ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)

Continues to attack Eric Lerner, the subject of this article, and a fellow editor, despite extra care being required for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks telling us that we should not be "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Both of these are Official Policy.

• ScienceApologist refuses to accept that Eric Lerner was a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory (ESO), despite verifiable evidence on a Nasa Web site [1], and a second source here [2].
• Eric Lerner himself has also confirmed that he was Visiting Astronomer [3]
• This is one of a series of edits which appear to be designed to discredit Eric Lerner, and also include:

• Removal of awards [4]
• Discrediting his "theories" by calling them "ideas" [5]
• Removing positive reviews, and replacing them with negative ones [6]
• Addition of "David Spergel" criticism,[7] based on a comment on someone's blog [8] which fails Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources.

• This appear to be a continuation of trying to discredit various controversial scientists, including:

• Dr. László Körtvélyessy, from whom ScienceApologist removed credentials, that Körtvélyessy "is physicist who is candidate of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences"[9]
• Disrespectful to career scientists, labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Carezani as well-known woo-woos" [10], Halton Arp's work as "pathological skepticism" [11], Big Bang critics as "a list full of 'critics' who range from geologists to the out-and-out insane (such as Van Flandern)." [12]

At the least, I would like to see ScienceApologist banned from editing the article Eric Lerner, ideally banned from editing all articles on science. --Iantresman 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOluwatoyin (talk · contribs)

Made a personal attack against me here, using a running attack of his in which he insults my education by calling me a freshman. He is also using a sock puppet, User:207.161.6.149, to make a false report of personal attacks against him by me (notice that he writes exactly the same way) and pretending to be a separate person sympathizing with him on his talk page. After being banned for a week for his incivility, he still hasn't quit it, and he's only getting worse. -- LGagnon 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now the admins won't even do anything? You know this guy is a trouble maker - that's why you guys banned him so many times. Don't ignore this just because you are mad at me for a totally different situation. -- LGagnon 01:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now User:LaszloWalrus (who could be another sock puppet of his) is also using a sock puppet against me here. Notice he signs his posts for both himself and the anon IP. -- LGagnon 12:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now AOluwatoyin is making threats of legal action. And again, I don't see why some of the admins choose to ignore this. -- LGagnon 12:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squeakbox and Hagiographer

Squeakbox (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week per his personal attack parole (resulting from arbitration) for writing on his user page that one of his achievements was

restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints but who is determined to slur him. [13]

This is a veiled reference to Hagiographer (talk · contribs), who acts exactly like Zapatancas (talk · contribs), the other party in arbitration. Squeakbox modified the reference so it now says,

restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints.

Hgiographer claims this is still a personal attack and changed the user page on his own several times before it was protected. I would like some idea on whether the revised statement is acceptable or whether it sill constitutes a personal attack. No action is required at this time as Squeakbox is currently blocked for other reasons. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasondas (talk · contribs) Escalation

Made personal attacks on Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation in the Stop modifying the language on male section. Calling people who disagree with his bare assertion "sympathizers of intolerant fringe groups". He Also asserts that he will push his pov in the article. Lordkazan 16:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has now attacked my personally on my talk page Lordkazan 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs of specific incidents. --Crimsone 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed your comment - here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordkazan&diff=74547340&oldid=74186332

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGenital_modification_and_mutilation&diff=74453398&oldid=74451415

And now he's vandalizing Circumcision and i've reported him Lordkazan 21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the npa2 warning template to his talk page. --Crimsone 21:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User is now baselessly accusing me of being an islamophobe and antisemite for being opposed to non-voluntary non-theraputic circumcision. I even gave him a chance to apologize before I reported, he made a statement that clearly showed he had no intent of doing so. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrimsone&diff=74839562&oldid=7483866

other edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordkazan&diff=74845596&oldid=74845229 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALordkazan&diff=74830873&oldid=74829835 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrimsone&diff=74836093&oldid=748348109

• See the talk pages of myself, Dasondas, and Lordkazan. This is part of a wider dispute that is becoming disruptive to wikipedia, due to an apparent inability to agree to disagree on the subject of how Lordkazan believes someone should practice their religion (if they have one), particularly in terms of circumcision. If both users, as requested can agree to diagree and never mention it to or about each other again, there will be no problem. Crimsone 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer responding to any posts by Dasondas what so ever - I will neither read, nor reply, to anything he says. I only gave him a suggestion about how he practices whatever circumcision religion he practices as a means to both respect the rights of children to be free from genital alteration and to try to practice his religion, as an attempt to suggest an accomodation for both. Lordkazan 04:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Dasondas equally agrees to disagree and make no contact on the issue, and the editwar finished (the proposed solution from earlier deals with that), this can be considered a resolved dispute, and the wiki community satisfied. Crimsone 04:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing to your solution for the edit war was never an issue, it is a good solution. Tolerating his edits listed above was the issue. I would appreciate an apology from him, but I don't expect he would even consider giving one, especially since he would expect one from me and that isn't going to happen - i consider him a criminal. It's less hassle to ignore him on wikipedia Lordkazan 04:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never referred to lordkazan as an anti-Semite or and Islamophobe. That is a lie. I note, however, that in this very request to WP:PAIN he states that he considers me a "criminal". That is a serious charge that deserves a serious censure. Furthermore his repeated suggestions as to how I practice my religion are deeply, deeply offensive. I also note that at no time on Wikipedia have I ever discussed my religious beliefs (or lacks of beliefs), so his mere assumption that I have a particular religion based on my edtis is in and of itself another offense. These examples, I remind you, are to be found right here in his very own WP:PAIN posting. Imagine what you can find elsewhere in various Wiki locations. Please, please, please, do something useful to put an end to this constant vile, intolerant harassment. Thank you. Dasondas 05:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there dasondas. Please see my talk page. Lord Kazan has agreed (even suggested) to pretend as thoughyou don't exist and not talk to you, nor read your comments. He has also agreed to abide by the proposed solution to the editwar. Please see my talk page :) Crimsone 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green23 (talk · contribs)

His incessant incivility towards me, despite my attempts to reason with him, are very troubling I'm afraid. I abjectly request intervention as I would not like for matters to escalate.

He has been violating WP:CITE and reverting unsourced material that I painstakingly edited out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu&diff=74736745&oldid=72947410

He has since planted bogus vandalism warnings in my talk page. I believe that this, in on itself, is an act of vandalism, so I warned him once. He replied with personal insults. I post diffs of our interaction in both our talk pages:

Mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHkelkar&diff=74798097&oldid=74794026

His: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGreen23&diff=74797408&oldid=74746324

If the admin feels that I have acted inappropriately, then please notify me of any such impropriety so that I may apologize to involved parties. At this time, I believe that this user has committed a personal attack and so I am reporting him. Thanks for your attention and have a nice day.Hkelkar 23:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned user. Shell ^babelfish 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Chittleborough (talk · contribs)

Over at Adnan Hajj photographs controversy I pointed out that blogs are not useable as sources. He responded with an ad hominem attack[14]. When I removed it as per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks he promptly reinserted it[15]. I pinted it out on his talk page and that led to the third count[16]. // Liftarn 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a personal attack. If it were untrue, that would be different. If you're going to edit war and push a POV, don't be surprised if other users bring it up when questioning your activities elsewhere. FWIW, he's also correct in that the blogs which first broke the story would make acceptable references in that context. Shell ^babelfish 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Judge (talk · contribs)

In just over a week after registering his user name The Judge (talk · contribs) has made an array of accusations, insults and attacks against other editors. No amount of gentle disuasion or warnings appears to phase him, and he continues to make his personal attacks against editors while claiming they have attacked him. One such claim of being attacked is my asking him, "I'm really trying to understand your writing. No offnse intended, but is English your second language?" I was actually asking him so I could understand better how to respond to his questions and needs, and in fact, English is his second language. [17]

• The Judge calls an editor confused and impolite and refers to the editor's having been blocked in an unrelated incident.[18]
• The Judge questions editor's manners and calls him impolite, inconsiderate, and arrogant.[19],[20]
• The Judge is asked to cease his personal attacks.[21]
• The Judge calls the editor inconsiderate.[22]
• The Judge spams editors with which he has had no prior contact in the hopes of forming a coalition against an editor with whom he disagrees.[23],[24],

[25],[26], [27],[28], [29],[30], [31],[32]

• The Judge threatens Steve block (talk · contribs) about his edits on Clock King.[33], [34],[35]
• The Judge brings up Clock King dispute in unrelated WP:CMC talk page discussion and calls Steve block dramatic when he points it out.[36],[37]
• The Judge calls an editor a nobody and a jerk.[38]
• After receiving a personal attacks ({{npa3}}) warning on his talk page, The Judge goes to the editor's talk page and calls the editor rude, pessimistic, disrespectful, and bossy.[39]
• The Judge removes warning tags and comments from other editors concerning his behavior.[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46]
• The Judge adds {{helpme}} tag that accuses one of the editors he disagrees with of being a sock for another he disgrees with. Responding editor issues {{npa4}} tag. The Judge again accuses editors of being puppets for each other.[47],[48],[49]
• When disagreeing with other editors, The Judge tells them they need to do more reading to understand Wikipedia, and there for him, better, then calls those who disagree with him pessimistic and complainers.[50],[51]
• When editor politely tells disagrees with him, The Judge writes: "Don't worry, I feel sorry for you too."[52],[53]

--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can see some of those complaints both ways. I've apologised, refused to talk with Chris or CovenatD anymore (since everytime I try the y say I'm attacking them), and searched for advise. That was way before he complained here. As I once said to Chis, I also felt attacked and particularly offended by this, which was perceived the same way by this user who understood exactly the way I felt.

Chris is combining his problems against me, with those of other users. I could also go to his page and combine complaints against him to make my case stroger, but that'd be poinless.

I had problems with Steve Block, who was defending conevandt (who got blocked for edit warring me) and chopping off reliable pices of info from article in the proccess, but I *warned* him, and although he didn't fix what he did at least stopped bothering me. And Block knew he was acting a little out of the rules [54] so he involved Chris. That warnig was my equivalent of this, only with obvios less experience handling though situations on my part. I didn't do further "attacks" after the warning.

I recognize a big deal of this situation with what might look like a Grisworld-CovenatD team, is my fault. But how can I deal with somebody that is not willing to recognize any of the fualt. Here, although I could have expressed myself better, at least I recognize I could do better to respect him. I mean, I know I made mistakes, but Chris is not willing to accept any guilt. All I read from him are denials and authoritary tone, witch bothered me to the point that I'd like to avoid him as much as I can. No humbleness, no apoligies, no politeness. I should have said he *looks* like if he were rude arrogant and impolite, instead of saying that he actually is (I just learned that now from one of the introductory articles some user placed in my talk page when I came), but by looking like that, he is bothering me a lot. I honestly feel ofended by his attitude and comments. As I once said to him, if he starts showing a little more respect, i can also do the same and leave this behind.

I hate the way he and CovenantD juts say "no", "it's wrong" to everybody impose reverts and never show explain the rules they are going by. I'm sure there must be "WP" rules that can imply who is actually right. If I was to delete something, I think I'd at least have the courtesy of explaining which code support my rv. CovenantD and him often say there is a "WP" page stating so, but it is often too ambiguos. For example, a line I'd like to read is "There should not be more than one infobox per article (or section)", instead of "wrong", "no" or "as per WP:COMIC...talk page (wich never reaches a definite solution to anything)".

The problem besides Chris tendency to be "too authoritary" is that he could deal with people with a litle more courtesy and respect for their work.

I'm sorry if I ever sound so hard, that's not on purpose. I'm only trying to explain myself but I think maybe I'm not so good at that.

Covenat "attacked" me here, ironiaclly that was close to the time Chris filed this complaint. --The Judge 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that all parties got their nose a little dirty here. Many of the personal attacks reported by Chris Griswold are very flimsy at best though The Judge does need to practice being more civil. I also see why The Judge responded unfavorably when several times he was told he wasn't very knowledgable up to and including being asked if english was his first language - Chris Griswold needs to think about the civility of his interactions. Cool down and find other things to work on for a bit; please remember to be extra courteous in print since people don't have your tone of voice or body language to help them understand. Shell ^babelfish 20:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how I have been uncivil. I have said "please" repeatedly to this user, as have others, and that doesn't do anything. I said once that he was not knowledgeable about a subject, but that was it. I merely asked him politely to be sure of what he was adding. Please point me toward instances in which I was being uncivil so that I can understand what you are talking about. This isn't just about me; this is about his treatment of other editors in general, and two other editors have placed personal attacks tags on his talk page. Additionally, why is asking someone who uses very broken English offensive if English is their second language, if in fact, it actually is? Is having English as a second language, or the assumption that someone's native tongue is not English, offensive in and of itself? Finally, you say the attacks I've listed are flimsy, but to me, it's not about the quality of the attacks: It's about the quanity of spiteful comments toward other users, particularly since it makes up an inordinant percentage of his talk page edits. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]