding? GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You called him uncivil. How is it any different? Try reading WP:POT. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you referring to? And are you saying that I did the same to him? GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not by its nature, but in this case it is. Cheeser1, the assumption that such qualifications are made in good faith is lost as soon as, when challenged, no explanation is provided. Further, even if one has genuine feelings like this, it is not civil to voice them repeatedly at every opportunity. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'll ask you both to refer to WP:CIVIL and WP:POT, which you don't seem to understand. Everyone on this alert board but you, all of the third, fourth, fifth opinions, they all seem to point this back to you as a simple content dispute that you've conflated into some massive ball of incivility by Filll. It's just not the case. If you want to use this alert board, you're going to have to live with it when your complaints have no merit, not drag it out into accusing everyone but yourself of being wrong about the issue. If you've already decided that Filll has been uncivil, and you already know how wrong it is, and you have no intention of assuming good fiath or working past that issue, then what are you doing here?? --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not claim that people do not understand policy each time you draw a different conclusion. If several people come here and say that they feel offended by a user, respect that. If a policy allows this, than perhaps the policy needs adjustment, or the policy is less relevant than you thought. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>Frankly, I think this is all just as ridiculous as the attempts by other editors above (Are they really different editors?) to brand me as some sort of ill-behaving malcontent. One editor cannot just declare that 100 other editors and a year of work is all nonsense, on his personal say so, and get his way, without building consensus. One editor with no sources cannot just remove sourced material, and get it to stick, with no discussion or conversation or agreement. One editor cannot just act unilaterally, and if anyone opposes him or tries to get him to slow down, declare that those opposing him or trying to slow him down are acting in an uncivil manner. This is completely silly.--Filll (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have legitimate concerns about sockpuppetry, you should see WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Content dispute gone trainwreck - civility problems cropped up, it seems, with as much (or more) fault on the side of the complaining user as on the user in question. And the side of the complaining user turns out to be him and three sockpuppets, and he's also forumshop'd this one to the COI/N too. I'm just going to call this one resolved, at least as far as the WQA is concerned. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user ReluctantPhilosopher is repeatedly deleting articles on page "Sonia Gandhi" giving reasons like "Poorly structured" or "Non grammatical". We had various times requested him to modify the section to help us, but he simply deletes the sections. I think he is deleting it just because he does not agree with it and is giving some adhoc reason for the same. Anyone, please help us here. Inder315 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For easier access: ReluctantPhilosopher (talk · contribs) and Inder315 (talk · contribs). Comments forthcoming. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This looks like a content dispute. Could you please provide diffs of incivility? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that ReluctantPhilosopher (talk · contribs) is blanking considerable portions of text at Sonia Gandhi under the pretense that it is unsourced, unstructured and very poorly written, per edits like this. But the evidence clearly shows that the user is blanking considerable portions of sourced, structured and fairly well written text which has been reverted by various editors. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing more of the edits, the prior version from Inder315 (talk · contribs) is a bit... lacking. A minor POV stance that can be easily corrected, but not through repeated blankings or mass deletions of valid sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Crossposted from Seicer's talk page) Would you mind doing a little homework before you go about admonishing responsible editors? The person has been adding completely non-notable pieces of everyday news to the article and seriously damaging its quality. I was entirely justified in reverting his edits to an article which had just beginning to have some decent shape. The person has been repeatedly abusing me on my talk page, calling me "slave of sonia gandhi" and a "congress party worker", edits that I have had to deletle every time. What does that say about his wikiquiette? Inder315, Mimic2 and Nkulkarn are probably sockpuppets of the same person. I've got to say I am really dissappointed at your attitude. Amit@Talk 08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is bluntly refusing to acknowledge the error of his edits. He is removing mass amounts of sourced, structured and fairly well written material, contrary to his edit summary. He has not gained consensus or even discussed his edits before reverting. At least discuss the proposed changes, what could be in error, and do it in a way so that your edit isn't strongly POV. It would be nice if he could assume good faith and tone down the comments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I removed were NOT NOTABLE as per WP:Notability. It's perplexing Seicer is asking me to assume good faith and engage in discussion with a person who has called me names in the past. I can't understand how he describes material like "now it will be interesting to see what sonia says" as well written. I maintain that I was entirely justfied in removing the content without discussion. My edit history is impeccable and I invite other editors to examine for themselves the portion I "repeatedly" deleted, and comment on how encyclopaedic and well written it is. The "mediators" are in grave error which they refuse to acknowledge Amit@Talk 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my comment, but thanks for attributing another user to me. The accusations can stop now, but if your conscious has not fully cleared, you can take it to WP:SSP. Your poor civility is showing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid WP:N has nothing to do with article content. Notability policies/guidelines refer to what we can have an article about, not what kind of content we put into the article. Also, in addition to assuming good faith, you should at least make sure you're accusing the right person of being out to get you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seicer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing this case myself, here's my take: This is obviously a heated content dispute that has started to get personal on both sides, which means that everyone should step away and cool off for a little while. As I usually do in such cases, I'll try to address both sides in turn:

ReluctantPhilosopher: Per consensus policy, if you make a large-scale edit that is quickly reverted, regardless of the policy that you're citing, it is up to you to avoid getting into a revert war by bringing the discussion to the relevant talk page. Wikipedia content is achieved through community consensus, which by its very nature means you cannot decide unilaterally what is notable and what is not. Not even us admins can do that - when it comes to controversial edits, we have to go through the same procedures as non-admins in terms of discussing why content should be added or removed. To insist that people accept your version of the article is to exert ownership over the article, and it works at cross-purposes to WP's intent. Please, after allowing for some time for all parties to cool off, engage in open discussion about the article's content on its talk page, and remain focused on the content, not your fellow editors. Also, remember that poorly-written content does not necessarily have to be deleted outright - it can always be improved. The question is whether a well-written form of the content is suitable for Wikipedia at all.

Mimic2, Inder315, Seicer: Likewise, you should also be willing to engage in consensus-building discussion rather than simply fighting ReluctantPhilosopher. It is true that the sections he removed were, in several cases at least, poorly written and (at least to my eye) in violation of WP:BLP and/or WP:NPOV. I'm not qualified to pass judgement on the content itself, but I can say that it did not appear to conform to WP's standards for this type of content. I think that, as part of your consensus-building discussion, you should discuss ways to improve that content should the decision be to keep it in any form. In the meantime, please refrain from engaging in attack threads such as "ReluctantPhilosopher's creditbility (sic)" - it doesn't help, and only serves to inflame other users. It is an assumption (however justified it might be) of bad faith, and there are more appropriate ways to request comment on the matter.

Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, KieferSkunk, for offering a more balanced perspective on the issue. The reason I didn't discuss those changes on the talk page were: (1) I didn't think those edits were serious enough to be discussed as they were in blatant violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:Notability, and (2)I was fairly certain arguing with those guys was going to be futile. In any case, I accept your advice of "cooling off" and will let the article stay in whatever state it is now. Or perhaps other editors could improve it. Thanks. Amit@Talk 17:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other, more appropriate methods, but essentially page blanking and applying false edit summaries to deceive editors is not the best method. If the content is so disputed, I suggested seeking consensus or even discussing the proposed changes beforehand, but you reverted to a rather POV state -- much what you were trying to avoid. Want to cool off? Discuss the changes first and at least let other editors know what the issue you present is. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer, my comments apply to you too. Everyone needs to cool off, or you'll just keep sniping at each other like you did just here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed the part where Reluctant Philosopher came after Seicer on his talk page. Seicer has kept a cool head as far as I can tell. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the talk page regarding the issue, but it is probably a misunderstanding, not noting that after I made the revert based upon the edit summary (not so much weight on the content), I was attacked for the edit on my talk page and then labeled a sockpuppeter. Definately not assuming good faith on the part of User:ReluctantPhilosopher (who has a confusing .sig). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is appalling. I NEVER called Seicer the sockpuppetteer, nor did I attribute that old hostile comment (sonia ganshi fan...) to him. I don't know what he is talking about. Amit@Talk 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chesser noted it above as well, but perhaps this edit summary will assist. If that was not directed towards me, then it was generally misunderstood by others and could have been reworded to reference the editor in question, not attributed under my reply. If it was in error, then you have my apologies, but please revise the post to clarify who you are attributing the socking to prevent further confusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just said that nkulkarn (talk · contribs), mimic2 (talk · contribs) and inder315 (talk · contribs) were probably sockpuppets of the same user, but not you. and I attributed that comment to nkulkarn, not you, as was clear from the diff. And now you know how upset "responsible" editors feel when they are, apparently, "attacked".Amit@Talk 02:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see we are on the same page again :-) Have you reported it to WP:SSP? The edit contribs aren't all too encouraging but he hasn't edited since the 26th of December, so I would give it a few days to see if he reemerges. Looking over the edit summaries of those you listed above, they are rather similar but nothing is definite until a check has been done for good measure. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't reported it yet, but may consider doing so. Looking at the contribus it is obvious that all three accounts have contributed mostly to sonia gandhi page, and occasionally to Manmohan Singh. Thanks! Amit@Talk 03:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be sure to sign in while editing Wikipedia. Forgetting to sign in confuses other editors (we have User:ReluctantPhilosopher posting with signature "Amit@Talk" but not logged in, so we get an IP address too). It's difficult to keep track of who's who, and also compromises your privacy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for getting into a healthy discussion. Also very good points have come up like "Wikipedia content is achieved through community consensus, which by its very nature means you cannot decide unilaterally what is notable and what is not. Not even us admins can do that".

About sockpuppets, if someone thinks (just because I have added mostly to two pages Sonia Gandhi and Manmohansingh) that three accounts belong to me, he is welcome to do so. But it is not the fact. Also I have modified the two articles mainly because those are the two most prominent leaders in Indian Politics. Also, nowhere wikipedia policy states that one has to modify these many articles to prove that you are a authentic editor. Regarding the edit history, I am sure that editing only 2 articles is better than removing large sections giving some reason and assuming that the thinking is fact. Inder315 (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed some statements here by User:ReluctantPhilosopher. He says "I didn't think those edits were serious enough to be discussed as they were in blatant violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:Notability, and (2)I was fairly certain arguing with those guys was going to be futile". Now what does it mean by "I didn't think"? It is very clear now that even admins can not pass such messages. Secondly, what makes him think that "I was fairly certain arguing with those guys was going to be futile"? He does not want to argue, that is fine. But he has no right to judge us like this. Will it be acceptable by him if I say "I would have started a discussion, but looking at his past comments, it could have turn violent". I request User:ReluctantPhilosopher to be more open. Inder315 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:ReluctantPhilosopher cool time is over in 2 days. He is going to "fix" the sections "Critism" giving reason "The section "Questions are being asked now .... all wins are due to sonia agandhi and all losses due to party memebers" and several sententces in the section "Notice by the election commision of India" read like a political commentary and have no place in an encyclopedia, besides they violate WP:BLP".

One new excuse has come up for deleting sections. If the reason this time is "political commentary", then we would need to delete 80% of the article given the fact that she is a political leader. How about deleting sections like "Leader of Opposition", "2004 elections", "UPA Chairperson" giving the same reason? Are they not "political commentary", as my scholar friend thinks? Also, about the statement "have no place in an encyclopedia, besides they violate WP:BLP" How many times I would need to repeat that "Wikipedia content is achieved through community consensus, which by its very nature means you cannot decide unilaterally what is notable and what is not. Not even us admins can do that" He is exactly doing this. How can an individual say what should have place in wikipedia or not?

I request some senior contributors of wikipedia to jump in the discussion against this dominance and help wikipedia users who deserve to have a neutral source of information.

I appeal to the mediators here to please see my comments on Talk:Sonia Gandhi and decide for themselves whether they are valid or not. Also please look at the contributions of Inder315 (talk · contribs), Nkulkarn (talk · contribs) and mimic2 (talk · contribs) and decide for themselves if they are sockpuppets. It's an open and shut case. Thanks Amit@Talk 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have declared that it is an open and shut case. Then why are you asking others to decide themselves. You have developed the habit of considering your "opinion" as "fact" and you have started giving judgements also (like owner of wikipedia). Also, I saw your comments in the discussion secion of Sonia Gandhi. It is strange you consider someone elses contribution as "Political Commentry" just because you do not agree with it. If you do not like the facts, you have option not to visit the article. All the best. Inder315 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who has invited others to see what is political commentary and what is biographical information. Why are you so afraid of neutral editors finding out the truth. Amit@Talk 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please help me out here with this difficult editor? Imagine adding everything ever said about George W. Bush in newspapers to the article on hime - it would be sourced alright, but wouldn't be biographical. Can someone please examine the nature of the content in dispute and end it once and for all. And as far as credentials are concerned, the edit histories speak for themselves. Thanks. Amit@Talk 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider opening an Request For Comment or a Third Opinion. Those are the proper places to request help with content disputes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KieferSkunk. I will do it instantly. And Thanks Mr. Amit for calling me a difficult editor. Good that everyone knows who is difficult. It is actually you who gives different execuse everytime for deleting a section which is a fact and you do not like it. Looking at your contributions, it is clear that you are a fan of Sonia Gandhi. Fine. You can start a blog, start an orkut community or any webpage for that matter. But please keep wikipedia free from your praising. Inder315 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take every opportunity to lash out at someone with whom you have a content dispute. Both of you are clearly on opposing sides of a dispute related to the content of an article, but it's pretty obvious that this is yet another shot you're taking at him, poorly disguised as a thank you and conclusion to this discussion. If you're going to report someone to the civility alert board for what seems to be far more of a content dispute, you should at least tone down your lashing out at him, no matter how justified you feel you might be in the content dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFCU, Inder315 (talk · contribs) = Aslam1234 (talk · contribs) = Mimic2 (talk · contribs) = Nkulkarn (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so it's proven they're soocks? How do we proceed from here? Amit@Talk 06:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settle your dispute through the appropriate channels. If he continues to use sockpuppets to inappropriately argue with a "consensus" or file frivolous complaints, that's an issue completely outside the content dispute (and is not an etiquette problem either). As far as this alert board is concerned though, this one is a wash. Clearly, the issue is not settled, but we're not getting anywhere here because it's not an issue for here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okily dokily neighbour Amit@Talk 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stale

 – User in question has refused "further communication" and believes he has "no obligation" to resolve the matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually the one here answering concerns, but I was hoping to get a little help with a hostile/uncivil user who's been making a point of treating me as though I am a vandal / troll / disruptive editor, instead of what I am (a long standing contributor). I believe the sequences of events will speak for themselves:

Mainspace at Physical attractiveness:

1. [21] deletes a perfectly well sourced, and in my opinion relevant, piece of information based on an assumption that it "belongs somewhere else" - although it was not moved anywhere
2. [22] I restore the deletion
3. [23] edit war begins
4. [24] edit war ends when I cite the appropriate consensus-building policy
5. [25] I take the initiative to find compromise and moved the content in question into its own section, which was mutually agreeable

Talk at Talk:Physical attractiveness:

1. [26] discussion finally begins on the talk page with a reiteration of his edit summary
2. [27] I address his concerns about how it fits in the section by recommending he move it instead of deleting / edit warring over it
3. [28] decides, unilaterally, that the content has "no place in [that] article"
4. discussion ensues, including sarcasm, a complete misunderstanding of consensus building, and an inappropriate personal sexual remark
5. [29] reiterates unilateral judgement that it "has no place in [that] article"
6. desipte unilateralism, he then files a "motion to [do what he wants]", then an RFC, and then an RfM

1. I repeatedly explain that I am assuming good faith and want to go through the consensus-building process
2. [30] I address his challenge to the agreed-upon move of the content into a new section, a challenge he made to make a point about how I allegedly can also act unilaterally (although since we agreed that it didn't fit the section it was in, my actions were not unilateral)
3. [31] accuses me of "blocking consensus" by not capitulating to his deletion
4. [32] asserts that his opinion is paramount because he has "done lots of work on [that article]", going so far as to label my inclusion (or rather, my opposing deletion) of (at least arguably) relevant content as "adversely affect[ing the] readability and usability of [W]ikipedia."
5. [33] prompts me to "give it a rest" despite his filing an RfC and leading the conversation directly into a discussion of my intent and apparent negative impact on Wikipedia

User talk at User talk:Loodog:

1. [34] personal attack / unfounded "trolling" accusation
2. [35] refusing a mature request to settle the incivility
3. [36] threatening to report me to the ANI for asking him not to make personal attacks / unfounded accusations of trolling
4. [37] polite courtesy notification of this WQA post

Being a regular here, I have probably been a bit too longwinded in laying this all out, but lots of diffs are usually what help me sort through others' complaints and I'm hoping that what I like to see in a WQA post is also what's going to help any of you who want to give your opinion. Thanks in advance. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To third-party mediators, I have no problem with Cheeser and now believe him to be a well-intentioned editor, but since the content issue that started all this has been resolved, I would like nothing more than a divorce. I would like to let any personal issues drop and would appreciate never being contacted again by Cheeser except for content issues on articles.

Cheeser and I are strangers who don't know each other who interact on the internet. We are therefore under no obligation to end things on good terms, especially when efforts to do so have only inflamed the situation. Thank you.--Loodog (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Wikipedia is written by consensus, as was made clear. It is a collaborative process that requires you to accept the input of others, graciously at that. You cannot "divorce" someone, nor can you deny your obligation to be civil. Content issues are not the only issues for which one is required to answer. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this all went wrong when the decision was made to restore the deletion rather than discussing it on the talk page at that point. Continuously citing consensus policy while ignoring important supplements to that policy, such as WP:BRD, leads to the heated discussion/debates that occurred above. While incivility (and this word gets thrown about so much, especially by those who engage in ad hominem arguments themselves) has no place in said discussion/debate, it is important in this case to note that two other editors chimed in on the relevant talk page. One even mentioned his impression of Cheeser1's written tone as being "angry" [38], an impression I agree with.

Many of the summaries of your presented diffs, misstate/oversimplify what actually happened. For example, the "refusing a mature request to settle the incivility" summary on diff number two under Loodog's talk page may have seemed reasonable to you, but when one actually reads your "request for a mature apology" one will note the clear implication of immaturity or childishness on the part of Loodog. That does not help things at all, especially when dealing with an already upset editor. Loodog's statement makes it clear that he is finished with this issue, even if you are not, Cheeser1. At this point it seems as if you just want someone to step in say "You're right, he's wrong."

Disengage, forget about it, and move on to continue being the long standing, positive contributor that you are. I refer to your own words in another Wikiquette alert earlier this month: "[One's] contributions and opinions are valued, but so are others' - even if they're wrong, misinformed, or stubborn sometimes." That was good advice and you should probably heed it even if you are on the wrong side of it this time around. When confronted with perceived incivility, simply disengage and allow yourself some time to cool off. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, could you please explain why I, the user who did not make personal attacks or uncivil comments, needs to cool off? He was hostile, acted against consensus, and labeled me as a troll and blight on Wikipedia. My asking him to stop and/or affirm that he won't violate polices/guidelines in the future, when dismissed as a non-issue, that's exactly what this alert board is for. Why does it seem that you are affirming his (false) assertion that he need not take responsibility for the incivility and hostility he has exhibited? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that you've decontextualized what I said: it was directed to the uncivil party, not the complaining party. In fact, it was in reference to digging up months' old blocks in order to discredit someone in an unrelated content dispute. It had/has no bearing whatsoever on the general function of this board: to notify volunteers about civility violations (which have clearly occurred) and seek outside opinion as to how to best handle the offending editor. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User seems to have stopped judgmental edit summaries. If problem continues will reopen. --Nn123645 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user continues to add judgmental tones in edit summaries and is biting other users. Apparently has no desire to assume good faith. He is apparently trying to edit war over mutliple articles with users he does agree with reverting other's edits as "rubbish" [39] and telling others to "get a life" [40]. He has placed a message on his talk page specifically asking other users not to post any messages there unless they are an administrator [41]. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be quite terse, however I wouldn't jump to conclusions about malevolence or hostility - he does appear to be tidying and fixing things up in an attempt to contribute positively. As for his talk page, he cannot decide who posts there, however he can choose to ignore comments by anyone who isn't an administrator (at his own peril, perhaps). I have left a brief note. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did add a note before. However he removed it and added this comment. I assume by Mr. N he is referring to me, which is why I came here. --Nn123645 (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on his response, further action may be a good idea. I think we should wait and see if he responds here and/or at his talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he responded by blanking the page and leaving another comment. --Nn123645 (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he requested that only admins contact him, I left a message on his talk page. He hasn't blanked that one yet. But keep in mind that users ARE allowed to blank their own talk pages, and doing so can be taken as a sign that they've read and understand whatever it is they deleted. I would advise not bothering him further - it's his choice if he wants to respond here or not, but if aberrant behavior continues, you can feel free to take further steps in the dispute resolution process. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

This editor has engaged in a pattern of uncivil behavior and personal attacks. diff diff diff diff Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While I might caution User:ScienceApologist to consider how his typed words might be interpreted, that is that it might be possible for them to be interpreted as being judgmental of the editor vs. the material, I do not really see a blatant personal attack here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no personal attacks, only perhaps an attack on pseudoscience. His tone is perhaps insistent or frustrated, but not uncivil as I read it. Are there any personal remarks or more incivil comments you could direct us to? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought calling someone a disruptive agenda-driven editor, to cite one of the examples I've already given, (also seen here), would qualify as a personal attack, but that's just my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that calling someone a disruptive agenda-driven editor would more than qualify as a personal attack. But I followed your old links and your new ones, and I am not seeing that in the difs. I am seeing disagreement, and I am seeing some words that could be seen as judgmental. That's wrong, and I have cautioned the editor about that. This editor does need to be more careful in how he uses his words, and I left what I hoped to be a positively worded caution to him on his Talk Page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to find that in the diff I provided, just search for the word 'disruptive' and you'll find his reply to Anthon01's RfC comment, where he says: "I don't trust disruptive agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer." Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Whenever I loaded the page, I only saw the difs that were near the top of the page .... I never saw the ones lower down. My apologies. Still, I don't see this as a personal attack. The strongest word here may have been the "wikilawyer" comment, but I am not sure that this was directed at any particular editor. Nonetheless, this seems to be covered under "petty" issues on WP"CIVIL. I feel like I am dominating the conversation here, and would like to make sure that if this is a more severe issue than I am seeing that someone will say something. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've lost me. Just above you said that "calling someone a disruptive agenda-driven editor would more than qualify as a personal attack". Now you say "I don't see this as a personal attack.". I'm out of energy for this conversation for now. Dlabtot (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He gives the identical reply to perfectblue in the same edit. I see now, and I suppose it should be noted, the he is under an ArbCom restriction for previous incivility. But if you placed a caution, perhaps that will suffice. Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if rather than cautioning him, you cheered his behavior, it's possible you've done more harm than good. Dlabtot (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Dlabtot, I think you are the one who may be implying bad faith. I cautioned him about his use of language, as I mentioned to him that this needed to be addressed. After reading what he was editing about, I supported his editing, not his use of language. The issue here is a lack of civility (which I don't support), not the content of his editing (which, frankly, I do upon reflection). In short, Science Apologist may have been right, but that is not an excuse for using the language he did.

As for your other accusation here, you seemed to imply that you or another editor were called a disruptive agenda driven editor. Those certainly were the words used. I think there is a difference between someone in frustration making a statement about "editors in general", and making a direct statement toward a specific editor(s). I am seeing more the latter. It still isn't the preferred response, and I have left a note as such.

I've already shown you where he specifically directed that comment at perfectblue and Anthon01. I can only present the evidence; it's up to you to acknowledge it. Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I do find that it helps to avoid confrontation when trying to offer correction, which is why I left the note that I did (which you linked to). I find that opening these debates with stern warnings and lectures tend to not have the desired effect in most cases. I in no way encouraged this user to continue incivility. My encouragement was to continue editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is moot; the issues I've raised here are being evaluated at Arbitration Enforcement, and they will be resolved there. Since ScienceApologist was under ArbCom restrictions for prior incivility, I should have posted there in the first place, not here, so I'm placing the NWQA tag on this section. Thank you for your efforts. Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it depends on context, and I'm having trouble contextualizing it - not to mention it's hard to pick through one diff that contains several comments (sorry for not seeing them all). I would echo the concerns that the tone may not be as good as possible, but that I'm not sure there's any systematic incivility (nor any blatant or acute instances). --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the matter has been taken up elsewhere. I think this alert was unnecessary. Dlabtot (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after coming back to this after the initial discussion, and seeing the other restrictions, I think the borderline problems, which aren't normally an etiquette concern, are worth taking up based on this previous ruling, but of course not here but at that new discussion. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Asking someone not to be an ass seems slightly uncivil, at worst, and I think all sides here need to cool off and get back to being productive (if they haven't already). Assuming a little good faith would go a long way to resolve things if this dispute heats up at all again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.brodale has made what I consider condescending remarks in the discussion of articles as well as on my talk page. I think he should be informed that this sort of behavior is not accepted on Wikipedia. Users don't have to put up with this. The article in question is Rogeulike, as well as comments on his and my talk page. SharkD (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs to show this? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This diff is the glaring example I see.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll stand by those words. To date, the unsolicited remarks in question from SharkD remain irrelevant and untimely. As I pointed out on his Talk page, it's nice and all to drop warning on users' Talk pages, but it's all the better when relevance and context are supplied. Both are still lacking, though it all seems moot now that my response has landed here, somehow dragging behind it a past, unrelated discussion of edits. D. Brodale (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you simply request clarification instead of making rude comments on my talk page? SharkD (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to fan the flames any higher, but I don't see how either my initial or follow-up remarks on your Talk page could be construed as rude. There may be a touch of smugness, though. I have requested clarification a number of times, and have yet to receive it. As per above, I suspect it's moot. It is, as far as I'm concerned. D. Brodale (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above insults that Jeff G. linked to, D.brodale has engaged in generally condescending behavior in the Roguelike article. I can't really point out specific things; it's the general tone of the remarks that I don't like (you kind of have to read the whole thing to get the gist, here). He exaggerates points to make them seem more strong. SharkD (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of minimizing any bad feelings against me, I should probably stay out. It would probably make my edits easier. But I have observed these editors to some extent. This was clearly just another edit war from two strong personalities. Both of them have acted in good faith in making their edits, even if they were both strong-headed. But for one person to accuse the other of disruptive behavior is itself an act of bad faith. This very "wikiquette alert" to one user is itself motivated by incivility from the other. From what I've observed from both editors, resolving this conflict must be a two-way street. A lot of this conflict stems from a misunderstanding of the use (and misuse) of references and research. Randomran (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think you are mischaracterizing me as strong-headed. In Roguelike I simply made my points regarding my edits and was responded to with denigration. I don't see how I was in any way patronizing. Secondly, I don't see how we were involved in an edit war. After the second revert I posted to the talk page in order to discuss the issue and discontinued the discussion when I felt it got too "hot". SharkD (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SharkD has now mischaracterized my efforts to improve the Artillery Duel article. I am concerned he is trying to do the same thing to me that he is doing to D.brodale. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Artillery_Duel for the misstatement by SharkD and my response. Randomran (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the only insult that I can see is the one Jeff G. linked to. The rest might just be a mountain out of a anthill,but I don't know. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note about this, but I hope it's blown over by now and won't crop up again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why it shouldn't. As I've now stated several times, the original issue is moot, and would imagine so for SharkD as well, given that the triggering statement of his still hasn't been clarified. I'm slightly cheesed that SharkD took the opportunity to attribute malice to unrelated edits, but that's his choice, not mine. D. Brodale (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Complaining editor is upset about his vandalism / nonconstructive edits are being reverted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this user is stalking me. Seem's to have an axe to grind. The attention is kind of flattering, but to put it succinctly: Don't taze stalk me, Bro! 99.247.120.178 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs. I see no stalking going on, although you've recklessly removed a few prod templates without cause, and he reverted a couple of them because (frankly) you need at least a reason to remove a prod on something as silly as Jupiter Station, which clearly is not a suitable article topic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To name a few:

[42]

[43]

[44]

it pains me 99.247.120.178 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits (e.g. this one or this one) are vandalism. Reporting you for it is not inappropriate, and if you make more than one such edit, a single editor may find more than one and report them both - it is not "stalking." If you are willing to take the time to make this report, I hope you could invest the time in becoming a constructive contributor to Wikipeida. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Issue related to sources being removed because they are "spoilers." Putting the sources back in is not incivility (and is the correct course of action, too). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has taken over the Bond 22 article, even when a relevant cite is given or multiple editors make changes. He believes his word is law, check editing history etc. (Example: He believes an early interview is fact, when edited to give example where the example states that changes may be made he says that its a plan and can not change, this is incorrect. multiple editors changed this, also, when given a recent change with a credible source he changed it back again - did not pursue in case of banned for "edit warring" - cite source used before) etc. 217.42.137.69 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to remove some citations, such as this by claiming they are a spoiler, but I don't see it as being that large of an issue. Another editor reverted the missing citation. Even if it is an early interview, if it was published and can be verified with a credible source, then it can be included. Note that WP no longer has a spoiler template, per a TfD decision -- an no current fiction template either.

Per WP:SW, it is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. I believe that about sums it up. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OWN. Taken over the article? Pfff. Alientraveller (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This appears to be a content dispute, not one regarding Wikiquette. Please seek dispute resolution for further assistance. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be very angry at my suggestion that a certain source is unreliable. I have objected to using Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict because it is a non-scholarly work published by AIPAC and criticized for lacking footnotes and a bibliography. He has responded that I am "suggesting that we reject a source since they are zionist or neoconservative" and that "This is a disgusting and nauesating suggestion," "This suggestion is simply obscene," and "This is an obscene suggestion that would seem antisemitic if it were ever put into effect." See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. <eleland/talkedits> 04:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the civility issue. If you can't settle the issue of the reliability of the source between you, perhaps an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of words is not the best and I would recommend User:Lobojo tone it down but it seems essentially a content dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dlabtot, though I would extend caution to Lobojo and Elland. This seems to be a content dispute, and I think both sides got a little heated. Deep breath, read the points of the other person. Find a point of agreement before resuming your respective stances. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck

 – It seems as though this issue has been taken care of in several other administrative ways - checkuser, page protection, ArbCom, ANI, and other administrative intervention. Little, if any, of this problem is a civility issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried everything possible to be as civil and friendly with IronAngelAlice as I possibly could. I've tried every possible resolution that I could think of to work with rather than against her/him on articles here at wikipedia. I even went so far as to award the half-barnstar, barnstar, in hopes that we could cooperate together on an article and come to consensus and understanding. User_talk:IronAngelAlice#Barnstar.

For those who are not aware, I previously posted problems with this same user on the ANI page, not knowing that I skipped steps in the dispute resolution process. This was a mistake that I made, but editors there noted and explained the steps in the Dispute Process to me, and I thought that the matter between IAA and myself were resolved, and I declared the matter closed on the page. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=180575112) If you look at the work that I tried to do with IronAngelAlice after this, you will see nothing short of utmost Wikipedia:Assume good faith edits.

Today, on the Talk:Fetus#Drawings_unintentional_POV IronAngelAlice is continuing with personal attacks on myself, assuming Bad-Faith on my part, and purposely mischaracterizing my edits to the David Reardon page. Additionally, the user is accusing another of "canvassing" myself, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Additionally, I must insist that none of my edits were to the David Reardon page were "disruptive" or "POV". For this user to mis-characterize my actions and expand any content dispute that we have to other pages breaches wikiquette. Specifically, the user is engaging in personal attacks and assuming Bad Faith where there is none Wikipedia:Assume good faith . It is my understanding that this notice board is a lower level phase of the dispute resolution process, and my complaint should go here, rather than at the ANI page. I really want to work with the user rather than against them, but I feel that outside intervention is now called for. I ask that I get assistance here. I wish to resolve whatever issue exists between IAA and myself and not have this blow up any further. I've gone out of my way to follow policy and resolve our differences, but I fear that I have been unsuccessful and that it's time for help. That's what I am asking for here. Help. Thanks in advance. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

I'll throw this out for consideration here:

1. User_talk:IronAngelAlice, I think that I understand why you are taking the stance that you are, but as an outsider, it seems like you came on a bit strong in your post, rather blatantly accusing of POV pushing. Personally, I wouldn't have opened with that. Go back and take a look at what you wrote, and just think about another way to word this without changing what you feel or think.

2. I think that User:Orangemarlin took a good approach: let the pictures stay until something more "real" can be found. I agree that in scientific depictions, artistry is often times not a substitute for photography (or similar).

3. Ghostmonkey57, could you explain why the particular pictures are so important? Would you be willing to see them replace if a more "real" photograph/sonogram, etc could be found? LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely ok with replacing the drawings with sonograms. I firmly believe that if we take that route, we should use the most up to date medical technology and use 3D/4D sonograms rather than the outdated 2D sonograms. My reasons for this are simple.

1. 3D/4D sonograms constitute the latest in medical technology. 2. 2D sonograms are very difficult for a lay person to read/understand. 3. 3D/4D sonograms are much easier for a lay person to read/understand.

I mentioned this in the talk page further up, but the consensus seemed to be heading toward keeping the drawings. Which I have no problem with either. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

To be clear, the wikiquette alert extends much further than the Talk:Fetus comment. I am not the only wikipedia editor to have these problems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=172875647 Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

And it continues. Now IAA is referring to my requests for help and dispute resolution as "bullying" User_talk:IronAngelAlice#Wikiquette_Alert. This really has gone to far, and the personal attacks and assaults on my character are hurtful and beyond the pale. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

Yes, I do feel bullied. When we have substantive content disagreements, GM makes it a point to create a Wikialert for me. It is becoming tiresome.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This wikialert was made only after the personal attacks and mischaracterization of my edits. Out of the blue, for no reason and with no evidence, IAA accused me of participating in "Canvassing" with Ferrylodge, then accused me of "POV" and "Disruptive" edits to the David Reardon page. All of this was after I made repeated steps to get along with and work with IAA. Further, this is only the 2nd wikialert that I have ever generated on wikipedia. The first was with the same user on the ANI page, and I *Thought* we had resolved any conflict between us. IAA apparently decided that the conflict was not resolved, and chose to mischaracterize my edits and engage in baseless and hurtful accusations against myself. As I stated, I am not the first user on wikipedia to have experienced this behavior. Some users have even been driven away by it. (See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c#For_the_record) I would like nothing better than to completely resolve any issue that remains between IAA and myself. I've extended the hand of friendship on more than one occasion. I'll extend it once again, but I'd be a fool to continually have that hand slapped away and be spit on by the user. IAA I offer to end this once and for all, but you need to agree to do so. You're accusations were hurtful and misrepresented me, but I offer to forgive and forget if you are willing. The ball is in your court. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

I've read what I can through this messy dispute, and I see nothing meriting a complaint on this board. Alice has been very clear in her intention to improve the quality of images in the article, unless I've missed something. Jumping to an alert board every time there's a disagreement could be construed as "bullying" or at least as inappropriate, especially when this board is about civility, and Alice seems to be well-intentioned and civil. She appears to be dealing with other administrative complaints (although there seem to be problems on all sides), but I think this report was unneeded. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Cheeser1 to an extent. I think I understand the mutual frustration that comes from trying to edit what might be among the more contentious articles on this entire site. While I still feel that User talk:IronAngelAlice may have comes across a little strong with some accusations (I think there were other ways this could have been said and still saying what you meant), I am concerned that this forum is being used as an attempt to cut through edit problems (versus civility issues -- which as I noted, are mild at best). LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser, LonelyBeacon, I feel that something has been missed in my complaint. This isn't about the Fetus article at all. There is no content dispute. As I said on the talk page, I am ok with the images being replaced with sonograms, and I am ok with the images staying. Either way I don't care. So the content dispute is out the window. I am referring to IAA mischaracterizing my edits, claiming that I was participating in canvassing, and accusing me of POV. All of these accusations were brought from the David Reardon page to the Fetus page. All of these things are assumptions and accusations of bad-faith. Again, The dispute between us is NOT about a content dispute. I believe that IAA has issues with me that I want to resolve, I've tried everything that I know of to do so.

Accusing me of "bullying" calling my edits "illogical" Talk:David_Reardon#Pacific_Western_University [quote]I certainly can. Chris Mooney already published it. Why are you doing this? It's completely illogical.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[/quote] Accusing me of "POV", Accusing me of participating in "Canvassing", all of these things are un-civil.

To show you how adamant I am about ending this dispute, I'll even agree to quit editing the Fetus and David Reardon articles if that would make peace. However, I feel that even that wouldn't be enough and IAA would continue to bring our dispute to other pages. I've offered to her several times to end the dispute, if she won't do so, where am I supposed to go for help?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]

Like the instructions for this page say, you have to show us the incivility. You haven't provided diffs that demonstrate such false accusations (assuming they are false - don't forget, you do have a POV, we all do). There's enough administrative action going on here I don't know what to suggest next. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent} Perhaps my language was strong, however, on one occasion when I disagreed with GM's edits he threatened to block me (which in retrospect would save me about 20 mins everday, but nontheless isn't very nice): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronAngelAlice/Archive_Jan_2008#Warnings

When it was pointed out that his threat was malformed by an outside party, he took it to an administration board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive345#IronAngelAlice and no one could find incidents of abuse of NPOV or vandalism on my count.

To be very clear, I have never accused GhostMonkey of canvassing. I expressed concern that Ferrylodge may be attempting to canvass GM because they are editing the same pages and have the same POV. This is an issue with Ferrylodge, not with GM. Also, it should be made clear that GM has made many edits to the David Reardon that were reverted multiple times by other editors as well as myself. And there has been much rehashing the same issues (over-and-over again) on the David Reardon Talk page. This all gets to be a little tiring of course, and though I may have used strong language when I said I felt GM was "bullying me," it was an accurate assessment of how I felt at the time. if anyone has advice for me on what to do about this matter, please let me know.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Complaining user seems interested in administrator intervention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an adminstrator please review the comments and activity of this user. He has made continued harassing comments to me and about my wikipedia editing for the past several months. Even though I have not edited the page he considers to be his own (which I created, he continues to make harassing remarks on the talk and discussion pages.) He is editing what he claims to be his own page and only using wikipedia for this purpose. Please review.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an administrator's noticeboard. Refer to the description of this page, which is up at the top. Since he is engaged in a nasty COI dispute about an article of which he is the subject, I would strongly suggest that you let him burn himself out, because once the article is deleted and salted (as I believe it will be), he will probably go about his business off Wikipedia. If you would like some advice on how to handle him: ignore it. It seems clear, at first glance at least, that he's not here to contribute constructively. If he's going to be rude to you, ignore it and get on with things. You have a huge drawn out dispute with him on talk pages, but that's a two way street. All it takes is one ignored comment and the conversation is over. There's some advice at the relevant policy page regarding what to do with users who are uncivil. Sometimes ignoring them really is the best answer. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Initial user peppered page with unreliable and questionable sources, and made false accusations. Blocked. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance with B who has made ignorant and racist accusations of "white power" on edits relating to the Puerto Rican Day Parade. As a Puerto Rican, not only I find his accusation racist but they are certainly uncivil. I have asked him (he has used unregistered IP addresses also; please see article history) to discuss on article Talk page any difference or arguments he might have to no success. Any help will be truly appreciated. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit you made, forums are not considered reliable sources, regardless if they are from a white supremest web-site or not. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I welcome anyone to review this, as any of my other administrative actions. I originally resolved a 3RR report by warning XLR8TION and the other user, feeling that blocking would not be constructive since they appeared to be talking it out. I now believe my prior decision was incorrect. Since that time, XLR8TION has resumed the edit warring that prompted the report and has been continually readding a link to a white power message board - http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/puerto-ricans-133236p6.html. For obvious reasons, I have removed this link twice. His claim that I am the IP users is nonsense - a quick whois reveals that two of them are from New York and one is from Florida. Anyone who knows me knows that I hail from Virginia Tech. --B (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS, extremist sources such as that white-nationalist web-site are not allowed unless they are about the article itself. In this case, it isn't and was removed per policy. Another citation was tagged for VC and will be removed in a few days if no third-party, reliable source is found to verify its credibility. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid report. B was removing an unreliable source, and from his edit summaries, it seems he made note of that. I have blocked XLR8TION for edit warring, personal attacks and incivility. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User was blocked for edit warring and incivility (although it seems not as a direct result of this complaint). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He personally attacked me here as well stating english isn't my first language. [45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnclePaco (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing too stunning, perhaps a little incivil regarding the language, but nothing big. As for your edits to Dominican Day Parade, your insertion of this blatant POV fork is unnecessary, per WP:NPOV. Unless you want to elaborate more on the Dominican Day Parade itself and insert in a criticisms section and include text with a little more substance, along with a less-generic image, then it should be removed, per discussion at the talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at both the photos on the page you'll see that I am the author of both of them. The image I don't think was generic it was actually one of the individuals who had committed a crime mentioned in the links.

I have actually elaborated on the article and inserted it. If you look at these two articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day_Carnival#Violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade#Controversy they have controversy and violence sections that were less developed. Anyway thanks for the help UnclePaco (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree with Seicer here, but only slightly. It does not appear to me that this is a POV fork, although it may be placing undue emphasis on a minor and regular part of any/all festivities of this nature (Seicer, did you mean to say POV fork or something else?). The picture is 100% inappropriate for sure, if you can only say "I don't think [it] was generic" - especially if you then purport that it is a particular individual reportedly involved in criminal activity. The textual content should be discussed (civilly), although on such a low traffic article, outside opinions should solicited through the dispute resolution process (which seems to be happening). As for the civility, while it isn't an extreme example of incivility, it was entirely inappropriate and seemed to come out of nowhere and exacerbate the situation. I have warned the user that such irrelevant personal commentary is not welcome on Wikipedia (which he should know, given his history of being blocked for the exact same thing).

UnclePaco, I caution you not to reinsert disputed text until the dispute is resolved. I don't have the time to form an opinion as to whether the text itself (if presented appropriately) puts undue emphasis on a particular part of the festivities, but I urge both sides to consider the issue open-mindedly. Not everything about the parade has to be reported in Wikipedia, only things of a certain relevance/notability. But, unlike what XLR8TION said, the goal of an encyclopedia is decidedly not "to illustrate the purpose of the parade." That's what a promotional website about the parade is for. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address the incivility issue: I would say this is relatively minor .... nothing to be encouraged, mind you, but nothing I would call a real attack. I will leave a note with the editor.

However, I do have to question the POV as Seicer did. I think there is a difference between mayhem and murder (as noted in the other articles, and "there were arrests". That inclusion comes off as trivial. I would think it less trivial in any big city event of there were no arrests. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I commented further about my explanations on the respected talk pages, which was echoed by other editors and someone from third opinion IIRC. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be minor, except that this is not an isolated incident. It appears that an administrator has taken note of this and stepped in already. The user in question was blocked until Jan 10 (unless I'm mistaken, the block happened before this complaint was even filed). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese, I followed seices advice and expanded on the section. It was previously one sentence. The other two parades that i noted above were in NYC as well and they have violence sections. XL8Ration was bloked for using white power sources on another article as can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade&action=history . A further block I don't think would be out of the question. UnclePaco (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the addition of this material is a good thing to take up at Talk:Dominican Day Parade, in order to settle the content dispute. The scope of this alert board is to talk about civility issues, which seem to have been addressed. Issues related to the user being blocked aren't in our hands - this is not an administrator's alert board. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of keeping everyone informed, there is a request for arbitration regarding this matter. It is asserted (incorrectly) that XLR8TION was blocked for the edits in question here. He was blocked for an incident preceding this one (and has a history of such incivility). It is also asserted that WP:SKILL doesn't apply because UnclePaco really does speak bad English and has a Spanish-related username. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Please refer to WP:ANI for possible blacklisting. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am new user and I am trying to clean up the science sections. There is one site in particular that I need help with. They are a several page made for adsense site that has spammed the wikipedia so many times I cant even list them here.

Biologicalworld.com has spammed wikipedia like no tomorrow. Not much information is given except for "protocols" which are not referenced, and cannot be trusted from a site of that quality.

check: Links from Wikipedia

The following have been spammed and some cleaned up. Can we get a bot to help as I am tired...

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmid
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protease
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_enzyme
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petri_dish
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_domain
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trypsin
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligonucleotide
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_electron_microscope
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agar_plate
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_phosphate
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disulfide_bond
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturation_(biochemistry)
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_ligase
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_type
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_culture
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_electron_microscopy
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter_gene
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_blot
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_engineering
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_end/blunt_end
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taq_polymerase
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_domain
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coomassie
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_state
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Hamster_Ovary_cell
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptidase
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visking_tubing
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptavidin
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtiter_plate
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcloning
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_exchange_chromatography
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_cycler
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_serum_albumin
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate_buffered_saline
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutathione_S-transferase
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPES
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortholog
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteases
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_out
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_bovine_serum
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteolytic_enzyme
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_end
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatant
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABTS
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_sequence

and many more Sciencetalks (talk)

Any help/ideas? Where can we report this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencetalks (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a WQA issue, please take it (in whole) to WP:ANI. The site will most likely be blacklisted, or a bot will come in to remove all of the spam links. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Complaining editor blocked for incivility/personal attacks. Little merit to his claims, certainly a case of WP:POT at best, but the contributions he's edit warring and being uncivil about are nonNPOV and/or silliness. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Chensiyuan has been abusing his powers for long. He has warned myself for multiple editing even though he himself has done as well. I have warned him for the same offence but he took it off by saying I'm a mod and it doesn't matter if he did something wrong normal users would be warned for. He is clearly abusing the powers he has. On the Cesc Fabregas page, I have added the requested source and information he had asked, but being a stubborn man he is, he had still undid my edit without giving any specific and knowledgeble reply. Instead, he made a comment saying "no iq". I made a very valid and mature inquery to him and he still didn't reply with anything significant, because of the reason he didn't know what to say. He is abusing the powers he has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.24.31.152 (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit (like this one, this one, this one. this one, and ths one) is not an appropriate contribution to Wikipedia. Wikipedia adheres to a neutral point of view and information must be verifiable. Many of your other edits are incorrect for other reasons (this one for example is not right, a group that dances is a "dance troupe" and b. is the standard abbreviation for "born"). Other unnecessary/silly edits of yours include this one, this one. Furthermore, you cannot come here complaining about people's civility when you post things like this and this. Your contributions (and edit summaries) are peppered with personal attacks, profanity, and other inappropriate behavior. Your complaint does not provide diffs, so I can't say for sure, but it seems to me like it has little or no merit at all. You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies before you contribute to articles, especially if you're going to start disputes about changes you shouldn't be making. I suggest you also review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA too, since you've been blocked for violating them (despite filing a complaint here against the other party). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck

 – These users clearly don't seem interested in contributing constructively. Referred to the ANI if further disruption continues. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page, Talk:Turkish people, has degenerated into the most disgusting display of comments- please review the comments on the page by User:Humanusticus and User:Orkh. Thank you. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this needs to get bumped up to a higher level ..... this has gone a little far beyond simple incivility .... this has gone into overt racism LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I haven't looked through it extensively, nor do I have time right now to examine the edit histories of those two, but they don't seem like people interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, only soapboxing and ranting. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For easier access: Humanusticus (talk · contribs) and Orkh (talk · contribs). Based on that, I will agree with Chesser and LonelyBeacon's comments. This is a huge breach of civility and Orkh should (and has been) be warned as such. With that, I'm going to give Orkh a friendly notice, but based on the prior histories, I think it will be taken with a grain of salt. If so, just escalate the notices and apply for ANI, which will provide a temporary relief from their complete and utter nonsense, and give the two users time to cool off. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck

 – User in question appears to react to any part of the dispute resolution process with hostile, accusatory attacks. The user has no regard for civility policy, nor many other policies, it seems, meaning this one is out of our hands. It is unclear if he doesn't understand the policies, or if he doesn't understand their role, but his incivility doesn't seem to stop. There is an SSP complaint going, and other DR process are already going too, hopefully they will resolve the content problems, and perhaps the user in question will eventually have a change of heart and contribute constructively and civilly in the future. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a history of writing articles which do not conform to WP protocol. Examples are WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NOT#MANUAL. In responding to discussions regarding these issues, he has been rude, uncivil, does not assume good faith, and personally attacked those who disagrees with his edits. As my personal expertise overlaps some of the areas in which he edits, I can tell you he is often correct in his technical knowledge when he sticks to objective issues (as oppposed to personal essays), but he continues to advocate that this personal knowledge is more important than proper WP protocols.

Examples are Talk:Fire protection#Overall scope and emphasis, User talk:Fireproeng#Do not vandalize my user page, User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca#Do not vandalize my user page, User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca#Fire test, User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca#Question for you, and Talk:Listing and approval use and compliance.

Subsequent to the mediator disagreeing with him at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding, he has vandalised my Page, and added sarcastic trollish comments on my talk page, such as this and this.

Fireproeng (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a part of an ongoing content dispute, dealing with his hostility within other parts of the dispute resolution process might be appropriate. Mediation is already underway, and administrators have stepped in (e.g. protecting your userspace), so I would say you're already on the right track. Judging by his nonsense "tag team" accusations when he doesn't get the answer he wants, I don't think a reminder of WP:CIVIL is going to help the situation much - unfortunately, with an uncooperative editor that's the best we can do. I would suggest doing your best to participate in the dispute resolution process. If he does not, or does so in a hostile or uncivil way, then things will work themselves like they ought to so long as at least you are participating in the DR process appropriately.

In terms of the sockpuppetry, I suggest you file a report at the page for suspected sockpuppets. It seems pretty clear, since he challenges statements on your userpage, then an anonymous IP does so by vandalizing your userpage, and when you ask him not to vandalize your userpage, he responds by again claiming that you haven't identified yourself or proven that your userpage contains facts (something that is unnecessary). As an unrelated note, his username appears to violate the policy on usernames - ironic, since he denies sockpuppetry based on the location of the IP, but his username is (inappropriately) an email address that tells us that he is from Canada (as is the IP). --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

follow up - I've left a note and filed an SSP report for you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further follow up - The user has continued to be hostile and uncivil, esp at the SSP talk page. He's demanded that I reveal my real-life identity (and confront him in person, no less), and has declared that I am out to get him, that I am stupid, and that he has no respect for me. He takes this stance, it seems, with anyone in the DR process that doesn't tell him exactly what he wants to hear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a fairly leghty note on his talk page, maybe it will help. I tried to assume good faith as much as possible. --Nn123645 (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can't explain how my intervention could have motivated this kind of hostile, accusatory, "you're just out to get me" response, let alone anything like "say it to my face" and "I have no respect for you." *sigh* --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – No incivility here. The allegation is twofold. The complaining user is upset about what is construed as a COI accusation / personal attack, but it is in fact, a simple observation about the seemingly single-purpose nature of the complaining user's contributions (and the unclear, singular opinions that are given as their substantiation). The complaining user is also deleting others' comments, which is actually not generally okay (unless it's vandalism or patent nonsense etc.). Referred back to the original talk page, where they can (hopefully) talk through their dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justinm1978, insists that I may not remove the accusations of an anonymous poster on the talk page of an article where a content debate had taken place. This anonymous post claims that I have a personal issue with the article content and that is why I had engaged in the argument about the source citation. Ironically, I was not satisfied with the outcome of the content debate, but chose to withdraw due to lack of support in the interests of maintaining civility. All other parties maintained civility throughout the debate and I cannot understand why Justin wishes to keep this remark on the talk page. Every time I remove the comment, he reverts my edit. Alan.ca (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) [46][reply]

• My two bits: In general, the only time you ever delete anything from an article's Talk Page (I could be wrong, and please correct me, someone, if I am wrong):

1. Comments you have written, that you regret writing, and want to self-redact.

2. Comments that are vulgar and personal attacks, and clearly have no bearing on the article.

I think the statement made on the page was mild, and I'm not sure that it breaches WP:CIVIL. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Justin that this revert is not a personal attack. Mostly personal attacks are defined as insults or comments that exist soley to insult or disparage you. This comment is merely criticism directed at you accusing you of violating WP:COI. As far as civility goes, that comment stays within the civility guideline, as simply directing a comment at you is not considered incivility (to my understanding). --Nn123645 (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "It makes me think that you have something personal against this particular organization." is suggesting that I am opposing the edit because I have a personal problem with the subject of the article. I find that to be personal. In terms of conflict of interest, there is no accusation of interest other than that I have edited the article in the past. I may not have been so insulted if the comment was not anonymous, but I still cannot see how this remark in any way furthers the discussion. At best it's an unfounded accusation. Alan.ca (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Assume good faith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with the others' assessment here - if I were to go and try to delete a single character from a particular TV show, and had never contributed anything to any other TV related topic, and no one else believed that the character should be deleted, it might seem like there's some sort of reason I want the article deleted that I haven't explained. Saying so is a valid observation. Personal attacks and incivility are often evidenced by inappropriate accusations (e.g. "You're just a vandal out to destroy everyone's hard work") but this is not the same thing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been watching the constant reverts and I agree that it is not a personal attack. As someone who has been the target of many personal attacks because of my constant vandalism reverts, I really don't see that as a personal attack. It may border on it because it's directed to a user. Looking at the history in a way, I actually agree somewhat with what it is said, however is my agreement a personal attack from me against Alan.ca? ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to accuse me of a conflict of interest, why not post a thread on my talk page? I would hope such an accusation would be signed by a registered user and give me the opportunity to discuss it with them. If the comment is made in anonymity what purpose does it serve but to place me in a bad light with no opportunity to resolve the posters concern? Alan.ca (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let's get one thing straight, this is not an accusation of a conflict of interest, it's simply a question about your motivations. A conflict of interest would be if you were Tom Cruise and you were editing the article Tom Cruise. It's simply a question about the fact that your edits disagree with a wide consensus of other contributors, and that you're only making this argument in one of many places it would be applicable. Furthermore, no one is required to register a username or to reveal their identity. That should have no bearing on any of this. The opportunity you seek is already there: resolve the content dispute by explaining why you want to do what it is you want to do. Build a consensus for what you want, or respect the consensus against it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I tend to agree, in general, that if you have a problem with something an editor is doing, that, in general, you bring it to their Talk Page, but there is no policy that says that is the way it has to be. If the problem is over the editing going on, then I think it is appropriate to discuss it at the article Talk Page, in case another editor sees something happening, and needs to makes a call about how to deal with it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Sock blocked for one week due to incivility, patent nonsense, etc. Please post back if it continues after block. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

65.188.38.31 appears to be a typical problem user. On the page University_of_South_Carolina_steroid_scandal, he repeatedly adds a deletion template in what appears to be dishonest attempt to have a valid and well-sourced article removed. He combines this with personal attacks against various users, [47] [48], blanking talk pages [49] and deleting reports against him on Administrators' Noticeboard [50], [51]. JdeJ (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is already being reported at the AN, why are you reporting it here? Is there some reason for a second report? --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – I've warned the user, the article content seems to be safe for now, I've recommended a strong policy of ignoring the incivility, and I'll watch the article and keep an eye on it. If this continues, there's a clear case for an RFC/U or other type of intervention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been tolerating persistent personal attacks from this user for a long time now.

Some brief context: Neil Raden is the husband of T. S. Wiley, creator of the Wiley Protocol. I run a website that is critical of the Wiley Protocol and a number of the people behind it. Needless to say, we do not have a friendly relationship, and indeed Neil Raden has previously been blocked for making legal threats against me as well as Wikipedia.

Both of us are obviously COI but we have for many months agreed to limit ourselves to the talk pages. You don't have to search them or Neil Raden's history very hard to find disparaging comments about me. I've been putting up with it and letting many of them go unanswered. But...

On December 23, Neil Raden left a “Happy Holidays” note on my talk page wishing that I be maimed (via an old Irish curse). [52]

On January 5, he left more personal attacks and accusations on my talk page which, in this case, I regard as not only categorically false but defamatory (specifically the accusation of interference with a study). [53]

I deleted these comments but he reposted them on his talk page, adding further personal attacks. [54]

Enough is enough.

I want two things: 1) I want these personal attacks to cease, and 2) I want his latest comments on his talk page removed. But I'm not comfortable removing them myself, at least not without outside advice.

Thank you. Debv (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the user's talk page, but this seems to me pretty egregious. I might suggest filing an request for comment on the user's behavior. Editing solely to affect articles with a COI and making lots of angry personal attacks and being hostile generally - this is a serious problem. That being said, the best thing to do with someone like that (if they aren't affecting the article's content) is to ignore them. I would suggest taking some time avoiding contact with this person. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your effort and advice. I doubt this will resolve it, but it's a first step at least. Thanks. Debv (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Editors have been directed to the dispute resolution process. Commenting appropriately on possible POV problems is not incivility, at least not prima facie. WP:POT may also apply, since (unfounded) accusations of trolling have been issued by the complaining party. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gene Poole has deleted my edits on Sealand pages - stating that Sealand is a micronation. When this was considered on the discussion page of Principality of Sealand, he eventually said :"It is my personal observation that your contributions to this discussion are very much lacking in perspective". User:HelloAnnyong wrote later: "If one editor (Gene Poole) is being uncooperative, you may want to list the editor at WP:WQA. Having said that, Gene_poole, I would advise you not to keep making drastic edits, but rather discuss the issues at hand. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)". Whenever a new solution to the dispute was tested, Gene Poole would not cooperate, and when I thought the dispute could be ended, he would not reply on his discussion page and instead wrote on the discussion page of Legal status of Sealand "A single-purpose editor is currently attempting to insinuate an unreferenced, strong pro-sovereignty position into a range of Sealand-reated articles, and this appears to be one of them." He continued the dispute and now he has resorted to writing insults. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Poole (talk · contribs) and Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be more of a content dispute than anything. Have you tried going through the dispute resolution process? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have tried using third opinion and request for comment, but Gene Poole does not cooperate. Also it is not just a content dispute when Gene Poole starts to use insults, and WP:NPA states "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is, in a sense, a comment on the content - the content you are adding is unreferenced, pro-sovereignty, etc. Or at least, that's what Gene Poole is saying. The grammar of the sentence (using you as the subject) is less important than the content of the sentence (which is essentially characterizing your contributions, the content and not you as a person). I am not pleased that this person is not cooperating in dispute resolution, but I'm not sure there's been a breach of etiquette otherwise. Do you have any more diffs that would help us see what's going on? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have examples of insults:

• "Your eccentric, non-mainstream, extreme minority POV on this subject is entirely unique. It is not supported by any reliable third party reference sources or any other editor. You lack both consensus and credibility, and are in imminent danger of being judged a crank and a disruptive contributor. I suggest you review your position and modify your behaviour accordingly. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)" [55]

• "...you are completely lacking in objectivity on a subject to which you appear to be directly personally involved."

From Kingboyk's discussion page:

• "...he clearly lacks any sense of objectivity on the subject, and also has a profoundly flawed understanding of NPOV."

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These comments do seem to have a fundamental relevance to your contributions, the content that you are contributing. Lacking objectivity and having a direct personal involvement are relevant questions. Again, I'm making no judgment as to whether or not these claims have any merit, and baseless accusations are certainly inappropriate, but on their face, these comments seem appropriate to me, even if they might be a bit harsh in some contexts. Also, diffs would make it much easier for us to examine the context of these remarks, to determine if they are out of place or inappropriate, but at this point, I can say that they are, and so I'm seeing nothing that's really inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet they are referring to my opinion in general - this editor has done this throughout the discussion page of the Principality of Sealand. I am not saying that he has to consider Sealand a sovereign state, but he dislikes edits that say that and he considers the existence of an opinion considering Sealand a sovereign state as ludicrous. (WP:OWN)

Other than that, I have tried using the dispute resolution process. What would be the best way to solve this dispute? What Gene Poole is writing is still unnecessary trolling (WP:TROLL) and he won't cooperate with any of the possible solutions. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd. You are concerned that his more-or-less relevant concerns about your contributions might be too much of an opinion of you, as opposed to an opinion of your contributions (presuming, incorrectly perhaps, that the two are mutually exclusive). And yet you just called him a troll. How can you, on one hand, assert that it is inappropriate to comment about relevant aspects of a user's "opinion in general" as it affects his contributions, but on the other hand, call him a troll outright when he is clearly not a troll? --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me - I did not assert that it is inappropriate to comment about relevant aspects of a user's "opinion in general" - actually Gene Poole did this at first - but when I tried to follow the dispute resolution after the debate became an argumentative dispute, he would not cooperate. In WP:TROLL, this is written:

"Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia."

If he does not cooperate, in my opinion it is a deliberate attempt to disrupt editing. WP:TROLL also states:

"The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits"

Recently Gene Poole has been more interested in the dispute than improving the article, and has resorted to criticising my linguistic ability and my comprehension of the subject. This isn't necessarily vandalism, but editing this article has recently become very difficult and progress has consequently been disrupted.

Other than that, I have tried using the dispute resolution process. What would be the best way to solve this dispute? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has now said that my opinions are of no consequence and he has deleted the alert necessary for WP:WQA from his discussion page, calling it spam.Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you continue to use the dispute resolution process, however, accusing him of trolling is inappropriate. You're exacerbating the situation, whatever he's done, you're not helping. Honestly, if you're using the dispute resolution process correctly, that is the best way to solve the dispute. I don't have time to assess the entire content dispute, but in terms of civility this is open-shut. His comments were relevant, if a bit persistent or harsh. Your response doesn't help, especially when you up the ante by accusing him of trolling, which despite your continued explanation, is patently false. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is a simple content dispute. The issue revolves around the fact that Onecanadasquarebishopsgate holds an eccentric, highly subjective opinion about the subject, which, on the basis of intimate personal knowledge, he appears to to have direct links with. That POV is not supported by any third party reference source, or any other editor, yet he stridently continues to try to give undue weight and unwarranted credibility to it by writing it into the article and a range of related articles at every available opportunity, falsely representing these actions as compliance with NPOV. Repeated requests for him to comply with policy and cease this behaviour have had no effect. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that he was a troll, I said he was trolling - there is a difference. Based on Gene Poole's documented history of sockpuppetry (User:Centauri), and suspected sockpuppetry (User:Centauri2,User:84.172.249.65, I am not really surprised at this state of affairs - consequently thanks for your help, but I think the administrators should take a look at it.

And Gene Poole, for the last time - I AM NOT A SEALANDER!!!, I am not linked with the Principality of Sealand. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments concerning this archiving should be made at the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Please take this case to request for comments (if not done already) or to request for mediation for further assistance. Case has jumped out of bounds for what can be handled at WQA. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten exasperated by Ronz and have reached (or passed) a point where outside help would be appreciated. This devolves from long-standing hostilities at Quackwatch where I tried (with no success) to be the helpful outsider since an RfC, approximately this one. I "suspended replying" to Ronz at my talk and his, with these:

This edit looks to be escalating problems with me on other people's talk pages. Please consider refactoring: [6] --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've suspended replying to Ronz, cf this at my scratchpad. Pete St.John (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The link cited "this" is the convo where I gave up trying to talk to him.

Most recently at this section in my Talk he wrote these:

Please consider refactoring: [56] --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to reply, I'll refactor it myself per WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The item he linked at Anthon01's talk is from after I'd stopped replying to Ronz, but where he seemed to be harassing someone else as he has been me (IMO).

My view of this matter:

Ronz has pestered me for quite awhile with vague, nonspecific requests; "Please Refactor" is quite typical. He also has repeatedly accused me of not replying to him. I persistently do reply, with questions about specifically what he means and why and, IMO, longer and more detailed explanations of what I mean, and why, than he ever gives me of what he means, and why. However, my tone definitely does get angrier as this progresses, while he is always scrupulously wikilegalistic. My view is that repeating "Please refactor" over and over like a parrot, and ignoring logic, specifics, facts, citations, etc, amounts to (veiled) harassment. I could easily mistake him for a bot with a short vocabulary of catchphrases ("Refer to wiki policy <this>, <that>, and <the other>", "please refactor") randomly generated in reply to anything. It's infuriating. I thought I could outlast it, but at some point he claimed victory on the basis of my (purported) self-defeating logic, at which point I threw up my hands, here:

You've made my point for me. Thanks! When you actually want to discuss facts, let me know by actually discussing them yourself. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to answer the last iteration of your question, because I finally figured out (part of) the confusion, but I'll let your remark right there settle it. Bye. Pete St.John (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So you refuse to discuss the facts? --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

...from section in his Talk where I had pasted from my Scratchpad.

Upshot: The (presumably mutual) exasperation is pretty much normal, but the line "please refactor or I will" (refactor my comments on a third party's talk page? Does he mean rewriting my testimony against what I consider his abusive behaviour?) alarmed me. My other goal is to learn more about dispute resolution processes; I'm not seeking banning or blocking (it might be good if we could block users from editting our talk pages, like locking private rooms in MOO; I'd much prefer he debate me on the article talk pages, where it is not necessary at all to explain myself to him, only to third parties). My favorable result would be someone explaining to Ronz that vapid repetition of vague demands is abusive, even when the wording is superficially polite. I think there is even wikipolicy for that somewhere. But I think one way or another this will derail him simply spamming my user space, at least by distracting him with having to explain himself somewhere with a third party listening.

So, sorry if this is relatively minor (particular in proportion to what a huge mess of technicalities, legalisms, and sophistry QW Discussion is) but I gather ths (Wikiquette alerts) is the low-grade, intro-level way to kvetch and seek help. Thanks, anyone, for trying. Pete St.John (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment here as I am having a similar problem. I will be commenting more shortly. Anthon01 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• PostScript: we have a surreal edit-war going at regarding my notification of this Wikiquette item:

I'm trying the (novel, to me) Wikiquette process regarding Ronz, here. Presumably most interested/concerned parties would be watching here. I consider this a personal setback. Pete St.John (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ronz deleted the above notification minutes after I posted it, citing (on my Talk) Canvassing. The specific policy justifying the item is this. I would suggest, given that we have both given reasons, that some third editor delete or restore, now, and not either of us. Incidentally, I think it highly likely he misread "setback" above as "attack"; look at the context. Pete St.John (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New note: Ronz deleted the above again, adding "harassment" to "canvassing" in the memo field. I consider this as two reverts by each of us, at this point. It might be helpful if any third party chipped in. I have no experience of edit-warring in a Discussion Page but I assume 3RR applies still. Pete St.John (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Now User:ScienceApologist has deleted it, which surprises me as he had just been banned for a couple days over the fighting at QW, but anyway here's the current diff: [57] Pete St.John (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA and others deleting the notice are right; this type of discussion has no place on an article talk page. See WP:TALK, one of the pages Ronz regularly asks editors to read. Avb 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a user from "Third Opinion" opined that the notification I posted was admissable as it stood. Also, we don't want to confuse discussions on pages, with notifications on talk pages. The policy is to inform the discussion page where the argument originates, of the new and better location, e.g. this Wikiquette item, or an ANI, whatever. Pete St.John (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comment (like much of this WQA) very nebulous and it still seems to ignore WP:TALK which you may want to (re)read. In the meantime I have replaced the unnecessary discussion on the Quackwatch talk page with a simple notification of this WQA. Avb 01:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Ronz - Anthon01's complaint

My issue is with Ronz's frequent post on my talk page requesting me to refactor my edits. In all most all cases he is wrong and/or not AGF. My first dispute with Ronz is here.[58] It was in response to a statement I made on an AN page. No apology from Ronz's when he was clearly mistaken. I consider this behavior uncivil.

Ronz often accuses me of misuse of the talk page, as here in regard to a message I posted on the CAM talk page. In this case, the issue that I raised lead to the insertion 4-5 sentences in the CAM article. Here are a few more examples. [59] [60] [61]

An then the complaint of wikistalking.[62] [63] In this instance I left a welcome message for a new user, when one was never left. I left a note on Ronz page letting him know that I left a welcome for the new user and suggested that he consider WP:BITE. He accused me of stalking him. I believe he did not AGF. Although many of the pages I edit on are contentious, I don't feel harassed by anyone else but Ronz. I would like him to stop posting these blunt, sometimes brash, (my perception) messages on my talk page. It seems he often does not AGF, and his comment on his User Page

One thing I've tried recently with a great deal of success is to stop assuming that editors will be civil. Not that I don't ask them to be civil, I just don't want to be pulled into drawn-out discussions about it. Wikipedia does very little to enforce civility, so we should all expect that some editors here will be incivil

seems to be at odds with the spirit of AGF. Although it may not be his intention, Ronz's repeated admonishions, require an assumption of bad faith, while ignoring the behavior of other editors who have been recently banned for incivility gives the impression that his attempts at curbing incivility seem biased. If he were right, if it were done in a spirit of cooperation while AGF, I believe these types of exchanges would be less frequent, end more amicably and be welcome. Anthon01 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored. Anthon01 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion (as an almost uninvolved editor): too vague (and probably too complicated) for WQA. It's probably better to try and discuss with Ronz and perhaps use WP:DR processes such as an RfC/U. Please note, however, that the latter may backfire if many editors agree with the cautions placed by Ronz on various user talk pages. From what I've seen, chances are that I will too, depending on the diffs expected in an RfC. Avb 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go look at the new item, but mention here 1) "almost" uninvolved is disengenuous IMO and 2) what you are calling "various cautions" I'm calling "harassment" and the whole point is to get outside editors to judge between the two interpretations. Even Ronz, who even now can't stop posting "cautions" on my talk pages, purports to welcome outside review. Pete St.John (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree with Avb that this case has become far too complex to be handled properly at WQA. I would try going through the dispute resolution process fully. A third comment may not be too useful in this instance, but a request for comments may (if not done already). A request for mediation may assist further. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Seicer I created this RfC and will notify Ronz, Anthon01 (as disputants) and Seicer (as the advocate for this escalation). Pete St.John (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, asking other users to refactor is a fairly optimistic strategy, and may not be helpful in a hot debate. To take offence at someone's asking you to refactor, though, seems bizarre. If you don't like such a request, simply ignore it. (Surely it is easier to ignore a request to refactor than to ignore an actual personal attack). A request to refactor is like asking for the situation to be de-escalated. If you don't agree, either ignore it or say that you stand by your comments. Taking offence seems to be the least effective response. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure it's that puzzling. (The following is hypothetical.) If you're in a heated dispute with someone and you cross the line, you're already upset about he dispute and now you're also probably well aware of the fact that you've done something wrong. In spite of the fact that we are all mature, civil people most of the time, when somebody crosses the line, it's probably easy enough for them to refuse to admit it - there's a content dispute going on, and admitting incivility sometimes feels like it damages one's position and makes one look like a fool. When the person who you're in a dispute with asks (or sometimes demands) that you refactor your comments, it might feel like they're asking you to "give in" or to make yourself look stupid or wrong in the situation. (End hypothetical). Now, that's not a rational way to proceed, but I think it's understandable. Sometimes, it's hard to admit wrong, and we should acknowledge that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note EdJohnson is , for all intents and purposes "wikibuddies" with user Ronz. They exchange pleasantries on each other's talk pages,[[64]] [[65]] join together in editing articles cayra and support one another in matters of dispute [[66]]. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

So? Plenty of people do that. Are you alleging that they are working in collusion to manipulate this process, or to take some other sort of inappropriate action? Otherwise, this is (quite frankly) irrelevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're going to come here and drop a bit of "helpful information" on us, as if you're some sort of informing party working to fully disclose the relevant issues, why don't you mention that you are in a mediation case where you are on the opposite side of both Ronz and EdJohnson? If you want to insinuate that their opinions are not independent or impartial, you should be honest about your own. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There you go Cheeser1, how's that for full disclosure? But you missed my point- by not publicly revealing that he and Ronz have an ongoing buddyship, the casual reader would assume that this editor is not bringing a bias to the issue. As for my *bias* it consists solely of having been abused by user Ronz, if you call being victimized and harassed as form of bias against your harasser. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

Regarding EdJohnson's hypothetical: It doesn't stop with a request for refactoring. It can continue with repeated requests, and even Ronz refactoring edits himself, when others ignore him. Anthon01 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Ronz - wikieditor9999's complaint

User Ronz has engaged in a pattern of abuse towards me that violates wiki policies of civility.

I have asked user Ronz to stop editing my talk page- our dispute over an article is now being addressed in an appropriate forum. Nevertheless, user Ronz continues to stalk me at my home page. Most recently, after being told to leave me alone and specifically to stop editing my talk page, user Ronz edited my talk page to sign my name to my own post. This is pure harassment, as user Ronz has no habit of examining talk pages to see if the user remembered to log in and sign their posts- it's ridiculous for Ronz to claim it's for any good reason- it's pure harassment. This is user's Ronz way of saying - "I can use my ability to edit in wikipedia a a way to harass you. I am stalking you, watching you and you can't make me stop editing your talk page, and I will continue to do so for any reason I want to ". I feel harassed, followed and stalked by Ronz and I want it to stop.

During the course of editing an article, user Ronz has engaged in a systematic pattern of anti-social behavior:

User Ronz has repeatedly accused his opponents during matters of editing dispute of violations of wiki policies which were easily shown to be false. He did this to Julia Sowa, accusing her of a conflict of interest in the editing of the mind mapper category and he has done it to me, accusing me of being a sock puppet because I was new to wiki and did not understand how or when to log in. In neither case has he apologized.

User Ronz refuses to engage in normal discourse on substantive issues when challenged by other wikipedians. This is at the heart of what it means to collaborate and hwo articles get better. Rather than discuss or defend, Ronz immediately reaches for an adminstartive process, which has the effect of wasting a good many people's time on an issue which could be resolved through dialog. Instead of dialog, he peppers his fellow editors with staccato messages, like "Please Refactor" which are, as he well knows from being repeatedly told, highly annoying given the total lack of other communication or substantiation of his POV. Typical Ronz engagment:

"Sorry you don't like it, but I've repeatedly commented about notability and references. Please escalate as you see fit."

"The basis for notability is WP:N. Sorry if I'm being blunt, but I see this situation as very clear-cut. I've made multiple comments above. We need some third-party help at this point."

"I'm going to escalate it if you don't first."

User Ronz has engaged in "dirty" tactics and "tricks" in order to force his way without discussion. In the instance of editing Cayra, he removed ALL of the article in an edit leaving it an empty shell, while flagged it for having no references.[[67]]

User Ronz has falsely represented during a deletion discussion that the subject of the article was "beta" software. In fact, it was widely reviewed on the web in the places and by the entities one would expect such reviews to appear, and at any rate, it was released software. Ronz has never apologized for misrepresenting this important and fundamental fact.[[68]]

User Ronz also attempts to get his way with newbie editors by peppering their articles with "warnings" which appear, as he is well aware, to be authoritative. By refusing to engage as a peer, user Ronz attempts to portray himself as an authority with vested powers to command which must be met.

User Ronz's behavior has scared off many potential contributors who created accounts, were confronted with user Ronz's behavior, and were never seen again. Dialer00 and Zabrinski were two newbie editors who naively thought they would participate. Their new article was met with Ronz's warning tags and terse admonishments about its quality and Wikipedia Policy violations. The details are on cayra talk page.

from Dialer00 [[69]]

Hello! I see you're quite new to Wikipedia just as I am :) I appreciate your help in editing Cayra article (honestly, I didn't think someone would help me in that)! Are you interested in mind-mapping too? Best regards, Z. Zabriski (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

After being confronted by Ronz, neither Dialer00 nor Zabrinski have been seen or heard from again.

Here is the case of Julia Sova

Waiting for your response, Kind regards, Julia sova 07:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I forgot to give you the proper warnings on your user talk page concerning your edits. I've done so now. --Ronz 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I have read WP:EL and WP:SPAM and I still don't see any break of neutrality in adding a screenshot. Maybe you can point it out for me? And I really, really don't understand why the same rules about EL are not applied for ALL links? --Julia sova 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:COI? You appear to be arguing that because you think others are breaking rules, you should be allowed to break rules as well. --Ronz 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I think that same rules should be applied to everyone. If you delete link to 1 website, or screenshot to 1 program, why don't you delete them ALL? Otherwise it makes people think you're favoring one program and not favoring others. Which... brings other questions, too. You know what I mean? Julia sova 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time that you respond to WP:COI. --Ronz 16:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact and per wiki policy, Julia had no COI whatsoever; she was editing the the mind mapper page.

Reading the above exchange, some would conclude that user Ronz is what in other contexts is known as an asshole or dick. A lot of these types are running around wikipedia and the wiki community would be very much better off if, when things get so bad that many people are moved to complain about one, they were removed, since this is really the only way their existence comes to light. I would like to see User Ronz's editing privileges removed.

Here is Ronz's response to my 15th pleading for a reasoned debate with respect to Cayra, an article he contributed nothing to except to destructively edit, flag and harass its creators out the door.

Ronz, You again edited the page with a flag for notablity without offering a rationale for doing so. I am removing it and will continue to do so until you engage here with a reasoned argument as to why this software is not notable. As I said before, if you will not engage in a substantive conversation about this page and continue to edit it, I will have no choice but to escalate into a procedural solution. 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Wikieditor9999

Sorry you don't like it, but I've repeatedly commented about notability and references. Please escalate as you see fit. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

after being told to leave me alone and specifically to stop editing my talk page, user Ronz edited my talk page to sign my name to my own post. This is pure harassment -- Let me stop you right there. That is not harassment. It's common practice. You've seriously got things wrong about how Wikipedia works if you think that is harassment. You have provided no diffs, and appear to be engaged in a serious dispute with Ronz and others over the existence of an article you edit heavily that appears to be advertising, or at least an unreferenced page about some software that could function as advertising. You even break policy quite clearly in this matter. Your complaint is frivolous, and I would say forumshopping.

Signing unsigned comments, tagging stub/advertisement/bad articles, using templates to approach new editors about problems, pointing out when a brand new editor edits an AfD, these are standard, community-accepted practice. And by calling Ronz "an asshole or dick" you've violated the policy that you're here to complain about - civility. You're the one who needs to cool it, and I strongly suggest you do so. You seem very invested in the Cayra article, but maybe you need to relax and let it go - or improve the article so consensus can support its notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments concerning this archiving should be made at the talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Referred to other parts of the dispute resolution process. I can't find any incivility here, just a content dispute with a stubborn editor who doesn't seem to want to compromise, build consensus, or talk things over. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few months, a few users have been actively editing the Natural family planning (NFP) page, one of whom is User:Photouploaded. Before this dispute began, the article included a statement that an advantage of NFP is that it does not require the use of condoms, which meant that sex could be more spontaneous. This statement was cited with a link that stated that this was a perceived disadvantage of condoms. Photouploaded removed the statement and the cite, stating that it was "irresponsible" to "perpetuate the myth that condoms make sex less spontaneous." In response to this, User:Lyrl and myself have been digging up multiple sources and posting them to the article's talk page to support the claim that many feel that condoms make sex less spontaneous.

When we created a revised wording of the statement that was less ambiguous and more NPOV, Photouploaded tagged it with {{dubious}}, {{or}}, and/or {{citecheck}} and has been restoring those tags repeatedly. [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] Photouploaded apears to take issue with the thebody.com source as being reliable. He has been aggressively removing this citation. [75] [76]

My problems with Photouploaded's behavior are as follows:

1. He has declared sources to be unreliable without specifying reasons why they are so.
2. When asked to back his opinions about the topic with sources, he has declined to do so. [77]
3. He has ignored the debate on the talk page for days at a time and then reverted again without saying anything on talk.
4. During the entire course of this dispute, he has not done any research at all on this topic, or if he has, he has not posted any sources he has found on the matter. It would seem that someone interested in improving the article would conduct his or her own research, rather than merely criticizing the work of others.
5. Judging by his first diff on this issue, it appears that he is strongly motivated by his own opinions on this matter. It appears that he is POV pushing by repeatedly removing, placing template warnings on, and enforcing an selectively limited inclusion standard on content he disagrees with personally.

Again, a link to the discussion on the talk page is here. Thanks to anyone who looks at this. - Chardish (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent candidate for other parts of the dispute resolution process. However, I fail to see anything her that falls into the bounds of civility problems or personal attacks or that sort of thing. If the edit-warring continues and this editor refuses to settle the agreement on the talk page, I would suggest filing a request for comment or seeking a third opinion. I would encourage you to continue to work within the consensus building process. Propose your new material on the talk page, come to a consensus there about adding it, and add it. If he removes it, post to the talk page and if he doesn't respond, put the consensus-backed material back in. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of the relevant discussion and diffs may be found here: User talk:Zenwhat#Re: Austrian School

I put in a request that Austrian economics be semi-protected because of persistent, short-term and long-term vandalism. It was rejected by User:East718, on the grounds that there was "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify such an action." [78] I requested that he re-consider his decision, after noting an anonymous IP and single-purpose account that vandalized just hours after my request was rejected. When I asked him for clarity on this, it upset me to see him say that semi-protection is only granted for "persistent violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, not content disputes," because that's not true. A quick look at Wikipedia:Protection policy shows "Temporary semi-protection may be used for: Pages subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption." WP:FRINGE is a violation of WP:NPOV. I noted this, politely asked for clarity on the matter, cited another user who again vandalized the article and attacked me personally, and noted my frustration over the matter.

He then acknowledged it was an "egregious" (to use his own words) violation of WP:FRINGE and a "disruption." He then said "If the problem is long-term," that I find another editor because he was "too busy" to read the edit history of the article and address my concerns. But this claim was in the request for protection he rejected to begin with. He did not apparently review the edit history before rejecting it, has an incorrect definition of vandalism, and when I pointed this out, he ignored me.

So, I did the only thing I could: Brought it here. When I told him of my intention to go to RFC, he characterized it as a "threat" (assuming bad faith) that made him "stop caring" about the matter. Ironically, a few minutes after notifying him of my intent to RFC, I received a warning template from User:Skomorokh (though my talk page specifically requests users not do that) for edit-warring on the article that I originally intended to avoid edit-warring over by going to WP:RFPP before making more than three reverts. Zenwhat (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the distinction here is between semi- and full-protection. When he reviewed your request for semi-protection, he looked for a situation justifying semi-protection (i.e. blatant vandalism or short-term disruption by anonymous I.P.s. He then suggested that you find another admin to review it if the problem was long-term, which would seem to imply full protection (since, as he said, "Semi prot is warranted only for vandalism or biographies which are on the receiving end of persistent violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV").

I don't think he has committed any Wikiquette violation. Whether is decision not to protect was the right one is another question, and one that is outside the scope of this board. I would recommend that you let drop your dispute with User:East718 and then do one of the following:

• request full protection on the basis of a content dispute, in the hopes that the anons' inability to edit the article will force them onto the talk page, or
• re-request partial protection, emphasizing that the anons are being disruptive and are unwilling to bring things to the talk page, so you have no content dispute-related means of solving it.

I suspect that the first one has a higher chance of success, for what it's worth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have mis-characterized much of what East718 (talk · contribs) has said, and I fully support his denial of your protection request. No good faith edit is vandalism, no matter what policy it violates. Additionally, East718 did not acknowledge it as an egregious violation of WP:FRINGE, but stated that even egregious violations of policy are not vandalism.[79] Semi-protection is not to be used to give somebody the upper hand in a content dispute, and a dispute over content is precisely what is going on here. Hell, East718 even said he'd certify the request for comment on himself if nobody else would.[80] - auburnpilot talk 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the place for you. Let's break this down a little:

• The edit-warring warning should be ignored if you are reverting vandalism or blatant hit-and-run NPOV/BLP violations. However, if this can (in any way, even slightly) be construed as a legitimate content dispute (even if you're right), you should watch the 3RR (and the spirit of 3RR). For all you know, the page will be locked in the wrong version.
• Protection: request protection again, and make clear that this is long term Fringe/NPOV problems by IPs who refuse to discuss changes.
• Feeling "ignored"? He told you he was busy, you have to respect that. Administrators are people too, and he admitted that he could not take a deeper look at he problem (which you did not request as a part of the complaint he declined - I would not fault him for not looking without being told where to look). He told you you could seek help from another administrator, and you can do this - you don't have to go to the official protection request page, if you find an admin willing to take a look.
• RfC - don't threaten people with an RfC for not responding to you as quickly as you'd like. Even if you meant it in earnest, an RfC is not something you brandish at people like that. It's inappropriate behavior, and an RfC is totally uncalled for.
• Civility and personal attacks? That's what the WQA is for and I don't see any real problem here, in terms of that stuff.

I'd say you should simply go to another admin, like he suggested. He told you he can't help you right now, and it's not up to you to decide that he should take, or should have taken, more time to look into it. If you go to an admin and explain that you need them to look into the page history to assess long-term FRINGE/POV problems, they will do so if they can, and protect as they see fit. Protection is not a cure-all and isn't warranted in all cases - you've gotta show that protection is required, and if there's doubt, an admin might defer to other kinds of conflict resolution. I would also heed what AuburnPilot says above, and maybe restore your assumption of East718's good faith and move on, because you can resolve this matter without any further issues with East178. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "even egregious violations of policy" as a rebuttal logically implies an acknowledgment that the violation was egregious. He couldn've just as easily said, "That wasn't an egregious violation of policy." Assume good faith doesn't apply in the case of blatant vandalism (aka "egregious disruption"). His remarks clearly contradict the policy described on WP:PROTECTION, word-for-word. My intent in seeking semi-protection was not to get the "upperhand" in the debate because I hadn't even edit-war'd over the article yet or engaged in any contentious disputes over it. I just happened to come by, say, "Well, this raises red flags," and I knew the only way I'd avoid an edit-war from anonymous users not discussing their edits was through a request for semi-protect. Turns out I was write since I've had several different users all try to put the WP:FRINGE stuff back in and was then warned over 3RR by one of them.

There are plenty of users with accounts more than four days old who would not be covered under semi-protection and that's what I applied for. The intent was to avoid vandalism by anonymous users who won't discuss their edits.

Please also note that User:Skomorokh who rudely gave me the 3RR template put the same "egregious" edits back in, backed up with Austrian economics sources -- again, fringe sources to support WP:FRINGE. [81] Please also, before assuming bad faith in my case, note my concern that an attempt to address this by adding caveats like "allegedly" and "according to the Austrians" in the lead would constitute a violation of WP:NPOV in favor of unduly criticizing Austrian economics in the lead. [82] Zenwhat (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he was the original admin that rejected my request for semi-protection, it seems to me that he has some degree of responsibility to justify his actions through discussion. Rejecting my request, making statements which seem to contradict policy, and after only a few brief messages, telling me he's "too busy" and "go see another admin" seems inappropriate. What is another admin going to say? They'll say that East was the one who rejected the semi-protection, so I should take it up with him. It seems like fishing for admins if I have to find one who will either follow policy or at least discuss their actions. Zenwhat (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with other contributors to this discussion East718 has done nothing that he should be reproached for. He dealt with your request in a polite and businesslike manner (and IMHO made the correct decision). You then demanded that he should devote a great deal of extra time to the issue, and reported him here when he declined to do so. You are the one that is out of order here. He has been courteous, above and beyond the call of duty, whilst you have been rude and demanding. I would you suggest that you withdraw this report without further delay, and think yourself fortunate that East718 hasn't chosen to report you here for your rudeness, or elsewhere for wasting everybody's time with vexatious wikiqette complaints Mayalld (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no involvement in whatever dispute exists and have no wish to; I'll also let all my posts speak for themselves. I do however advise that everybody chill out, maybe smoke some trees, do whatever else floats your boat and revisit this with cooler heads. east.718 at 20:01, January 10, 2008