Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive39

User:Matt Lewis

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

---

Stuck

Chronology Re: Matt Lewis (talk · contribs)

Primarily (but not solely) in the context of this discussion USER:Matt Lewis:

• Violated WP:3RR repeatedly reverting other editors without commenting on the talk page (note, USER is fairly new and did not seem to understand WP:3rr, so I am not raising 3RR as a formal complaint here, just mentioning for context.

• Violated WP:NPA by posting personal attacks on my talk page and at the article talk page.

• Repeated WP:NPA here in response to my request that he cease personal attacks.

Thanks for taking a look,

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute to me rather than a WQA issue. As far as WQA is concerned, he called u a POV pusher, and you called him a WP:DICK, right? ReluctantPhilosopher 10:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) (signature added by Wndl42)

In the context of my second objection to the three personal attacks, and after the WP:3RR rules were violated twice, I did refer the user to WP:DICK, a decidedly mild rebuke under the circumstances. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You also seem to have missed the fact that the personal attacks were left both on the article talk page and on my user talk page, so, NO...this is not merely a "content" dispute. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, user notified and issue also discussed here riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: there is a potential resolution I've just placed on the table for USER:Matt Lewis and if successful, this matter will be resolved without further action and I will then withdraw this alert. Please allow a half day or so for Matt to respond. WNDL42 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Comment: I agree with ReluctantPhilosopher here, this seems to be a content dispute more than a WP:WPA situation. Looking over the comments on your page and the article's page, the only thing he called you was a "POV pusher" and a "time waster," which might not be friendly, but don't really fall into the realm of full-out personal attack. It's also OK for users to try to bring concerns about content to your talk page (usually it seems to be done when they want your attention about something in particular) although you also have every right to request that they return the discussion to the article's space if you don't want it there. It looks as though you and Matt both feel very strongly about your respective edits, and if you are at an impasse, you might try bringing it to third opinion to get help resolving the content dispute. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit apprehensive - but I think we can possibly work it out. I'll register my 'defence' anyway;

WNDL42 has one view on 3RR - I never really approached it as far as I'm concerned. We had no 'back and fore' edit war at all - I just carefully removed his new radical stuff to the 'old consensus' of 2 days before - took me more than 3 edits to do as they were fiddly, that's all. I got angry as I was letting him carry on without hinderence then suddenly realised he was still ignoring my advice (ie consensus), and I'd been posting all those points for nothing. The passage had gone into a new direction (and IMO became very inferior, on a number of counts, which I'd been highlighting).

WNDL42 wasn't actually around when I took it back to 'normal' (to a 'stablised' normal too). I then made some new edits that I wanted to do - they might have mixed a little at one point maybe. I advanced it quite a bit afterwards and most other editors are happy I feel - but it's got a bit empty in Talk since I did it! No ones complained about what I've done at all but WNDL42 anyway - which is key, to me. One editor has questioned WNDL42 on part of his (in the passages that we disagree over), and others in other parts too.

It's a content issue, partly over the right 'base' to work from, partly over some 'philosophical' stuff (? - not sure on it yet) - we will have to work it out. Having put in as much work as I have on the subject (and always allowing for consensus) I'm not going to let it spiral off into someone's entirely individual realm! (however eminently sensible it may seem to him/her). We are both reading policy differently that much is clear - on headings and stuff like that. The topic only has a small number of editors unfortunately, so consensus is hard to find here. We might go for advice at some point maybe, I don't know - I'm for the rules anyway.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that many people come here and don't read the diffs, so for the record, here is Matt's post:

pro-Clinton bias on Insight report

Having spent a lot of time looking through your edits to a stablised part of the article, I can now see you have been (1) guilty of clear bias all along - blatantly removing anything that looks half-bad about Clinton out of the article! Even when it's all an attack on her anyway! (2) Madness! I consider you a (3) time waster and a (4) POV pusher. I'm pretty anoyed to be honest - I spend a lot of my time keeping my own POV out, and being objective, and reading/replying to your posts. I'll be reverting to before you embarked on your changes. Don't POV push again - not one of (5) your arguments stands up to logic, and the section is now an absurd misrepresentation of the Insight report!

I'm afraid the story is simply about Clinton - you can't try and hide that on the grounds that her name being used is 'propagating the smear'!! We have no proof of Insight's real intent (it was unsourced) - and we certainly can't over-write our own take on what Insight really meant - and present that as fact!! They alleged what they alleged - and it's the Insight page!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So, there are (5) separate personal attacks in the above diatribe, which was also posted on the article talk page (10) and include others unnumerated here, all attacks occurred before I rebuked the editor per WP:SPADE.

Might I offer here that Jimbo's attention is on this topic, yesterday he posted...

• Agreed. And Ryan was right to conclude I wanted to "make an example", and I did. I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's a content issue, there always is but that has now become a mere smoke screen and a convenient Straw man counter attack. The issue is incivility, pure and simple. WNDL42 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And, if anyone is interested in the kind of behavior that Jimbo was dealing with, and the topics involved, it will be enlightening to click here. Same topic, same behavior and a serious Jimbo intervention. WNDL42 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Being dismissive to the editors that work here, by suggesting that they "don't read the diffs," really won't help your case. I did read the diffs, and while it's clear that you and Matt both feel strongly about the topic at hand, I don't see any sort of personal attack there. It's not a personal attack to suggest that someone is editing with a POV bias...if you feel that you are not, I suggest you talk it out and seek consensus on the Talk Page of the article or seek a third opinion to see if you can reach a neutral ground with the content. You've now had two editors here tell you it's a content issue, and shouldn't be here. As per WP:NPA:

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.

DanielEng (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, your statement "don't see any sort of personal attack there" is puzzling. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. If you are saying that WP:NPA does not apply to any of the (5) examples I cited, then I think your statement is wrong because of clearly stated and unequivocal information found at WP:NPA, and just these few examples seem to contradict your statement:

---

Per WP:NPA, types of comments are never acceptable

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not.

• "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.

---

According to WP:NPA, all (5) attacks I detailed above were clearly violated, and that is the only reason why I'm here. FYI, since starting on Wikipedia four months ago, this is also the first time I'm here.

Further, your statement "you've now had two editors here tell you it's a content issue" is also (a) irrelevant because a content issue does not justify a personal attack (per WP:NPA), (b) logically fallacious because the existence of content issues are presumed to underlie any and all conflicts (per Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit), and (c) it's not a content issue because the editor has refused several polite requests to remove the offending content from my talk page, and (d) is inaccurate because two editors have not "told" me (see "seems like" above).

Immediately after reporting here, I was immediately and repeatedly disparaged by the same user for the act of reporting here, so whatever small basis the "content issue" had (if any) was immediately gone. The only introduction of "content issues" here was by the offending user himself, posting content issues here is not consistent with WP:WQA

I am questioning your interpretation of WP:NPA based on the points above, and because it appears to be in conflict with a dissenting view expressed by USER:Jimbo Wales here. I will WP:AGF on the basis that either (a) I am a first timer here, or (b) perhaps your editing experience is in areas that are different from the environment Jimbo is describing.

Now, as I have (a) taken the first step here more than 24 hours ago, which was met not only with his refusal to remove the personal attacks from my talk page, but was followed by more personal attacks, may I suggest that some friendly advice to USER:Matt Lewis to simply accept my invitation that he remove the personal attacks from my talk page will resolve this matter immediately, and much more efficiently than an extended debate over comparative interpretations of WP:NPA. Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you on this. You seem to want the WQA to discipline this editor or jump into the content dispute--and we don't do that here. There were no epithets there (see some of the pages of editors who have been banned for personal attacks if you'd like an idea of real offenses--here's a page from another recent WQA, for a start [1]). If you don't like the answers given to you by the WQA clerks, I suggest you take this elsewhere; we're not here to argue with you on policy. You've already been told that this is a content issue--by editors who have been on Wiki far longer than four months--and you've already been told that you can go to Third Opinion or Mediation if you feel there's an ongoing conflict with this editor. In regards to your talk page, if you don't want the offending content there, delete it. It's your talk page, and you're allowed to do what you want with it. DanielEng (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's two kinds of personal attacks on WP: the ones which we can do something about, and the ones we can't. Calling people time wasters and POV pushers doesn't usually come up to the level of even a warning. Sure, it is stupid to do that, because it makes enemies. But if Matt Lewis wants to drain the good will of other editors in that mild a way, there is no action which can really be taken. In other words, low levels of incivility are their own punishment. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 is right that it was a PA. But it's the kind which should be dealt with by continued engagement and bringing in other editors, and perhaps some sort of dispute resolution. And Matt Lewis will, because of his rudeness, be at that much of a disadvantage. If riverguy42 aka WNDL42 hadn't called him a DICK, he would have more of a political advantage. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks martin, a perfect assessment. I didn't come here to get a formal action, just an assessment and (hopefully) to get Matt to "come to the table", and delete the noise from my talk page. Certainly I should (in retrospect) have come here before responding as I did, and I'm ok with closing the matter. WNDL42 (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want any kind of mark against my name. All the while the article has been moving on - what is the issue here? We are talking on the Insight Talk page and this is going on too - it's crazy. This is a bit of a wind-up for me - the above pasted quote of me being angry I actually left on his Talk page - and not the article's Talk page as it seems to suggest. There are other small inaccuracies in here too (I'm certainly not the person he's painting!) - but it's such a waste of time to me. There is plenty I can say, but I want to keep to the article - it's currently much improving. If the section we disagreed over actually stablises at this juncture (which I'm fine with), our paths are unlikely to cross again. I had actually left working on it, but came back when WNDL42 started taking it in his own direction. I'm quite a polite guy - I just can;t be like that all the time, and my patience was just stretched - though over a relatively short period (in WP terms), admitedly. We are all human. I can't apologise because I wouldn't mean it - I'm just too stubbornly honest that way. My sticking power's a benefit to WP, believe me - this now-dated Obama issue was a real WP mess at one point (it even had its own page created that eventually lost an AfD) - now, over a few different article sections/mentions and an improved madrassa article, almost everyone's happy. We really are not that far off making it old news. WNDL42 (who's new to the issue) is currently 3RR edit warring with someone else, which can frustrate productive edits sometimes - but I still think it's not too far from a compromised stable state. Then I can properly concentrate on my other stuff, which I'm anxious to do! Why all this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The WQA is not a black mark on your name. Move on. If you're too frustrated, take a break. It's as simple as that. Don't fret. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine - it's just it's still classed as 'work in progress' and has been linked to on the Talk page - I take it gets closed when it gets closed. Looks like the 'half section' in focus has now finally found consensus, so I have actually moved on, as I said I would. I've got a good feeling it will settle now as it was almost there anyway, before the disruption started. It's simply thanks to intrinsic allegation details (removed - without any support at all - for supposedly "propagating a myth") being returned to the article for observers to mull over and edit (and without breaking a single 3RR too) - I take a bow.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I filed this WQA and I can easily delete it. All I'm asking is that you go to my talk page, click on "edit this page" and delete the entire section, make a civil gesture in your edit summary and then I will delete the WQA and we can both chalk it up to experience and get back to work. That's all I'm looking for. Cheers! WNDL42 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As you have been told, if you don't like what is on your talk page, delete it. Once a WQA is filed, you don't have the right to delete it--the clerks here will close it. Nor do you have the right to use a WQA as "leverage" this way to try to get another editor to do what you want. I'm closing this discussion before it goes any further. DanielEng (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User:SouthernElectric

Resolved

 – Only mild civility problems. One of the involved editors left WP.

This user is coming close to violating WP:POINT in this discussion here [2] [3] [4] [5] (and in related discussions here [6] and here). I've given up trying to reason with him/her and would prefer an uninvolved person to intervene. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much disruption on the part of the user there, and it does seem to be a content dispute. Are you of the opinion that consensus has been settled? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think it looks more like a content dispute rather than a real civility issue. Obviously there is a lot of tension there, but it looks like the situations I have seen several times between mathematicians and non-mathematicians, on mathematical articles. It's a structural problem. I think all the ideas for a consensus are already in the discussion: If you put all the measurements in miles and chains, the railway enthusisasts will be satisfied (including the real enthusiasts from metricised countries, I suppose). The non-enthusiasts won't bother to convert chains into yards (or furlongs or whatever), so they will only know the distance up to a mile; but surely that's enough for them? When they see chain distances they will think: "I didn't know they are using otherwise obsolete units for railways", and be happy to have learned another interesting thing from Wikipedia. So the main question seems to be whether or not to convert the units into kilometres as well, for the few non-enthusiasts from metrised countries who stumble over these articles. I think if you all sleep over this, you should be able to find a solution for that as well. It certainly looks like a very minor point from the outside. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it originated as a content dispute (on an article talk page which was then moved to the project talk page [7]). I intervened in an attempt to get the facts straight (there were lots of fallacious arguments being used) [8] and to try and restore some order [9], as it was descending into a slanging match, with two firmly-entrenched viewpoints. I also felt it was necessary to draw certain contributors' attention to some of posts, like this ([10])and this ([11]) which I felt to be inappropriate.

I'm not of the opinion that consensus has been reached--quite the opposite, in fact. To me, the disruption on this user's part is getting in the way of us reaching one. Him arguing that "we're not discussing X, we're discussing Y" is disruptive and a nuisance.

To Hans Adler: would you care to repeat your points on the project page? What you say is entirely sensible, and is the sort of clear thinking that needs to be brought to the discussion.

(If here is the wrong place to report this sort of thing, then where is, given that WP:RFC and WP:ANI aren't?) --RFBailey (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A content dispute should be settled on the talk page in question. If consensus is not clear (it actually seems to be clear here), you might wind up filing an RFC. You made several remarks regarding SouthernE's comments, stating that they were "wholly unacceptable," but the comments you are talking about are borderline (at worst) incivility. It would be, possibly, easier for us to figure this out if you gave the right diffs: don't show us what you said about him, show us what he said. You've linked mostly to comments that you made (although some of them contain diffs of their own, which I've just mentioned don't seem to substantiate much of a case against SouthernE). You claim that he and several others have been hostile towards a third party, but I don't see any diffs that don't just look like a content dispute (one in which the aforementioned group of users is probably right). --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did "show [you] what he said", in my original post. The diffs containing SouthernElectric's edits which I felt to be disruptive are the ones I posted originally: to be clear, I'll repeat them here [12] [13] [14] [15]. The diffs I posted containing largely my edits were an attempt to give some background as to how I became embroiled in this mess, that's all. For the hostile behaviour I was alluding to, read all of WT:RAIL#Metric/Imperial system (Moved from Talk:WestCoastway line) (and the related discussion at Talk:West Coastway Line).

Regarding whether there is consensus or not, I would agree that there is a consensus that miles and chains should be included. However, some of us are trying to address the concerns of those who believe that metric units should be included somehow, for instance by having the functionality of {{convert}} improved. This user arguing "we're not discussing that, we're discussing this" (diff) is the real problem that I was trying to bring here. It's not up to him to decide that something is "totally irrelevant" (diff) to the discussion, just because he isn't interested in discussing it. --RFBailey (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but none of that is incivility. It may be miscommunication, or disagreement, or even a lack of time on SE's part to understand better what you're trying to say (or maybe he's right and it is irrelevant). None of this is incivility. If the diffs you've provided are the only ones in question, then there's really nothing going on here. If anything, you need to slow down when it comes to accusing others of acting in bad faith or hostility. His comments do not appear to be out of line. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was incivility; I felt that the edits were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --RFBailey (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was also named by RFBailey in the list of editors accused of bad faith or hostility to his consort, which is a POV and hardly in keeping with good faith. I too have no objections to metric units (km) being included after the recorded Imperial distance measurements. Wikipedia should be about verifiable information, much of the information that this user complains about in Template:West Coastway Line is verifable (in miles and chains from the pre-grouping railway junction diagrams (1914)) - although no source was quoted in the template. This argument appears to be one of mutual intolerance between youth (under 25s) and those not in that category. RFBailey has made it clear which side his loyalties are, and his use of hyperbole against other editors in not particularly helpful; although he has made belated attempts to contact some of the participants in an attempt to cool tempers.Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to defend my actions, in response to Pyrotec's post above, I'd like to say the following. First, I don't have a "consort". Second, the reason I listed Pyrotec was because of this post at WT:RAIL, which I felt rather missed the point that was being made (she didn't appear to be suggesting chains were difficult, just unfamiliar). I'm not claiming that the miles/chains measurements aren't verifiable either (of course they are, and I doubt that even hardcore metric-pushers would dispute that), and I'm not "complaining" about them necessarily. At no time have I "taken sides": I appreciate both sides' points of view. And, if I'm supposed to provide diffs for everything, I'd like to know which posts of mine (s)he feels contain hyperbole.

For the record, I am over 25, but was also subjected to the British school system at a time when all new books, schools TV programmes, etc., etc., would use the metric system over imperial measurements to levels of absurdity (for instance, I remember a schools geography programme from around 1990 about the River Severn, which was constantly talking about kilometres), so I can appreciate that there are people in the UK who have a better understanding of metric rather than imperial measurements. That's not to mention that there are millions of English-reading people around the world (of all ages) in fully metricated countries. Personally, I'm not intolerant of imperial measurements: I use them all the time! Our job as editors isn't to force either system down readers' throats, but to write encyclopaedia articles that can be understood.

Finally, the reason I posted on this page was because of disruptive behaviour, not necessarily because of incivility, and definitely not because of the content dispute. If this is the wrong forum for that, then I apologise. --RFBailey (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SouthernElectric now claims to have left Wikipedia, and his user page and talk page have been deleted at his request, after receiving a 24-hour block for a matter unrelated to this. This discussion should therefore be closed, I think. --RFBailey (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk-page flaming and insults

Resolved

 – User advised to sound less unfriendly in exchanges with the reporting editor

User:JasonAQuest responded to an initial communication from me here and here with an attack on my politeness, here, throwing out the first volley of personal insults ("condescending", "presumptuous").

I continued to be polite, even when he insulted the work of our Project Group. He finally flamed me here, with personal insults ("mean-spirited," "You treat people like retarded children," etc.).

It's incredible to me that someone starts right off by insulting you and insulting your Project, and then calls you "mean-spirited" and more as he himself is flaming you. Aside from this, he makes suspect claims that a large number of my longtime fellow and colleagues — many of whom have been kind and generous enough to place Barnstar awards on my page — would refute.

I ask for some help to make him stop insulting me and slandering me. Please help me. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you notified the editor in question on their talk page about this alert? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright I did that myself and posted a note. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This exchange actually began with Tenebrae completely reverting a good-faith edit I made, which (in addition to the change he objected to) contained a perfectly legitimate addition to the article. A minor offense, but hardly a civil and constructive opening. The "flame" to which he refers was an attempt to explain that his manner of dealing with people is not always appreciated or constructive. I advised him of my past bad experiences with him (I've edited anonymously for quite a while) and of others' comments to me about him, to help him understand how he's perceived by some of those who don't give him barnstars. I'm willing to take the lumps for that outbreak of frankness.

I admit to criticizing the WikiProject Comics guideline he was enforcing (a rule for formatting biographical articles which is not widely applied and is disputed in WikiProject Bio) as an "inappropriate demand"... but I don't see how that's an "insult" to him or the entire Project. I did describe one of his comments as "presumptuous", but that's because "thanks for understanding" does in fact presume that I would understand and agree with the guideline (I did not). Finally, what I said to him is only "slander" if it's untrue that he has upset other editors and gotten into fights with some of them. I could take the time to dig up examples, but I don't think anything constructive would be accomplished by that. I'd rather focus on the content than on this one person with whom I have troubles. I'll continue to avoid him as much as our overlapping interests allow, and I ask that he try to restrain himself as well... and maybe try to understand how his tone and William F. Buckley-isms might be off-putting (though I don't presume that he will). - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the MoS guideline or not, and whether it is enforced on every article or not, it's still there and must be respected. If you don't agree with it, that's fine--you have the choice to refrain from editing biography/comics articles or to raise your concerns on the MoS page and perhaps see if you can raise consensus for a change. In the meantime, if it's there and in use on an article and you're not respecting it, another editor very much has the right to leave a note on your Talk Page reminding you about it. Editors leave such notes for each other all the time on Wiki. It's not because anyone thinks you're stupid; it's usually because there are pages and pages of policy on Wiki and it's easy to forget something or to be completely unaware that a particular policy is in place. If you look on admins' pages, you'll see that they call each other out all the time.

Tenebrae's note to you was succinct and civil, and was completely appropriate. Did you ever think that he left the note to give you the courtesy of letting you know why you were reverted and keep it from happening again, instead of just deleting your work out of hand? You could have ignored it or left a short "thanks for the info" acknowledgment but instead you went off on a long uncivil diatribe on his Talk Page. Looking at other entries on your Talk Page, it appears you've also been less than friendly with other editors. Your tone and manner come across as being hostile, even if that isn't what you're intending. Stop and think about what you're writing. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

TomPhan's postings are condescending

Resolved

 – User indef. blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TomPhan. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

TomPhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ..and inappropriate. He doesn't seem to learn at all. Given the hostility and history of his interactions with me, I suspect he is an WP:SPA sock of someone, though I don't know who. Anyone who can help would be appreciated. For specifics, please check his edit history (less than a couple of dozen edits). Given his request for a "self-block", I would request an actual block to be listed in his history (but given his lack of concern for such a block, I truly doubt it will help too much other than to have it on the record). — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. His edits don't seem to match those of a "new" user, no. The first step might be to figure out if he's a sock and work from there. I'd normally say this should go to suspected sock puppets but since you don't know who he could be, maybe a request for CheckUser might be appropriate. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU submitted accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to edit your RFCU request (I don't think I can, anyway) but you might want to clarify it a little as to why this user looks like a sockpuppet. You might want to specifically note that the user's very first edits were comments and votes on RfA matters and that the user left comments that seemed to show some familiarity with you--both of those points are red flags that point toward a possible sock. Best, DanielEng (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe you based on past interactions(between BQZip01 and myself, I don't know TomPhan), but to make things easier for those who may not know you could some examples be cited? Anynobody 05:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. First of all, please look at his edit history. His edits are all related to my RfA (all users contacted responded in my RfA). as for his disruption, here are some examples: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (please note his accusation of a crime in this one) — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:69.91.139.228

Resolved

 – Just a really lonely IPuser. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Between 22:59 and 23:03 today, posted 6 messages to 6 different users, all variations on the theme "I don't like you." (Actually, I assume that's what the one in Spanish said.) [21], [22],[23],[24],[25],[26] Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a standard drive-by IP vandal to me--probably a bored kid--especially since there are no constructive edits in that IP history at all. I left a L3 warning on the Talk Page; if it continues, they'll likely be picked up and blocked by an admin somewhere along the way. Best, DanielEng (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Thanks. Now, I feel loved. Awwwww. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusiveness (not directed at me)

Resolved

 – ANI report resulting in a 72 hour block. User will be watched thereafter, surely, to keep his behavior in line. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a third party happening to observe this; I am not directly involved.

Can we get a block on this user for edits like this and like this where he is verbally abusive to another, established (and rationale... one who pulls me back down when necessary)? There is no need, no matter what, for any WikiUser to have to put up with this sort of language directed at him/her. I went back 100 edits also and found this seems to be a matter of course for this editor. Seems like a pattern of bad behavior. VigilancePrime (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report this. A more complete history has been compiled by Dreaded Walrus, which I copy here from User talk:Blue eyes gold dragon.

Incidents of incivility: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38].

Warnings issued: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47].

Thank you for considering this. Pairadox (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a user I have been familiar with in the past: See User talk:Dreaded Walrus/Archives/January 2008#I dont delete warnings, or banning templates, which is in response to this, and User talk:Dreaded Walrus#Talk:Pokémon Gold and Silver, which is in response to this. I've been lenient, and civil in the past as this editor has always been easy to wind up, and sometimes a few kind words help (see the first discussion on my talk page I link above, for example), but as we've seen today, doing some good editing does not excuse limitless incivility. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

thats me! block me for as long as you want, i wont have much internet access anyway--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 09:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

and just so you know i wasnt being a smartass above, 2 weeks till i go to another isp and a lot of time without the net :( --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this case can be meaningfully handled here, as there are other issues besides civility and this user is obviously trying to be blocked indefinitely. I would guess we are dealing with a child who wants to be set boundaries, but there are also other explanations. I have started a section at ANI. An administrator has quietly reacted to my most important concern, but apart from that it is not getting much attention. I suggest keeping this thread open for any further discussion of minor points, and using the ANI thread only if further admin intervention seems necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked BEGD for 72 hours as his behavior has not improved. See his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish ISP user

Resolved

 – Referred to the AIV if IP vandalism continues. AfD will end with the appropriate "keep" I suspect. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is in regard to delete Siobhán Hoey and Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) from an anonymous account that from the WHOIS file are all Ireland-based. Siobhán's effort to being deleted occurred last March 30, but was reinstated on April 4. Aoife was deleted, but I had brought it back in an effort to work on bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton. From both article's histories, I have seen where these edits look like they have been vandalized from these IP addresses. Also, this same user (or users) is attempting to delete Siobhán's article again and tried to put Aoife's article on the February 1, 2008 AfD before succeeding. Please have a look at this because most of these articles are Irish-based and there may be other signs of abuse as well. Thank you.

The accounts in question are shown below:

• 84.203.1.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.97.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.149.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.132.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.98.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.52.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.2.170.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.76.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.21.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.183.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.174.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.138.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.16.67.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

We are now in a possible edit war that has been going on for the past two days that i am afraid is beginning to out of control. Please help. Chris (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This exact same issue is posted at WP:ANI and is in a current discussion thread that is less than a day old. [48] If this is an issue of IP vandalism, please see WP:AIV or request to have the page protected from IP edits. Nominating an article for AfD is not vandalism, even if it has been deleted and brought back, and if the nom was made in bad faith, it will be voted down. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an article for AFD is not vandalism. In addition, if an article was deleted per consensus, and you recreated the material with minimal changes, it can be brought back up for AFD or speedy delete. Let the process go through. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article in WP:ANI has now been moved into the Incident archive. Chris (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. For the AfD, all you can do is let it run its course. The admins who handle deletion will be reading over all the comments, and it appears that the consensus will be keep. If the IP users keep interfering with the editing of the article, you can revert, warn and report for vandalism as necessary. If the IP vandalism is consistent and disruptive, after the AfD is closed, you could also try getting the article semi-protected (ie, established users can edit; IPs and newbies can't). Best, DanielEng (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

Resolved

 – This complaint is being brought by the same person who brings us comments such as this. No diffs provided, no incivility on Penguin's part as far as any reasonable searching could find, except what could only be considered minor (and only in response to Karaku's inappropriate comments). Honestly, it appears that the problem here is Karaku. Many other editors have already intervened to ask Karaku to calm down and behave appropriately (see his talk page), and his claims here are unsubstantiated. Penguin is clearly not trolling, nor wikistalking anybody. In the end, he wants us to block the Penguin, which we don't do here anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect him of trolling, he is refusing to listen to me after I give him sources, being rather rude, wikistalking me, and I'm trying my best to be calm, assume good faith, and try to reason with hi, but he won't cooperate. I would appreciate him being temp.blocked to see if he'll cool down. -Karaku (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, this user considers comments such as this and this assuming good faith and being reasonable. See User talk:Karaku#Troll... for the whole conversation. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Trust not the Penguin. Karaku has only been editing for a few days, and has already been blocked for 24 hours. His activities are very frustrating and disruptive (such as the WP:SNOW nomination of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann for deletion) and people have been extremely patient. Harry the Dog (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Karaku, with your vague accusations here you seem to be continuing a pattern of just saying "I am right and you are wrong" and not justifying this in an intelligible way. Currently the only person who has a chance of getting blocked is you. If that is the best you can do, then you need to learn a lot to become the kind of team player you are expected to be here. Please make a harder effort to argue facts rather than personal relations. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry- Nominating Madeleine McCann for deletion is not disruptive, it's helping. It seriously isn't notable. But let that go on at the AfD talk page. I haven't been editing for a few days- more than that, I've been here before editing under an IP, i believe, and decided to make an account. I was blocked for a day for the (pointless, no offence meant) 3RR rule. And don't act like TrP has never been blocked before. I'm a positive contributor, and trying to help the articles, and i'm getting Wikistalked and trolled by TrP. I'm getting annoyed by him and being as calm as I can without unleashing personal attacks.

Cheese- He is wikistalking me, He seems to watch my contribs page, then rv nearly every single edit I make, then won't listen to me. (Such as him not listening to me on Code Lyoko and Matoran). I am not a problem, thank you very much. I'm the one trying to be calm about this and trying to get it resolved, but TrP just has to stay in his own little world and believe what was there before, even after i give sources. My comments are not innapropriate, and I am behaving.

Hans- I have tried to tell him I'm right in a more detailed way, but he won't listen, he'll just RV it. Even when i GIVE SOURCES. Why do I have the chance getting blocked here? Trying to help Wikipedia? I am trying to argue facts, but TrP is refusing to listen, -Karaku (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"He won't listen." Yes, that's likely to happen when you try to push an excentric position against the consensus of everybody else, using weak arguments. E.g. Madeleine McCann not notable? An article with 185 references? And insinuating that Penguin has been blocked before when it is demonstrably false is what we call a personal attack. It's normal behaviour in school yards, but hereabouts you can be blocked for it. The policy for this is WP:NPA. For easy reference: Here is your block log and here is Penguin's block log. You have been here since January, and Penguin has been here since November 2005. I would say the difference is striking. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to make me an angry bastard here? Yes, She isn't notable. I don't care if there are 5358934 references. Now this is not the AfD page for her, drop it. I have not been here "since January", I've been here longer than that without an account editing. This just proves I'm being ignored once more. -Karaku (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are responsible for your emotions. If they are out of control I strongly suggest you take a break. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zebra91

Zebra91 (talk · contribs)

This user continues to revert the removal of content from a school article (Patrician Brothers' College, Fairfield). Three editors, including myself have put forward their opinion on the article's talk page, however Zebra91 has made it clear on the discussion page and on user pages that they do not intend on backing down (e.g. here and here) and subsequently the discussion seems to be going no where. I suspect the user has also used a new account and two IP's to support themselves or improve their image (e.g. here, here and here). The situation seems to have gotten out of hand and i'm not sure what to do. Would appreciate some input/an uninvolved person to intervene. Loopla (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For the abuse of alternate accounts, file a report at WP:SSP. For the edit warring see WP:AN/3RR. I don't see particular incivility, just a horrible misunderstanding of what should and shouldn't be in the article and doesn't seem to understand that nobody has the "right" to edit Wikipedia (and that consensus must be respected). --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems like a chronic failure to understand WP:NOT and WP:N - common in newbies, but the aggressive attitude is somewhat problematic and may result in protection of the article. Orderinchaos 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Quizimodo

I wish to report Quizimodo for uncivil behaviour and responding to a proper comment with personal attacks. On Talk:Dominion, Soulscanner responded to unhelpful personal remarks made by Quizimodo

Instead of personal attacks, why not tell me what your take is on any of the three quotes given above. How have a misinterpreted these? --soulscanner (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I added my own comment:

There would be less occasion for ad hominem remarks if, as Soulscanner says, material was consistently cited. This is the major failing of the article. Quizimodo accuses 'flagrant misinterpretation'. It is certainly an interpretation, but how he can judge it is a misinterpretation I cannot tell. I for one don't read his quotes the way he does. This is the problem with relying too much on one text: it can be interpreted different ways.--Gazzster (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He responded: Well, most of the commentators to date apparently disagree with you. As well, your commentary is even more applicable to your ally in this: given editorial behaviours to date, entailing the flagrant dismissal of references already provided regarding other notions (e.g., multiple reliable references attesting to the official/legal nature of 'Dominion' as Canada's title) and other long-standing dickery, are you really surprised by the reaction? Quizimodo (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And: 'My ally?' Frankly you don't deserve a response.--Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the emptiness of your commentaries, we are not missing much. Quizimodo (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing provocative in my comment. The jab about ‘my ally’ was completely unjustified. The last remark even more so. I responded on his talk page:

I do not know what I have said to merit your rudeness. Your attitude toward me and other users who happen to diagree with you is ridiculous and bloody-minded. Your comments about 'my ally' is completely inappropriate. Assume good-faith and show some respect, even if you don't mean it. And if you carry on like this to me or anyone else you will be reported.--Gazzster (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He responded on my talk page: Your comments have been read. Wikipedia isn't your mother. Spare us your threats. Now, run along ... Quizimodo (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied:

The warning stands. And you've just given it more justification.--Gazzster (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then:

I quiver. Do not comment on my talk page, capiche? Quizimodo 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He then removed my comments from his talk page (which he may do) with the comment ‘removing juvenile commentary’.

I request that Quizimodo be warned about his uncivil comments. They are all too frequent, and obstruct meaningful discussion.--Gazzster (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It breaks my Wiki heart to see things getting personal on Wikipedia (particulary with Valentine's Day around the corner). For now, I request a starting over approach, a shaking of hands, a hug. Therefore I hold out my hand to all involved in the Dominion disputes & make a personal request. Forgive one another, put aside personal frustrations & remember, we're all Wikipedian. Do I see any hands (please respond with Aye). GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to forgive. But my issue is Quizimodo's rudeness. If he isn't going to show respect to other Wikipedians a bucket load of forgiveness means nothing.--Gazzster (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've personally asked him to come here. I'm hoping I can also smooth things between him & Soulscanner; Soulscanner & G2bambino aswell. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quizimodo has chosen not to appear at this Wikiquette report. He's given his reasons at my 'talk page'. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• Quizimodo tends to be uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him, even slightly. I've recently filed for mediation over dealings with him. He generally bullies anyone who disagrees with him when he is not being arrogantly dismissive. His tendency to focus on personal attacks on editors who disagree with him is matched by a talent to avoid any comment on referenced material. Quoted from Dominion Talk page:

--soulscanner (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's an example of Quizimodo obstructing a discussion by uncivil behaviour. Quizimodo, please give us an undertaking to be civil to others, and to try and listen to what they are saying.--Gazzster (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Offers of mediation here and here were also rudely rejected here. --soulscanner (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is how Quizimodo responded on GoodDay's talk page:

Thank you for your attempts to broker peace and foster amity. Unfortunately, I will not be participating in that discussion: it has no standing whatsoever, and (as with many other aspects of this situation) is an unnecessary distraction and time-waster for which the purpose and outcome are unclear. As well, I will not provide additional fodder for those who have issues nor will I provide an opportunity for said editors to snowball. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from this response that he doesn't even acknowledge the complaint, let alone address it. So I believe it's time to take the next step. I will post a report to Admin.--Gazzster (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, a RfC definitely might be an option for you. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm as bit new to all this. Is that the best thing to do?--Gazzster (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Rfc. I'm trying to figure it out myself. --soulscanner (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, ta. But I doubt further discussion will do any good, given that he doesn't even acknowledge the complaint. I might just wait for the response from the noticeboard.--Gazzster (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is mostly for situations needing immediate intervention by an administrator. They don't tend to intervene in cases of incivility unless it's crossed over into personal attack and is serious enough to justify a block. There might not be a lot they can do here. If Quiz. won't go for mediation and you want to pursue this, your next step would be RfC. RfC is used when other means of dispute resolution (mediation, WQA) have broken down or failed and the situation is ongoing and serious enough to warrant further attention. It doesn't matter if the user wants an RfC, and it doesn't involve discussion with him--basically it has outside editors commenting and perhaps making a binding plan of action for dealing with the situation. Best, DanielEng (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My complaint is now referred to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo.--Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

confusing behavior from User talk:ApsbaMd2

Could someone please take a look at recent edits by User talk:ApsbaMd2 and see if they can figure out what's going on. This brand new account has started reverting edits as vandalism, but it seems to be almost random. My good faith edit, and those of User:Huaiwei and User talk:Gryffindor have been unfairly accused. IP User Special:Contributions/152.160.39.70 was accused of vandalism to a page that he did not even edit. It addition, this strange revert was also made. I don't know if it's a bot, or just a strange user. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird. Some, but certainly not all, of this user's revisions have legitimately been vandalism. I'll drop a line at the user's talk page and see what response I get. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a L3 notice for his continued vandalism, in applying false warning templates to various talk pages. It seems to now be a vandal-only account, although I still hold out hope. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

64.107.58.130 / 68.60.240.82

For several months now, 64.107.58.130 has been engaging in a seemingly willful, consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. S/he has repeatedly inserted problematic text (OR, POV, essays, text dumps from other websites, etc.), and continually reinserted it with significantly uncivil edit summaries in response to its removal. See e.g. here here here, here), and here — this is a nonexhaustive list taken just from Chrysler Hemi engine, which was indefinitely semiprotected as a result of this editor's repeated disruption.

Further, and of greater concern, this editor has used various articles' and users' talk pages to launch personal attacks and other significantly uncivil behaviour, to declare Wikipedia policies and norms irrelevant, and to issue statements of intent to continue behaving disruptively — as well as persistently deleting SineBot's automatic signatures of this user's talk page comments. See e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (nonexhaustive list from Talk:Chrysler Hemi engine); here from User talk:Anthony.bradbury, here from Talk:Ford FE engine, and here from Hemi engine.

I have patiently and repeatedly tried to reach out and engage this editor constructively, see here, here, here, here, here, without success. I had a brief glimmer of hope when this editor made some constructive and Wiki-compliant edits to Hemi engine, and I made special effort to thank him/her for doing so, but as you can see from the diffs I've provided, that appears to have been a one-time thing, not an indication of growing awareness or coöperative spirit.

This user obviously has a lot of passion and interest in particular topics, and it seems a shame for that to be channelled into disruptive, uncivil, divisive behaviour rather than productive, coöperative behaviour. I could use some additional perspective on how an editor such as this might best be handled. Thanks in advance. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Scheinwerfermann's characterization of my actions, motives and contributions. I have been forceful in my responses, but only because it has always been 'his way or no way'. I have, according to other editors (Duk) contributed valid and accurate material which has been blocked, deleted and deemed unacceptable by Scheinwerfermann for reasons that seem opaque and obtuse, cloaked in huge cut-and-paste verbiage taking up space, but not addressing the problems. Scheinwerfermann refuses to cooperate, refuses to accept others' viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that I am an editor who has just happened across this dispute, have never edited any of the articles contributed to by the complainant or the plaintiff, and am not a sockpuppet.

Having examined the edit history at Chrysler Hemi engine, as an example, I have to say that most of the contributions by 64.107.58.130 seem to border on original research, introducing a slanted point of view, and with no attempt whatsoever to verify the insertions made during the edits. There seems to be a definite campaign to right some wrongs within the article. Whatever we may think individually of the subject of the article, we should not look to introduce our opinion into it (though we should, conversely, look to remove all other obvious opinions we come across which have been placed by other editors). A thorough re-read of all the Wikipedia guidelines is urgently needed, and, for now, some cooling off is also much required, I think.

And that goes for the complainant also. It is not really policy for blind reversion of complete edits, a dismissive act which should only occur in cases of vandalism. Those parts of the plaintiff's contributions which are not original research or non-NPOV should remain within the article, as long as they are relevant to the subject. Invitation should then be made for third-party reliable sources to be included (where missing), by tagging with the {{fact}} device in the edit.

There also appears to be a measure of patronis(z)ation creeping into some quite strident posting to talk pages. For instance, describing a fellow editor (whatever you think of their edit history) as "an editor such as this" (see above) is hardly likely to placate them. It's dismissive in tone, and is a veiled incivility, and will naturally inflame both their senses and the situation. Whilst the complainant's talk page posts appear to be quite detached and aloof, I sense that they are not made from such a position, and an element of tension is detectable. If you truly believe you need to bite to protect the integrity of the article as you see it, then perhaps the bite should not be so hard.

To close, I would urge both to step away for 48 hours, and return with the intention of fostering better relations throughout their contact during editing. Hope this helps in some way. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just as willing to let this go for 48 hours as I have been to let things go at the Ford FE engine article and have been willing to let things go at the Chrysler Hemi Engine article. In both instances, I am waiting for some constructive response from Scheinwerfermann. At the Chrysler Hemi article, another editor placed some kind of lock on the article with the intent that it would be removed when we came to an agreement about it. I presented the points that I thought needed to be corrected...I am still waiting for some response from Scheinwerfermann. All I get are large cut-and-paste's that are not on point, just flaming against me as near as I can tell.

Is this some part of some formal 'procedure' here at Wikipedia? Do I need to be combing through articles, talk pages and what-not gathering quotes, instances and history?

Again, I'll give things as much time as anyone thinks is needed. But so far, it hasn't resulted in any kind of resolution other than incorrect articles remaining up, with missing citations and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The lock, as you call it, is an administrators' semi-protect, which prevents those who have not created an account and logged into it from making any edits to the article whatsoever. When you view Chrysler Hemi engine, you probably see a 'view source' tab instead of edit or history tabs. Anonymous IPs (such as yours, 64.107.58.130) cannot make any contributions, good faith or otherwise. The admins' other option is to fully protect the page, in which case no-one but admins can make edits, and we all see the 'view source' tab instead of the activity buttons, logged into an account or not.

In this instance, I have one more suggestion to put to you. Formalis(z)e your editorship by creating an account for yourself. I am not putting this to you as a way round the semi-protected pages, but so that you can feel as though you've joined the Wikipedia community more fully. Because it is a community, containing all the things you would expect from a physical neighbo(u)rhood collective - great acts of kindness, tons of help, but also disagreements and negatives. The reason you're posting here today stems from the latter. It honestly is so much easier to resolve things when one is dealing with a name and not a number (literally, in this instance). I can tell from the way you put your messages and arguments together that you are a very intelligent individual. But your potential here is not being realis(z)ed properly, and I believe that creating an account would be a fine first step to integrating, resolving and then moving on to make some first-class edits to what I'm sure will become first-class articles. It needs a lot of give and take, though.

However, I'd like to get a response from user Scheinwerfermann before we go any further. After his/her input, the future course of things may become a little clearer. Thanks for your so far very civil posting in response to my attempt to help. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref, thanks for getting involved here. I've been observing your recommended time-out, have read your comments a few times, and will read them a few more times before responding substantively. This is just a short acknowledgement note; more to follow soon. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref, having read and mulled your comments at some length, here are my thoughts:

I appreciate your perspective on the tone of my talk page comments directed at 64.107.58.130, but I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you. There was absolutely no explicit or implicit malice intended in my use of the phrase "an editor such as this", for example; I could just as easily have said "this editor", for that's what I meant. Both 64.107.58.130 and I are in North America; I'm speaking North American, while you're across the pond, reading English. Unintended connotations have been read-in over much less, so it seems likely this is at least part of the basis for your perception of my tone. I'm confident my edit history overall speaks well for itself in terms of compliance and cooperation, particularly when dealing with new editors, but perhaps there are adjustments I can make to the way I present the information. It would be nice to have some additional perspectives on the matter beyond the generally favourable evaluations I've had from a few admins I've asked to look over my work.

Furthermore, you seem to perceive my careful efforts to keep my comments relevant to content, format, protocol and procedure as patronising and dismissive. This leads me to wonder what you'd rather see me do in my attempts to reach out to 64.107.58.130. I have no intention or desire to get in pissing contests or mudslinging matches with this editor, so even when 64.107.58.130 has called me a Nazi (amongst many other blatantly uncivil personal attacks) I have continued to steer the conversation back towards the content, format, and protocols at hand. I believe that to be a reasonable, proper, and compliant way of dealing with personal attacks; you seem to perceive it as a "bite", and I'd be keen to learn your thoughts on how such attacks might better be handled.

It's a pleasant surprise to see 64.107.58.130's civil, coöperative tone in this discussion, and I sincerely hope we'll see more improvement in that direction, but it's difficult for me to hold much hope for it, given his/her significant track record of vitriolic, abusive behaviour. The diffs and links I posted are not exhaustive, but they are extensive, so I wouldn't fault you for having not have read them all. As recently as yesterday, 64.107.58.130 was still objecting (on his talk page) to being asked to properly sign his/her comments on talk pages, thus continuing a longstanding pattern of not only refusing to sign his comments, but going in and deleting SineBot's autosignatures of his/her comments. This, together with repeated and strident wholesale rejection and derision of Wikipedia policy and those who adhere to it, make it difficult for me to see this 64.107.58.130's civil tone in this thread as sincere and genuine. I hope I am eventually proven wrong on that point.

64.107.58.130 objects to what he says is "my way or no way" behaviour on my part. As I have repeatedly (and patiently, and politely, and in a civil manner) tried to explain to 64.107.58.130, what he perceives as "my" requirements, "my" rules, "my" policies, etc. are nothing more or less than the standards and norms agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. Tagging uncited facts, adding applicable templates, removing unencyclopædic text (OR, personal essays, large text dumps from web forums, etc.) does not constitute messing up an article; rather, those actions are each a part of working towards that article's improvement within the structures and provisions of Wikipedia. Each time I have tried to present this and other salient points of order and structure in Wikipedia, they've gone unread and explicitly dismissed by 64.107.58.130. Until s/he understands that Wikipedia's policies, standards, and norms apply to us all, I imagine s/he'll continue to feel censored, "wikistalked", and otherwise mistreated — If not by me, then by the next editor who comes along to clean up an article to which 64.107.58.130 has contributed unencyclopædic content.

The question of good/bad faith is not always simple, and I fear this is one of those cases. It seems to me that an editor who is repeatedly asked to cooperate and follow WP policy, and shown where and how to do so, and who repeatedly not only doesn't do so but overtly expresses his disdain for those policies and his willful intent to carry on disregarding them, is editing in bad faith. Ignorance of the rules doesn't constitute bad faith, but willfully and defiantly maintained ignorance of the rules might be a different matter. I realise that 64.107.58.130 is certainly not alone in his views; any kind of enforcement of Wikipedia policies is probably always going to be unpopular amongst those who have a strong passion for the subjects that interest them and aren't interested in formal structures or strictures, but this is an encyclopædia, not an enthusiast website or a blog or a car magazine or a book. Anybody may contribute, but everybody must do his best to do so within the rules and behavioural standards of this community. Just as I am confident my own edit history speaks generally well for itself, I am also pretty sure 64.107.58.130's edit history speaks for itself, only it doesn't paint a very uplifting picture. Having had a few admins look things over and received several confirmations of that view, I'm hoping to avoid initiating official administrator intervention; it's no fun for any of the parties involved and would probably not go well for 64.107.58.130. I sincerely hope s/he'll make the choice to behave coöperatively rather than combatively.

Again, thanks for your perspective and whatever further thoughts you may care to offer. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments regarding "cross-pond" use of English (North American? Why do I understand your writing if you are not using English?). When I see a humo(u)rous remark, US or UK, I take it for what it is and laugh. Conversely, when I see a barbed or arrogant remark, US or UK, I do the same, except I don't laugh. Not that I am saying your remarks are anything of the kind, but I am trying to illustrate that 90% of what you perceive as a language difference is a fallacy. Where the difference can lie is in common intelligence, or the lack of it. Ignorance is bliss, but it's also the death knell for anyone wishing to edit successfully here. Luckily, all three of us involved in this discussion are of the former, and able to string three words together cohesively. I therefore cannot agree that 64.107.58.130 can be described as ignorant. I am afraid that, if I sense the "tone" of the words used might be dubious, then it's highly likely that another involved editor may well pick up on that too, whether they come from the United States or United Kingdom. And judging from 64.107.58.130's reactions to some of your postings, he/she is incensed or outraged by what meanings are perceived. Unfortunately, those emotions need to be handled better by the anon editor, or there is no future for them in Wikipedia. I hope I have previously given that impression consistently. And there is no doubt your edit history holds up well, but the matter of your respect or standing in the Wikicommunity is not at issue. We're not here in a Wikiquette dispute to decide which editor was right and which one was wrong. We are looking to find a way in which both can successfully edit in the future in the same areas of interest/expertise.

To use the words "but it's difficult for me to hold much hope for it, given his/her significant track record of vitriolic, abusive behaviour" is, again, unmistakeably dismissive and critical, whether true or not, and whether used here or "over the pond". To deny this is hugely insensitive to a person's feelings (we don't switch them off to edit this encyclopedia, we continue to be human emotional beings throughout, and some thought has to be given to this aspect).

I believe that the root of the problem for (not 'with') 64.107.58.130 is the feeling that nothing they contribute is deemed worthwhile, and that they may expect all their good faith edits to be treated in the same way. Which is why I reiterate that any possibly sourceable, neutral, balanced and relevant information they have added should not just be wiped off in a carte blanche action.

There is a real impression given that this IP editor may well have been initially tarred with the vandal brush, and I am able to see why, but not given enough fair chance subsequently to prove good faith, given the possible sense of injustice I have highlighted above. The matter of whether a person signs their contributions or not is between them and SineBot, usually. It can't really be held up as an indication of what type of editor they are.

I still believe that it will be possible for both of you to successfully edit the same articles, and I would be interested to hear back from 64.107.58.130 once more, although I suspect I have gone as far as I can in trying to set out a common ground from which both can develop. I would also invite other neutral editors to join the discussion with their thoughts on this. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading-in considerably more than I put into my comment regarding English vs. American usage. Of course we're all using English; I was pointing out that the connotation of words and phrases can differ significantly between UK and North American usage. "Scheme", for example, can be a perfectly innocuous synonym for "programme" or "system" in the UK, but it has decidedly negative connotations of chicanery and underhandedness in North America. Likewise, I think the way you heard "an editor such as this" in your head is probably not the way I intended it. I'm sure we can agree that communication happens between or among parties involved, so I'm not laying blame or pointing the finger, merely pointing out a linguistic phenomenon that may be at work here.

I am curious what term other than "willfully ignorant" you would prefer I apply to an editor who does not learn the rules and has clearly stated s/he has no intention of doing so. I agree with your supposition that this editor may feel a sense of injustice at the lack of durability of his/her edits. If that's so, the remedy is quick and easy: when 64.107.58.130 makes his/her contributions in a manner consistent with the behavioural and procedural norms of the Wikipedia community, more of his/her edits will survive for longer and longer periods and his/her sense of exclusion will evaporate. That is the common ground upon which all editors can effectively coöperate towards the betterment of individual Wikipedia articles and the project as a whole.

I bear no especial animosity or ill will towards 64.107.58.130, beyond the annoyance s/he is causing by behaving disruptively and abusively on an ongoing basis. Thanks for your participation. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"…Both 64.107.58.130 and I are in North America; I'm speaking North American, while you're across the pond, reading English. Unintended connotations have been read-in over much less, so it seems likely this is at least part of the basis for your perception of my tone."

Funny, I’m from North America and that’s the impression I get too. "

"I'm confident my edit history overall speaks well for itself in terms of compliance and cooperation, particularly when dealing with new editors, but perhaps there are adjustments I can make to the way I present the information."

” Aw hell, you're just being vindictive. I've been closer to these cars than you'll ever be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semi-Gloss (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)”

“NEXT time, please insert a request for a citation before willy-nilly deleting something. You know, a FACT tag. THEN, you can discuss things further on this page. DO NOT just delete stuff. Zaq1qaz (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)”

"Furthermore, you seem to perceive my careful efforts to keep my comments relevant to content, format, protocol and procedure as patronising and dismissive. This leads me to wonder what you'd rather see me do in my attempts to reach out to 64.107.58.130. I have no intention or desire to get in pissing contests or mudslinging matches with this editor, so even when 64.107.58.130 has called me a Nazi (amongst many other blatantly uncivil personal attacks) I believe that to be a reasonable, proper, and compliant way of dealing with personal attacks; you seem to perceive it as a "bite", and I'd be keen to learn your thoughts on how such attacks might better be handled."

” In the mean time, feel free to remove the "NAZI" and otherwise abusive comments. --Duk 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)”

So why did the comments remain? Because Scheinwerfermann doesn't WANT to remove them. That's not what Scheinwerfermann WANTS to do. Why all the effort expended on making sure my I.P. address appeared? What is your I.P. address?

I’m picturing a train on a set of tracks that doesn’t understand how it might be a wise thing to maybe curve around some obstacle and not cling to a set of rails so assiduously. The Wikipedia “rules” you cut and paste and refer to soooo much are actually “guidelines”.

”An editor who consistently refuses to learn the rules is being disruptive just as willfully as an editor who knows the rules and chooses not to follow them.”…by Scheinwerfermann.

Let me tell you how I think this should be handled: I went through your contributions page; probably 75% of your activity is with Chrysler and its related subsidiaries articles. I can’t find a single instance where you have contributed anything to a Ford article. Suddenly, you perceive a personal attack and you retaliate with an abusive edit of an article you saw I had recently worked on. Then you go to the Hemi Engine article where you saw that I had put in extensive work and contributions and start the same bullying there. You don’t like anyone messing with ‘your’ Chrysler articles. Not the Hemi articles, not the Dodge Dart article, nothing you have 'blessed' can be allowed to be improved. Errors, inconsistencies, lack of references and citations; they don't matter once you have made a Wiki-cross over the article and locked it down.

I have continued to steer the conversation back towards the content, format, and protocols at hand. And yet, the whole Wiki-community is still blessed with a Chrysler Hemi article that contains incorrect information and few citations because you refuse to discuss the points I made so that the protection can come off of the article.

The way I see this being handled is I put in for some kind of tattletale report of Wikistalking, abusive editing, tendendentiousness or whatever this place calls schoolyard bullying.

” he seems to be what is known in Canada as a "shit disturber". It means exactly what it sounds like it means. -- Scheinwerfermann. 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)”

” OK, I can do some of what you ask, like unlock the article for unregistered users to edit, but not if people are just going to keep reverting each other. Can you and the other editors come to some agreement here on the talk page first? Maybe start a new section and pick something small you can all agree on? It might be difficult because of your previous name calling, but if you make the effort, maybe the other editors will too. --Duk 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)”

So this is where it stands. Scheinwerfermann refuses to come on point and discuss the facts that are in dispute. S/he refuses to do anything except complain about my use of an I.P. address instead of a user name. As I stated on my talk page, an I.P. address is more personal and a more reliable means of identification than a made-up user name and I don’t understand the issue here. And I especially don’t understand why it is preventing the correction of a agreed-upon erroneous article that is missing references, citations and additional information pertinent to the subject.

"64.107.58.130 objects to what he says is "my way or no way" behaviour on my part. As I have repeatedly (and patiently, and politely, and in a civil manner) tried to explain to 64.107.58.130, what he perceives as "my" requirements, "my" rules, "my" policies, etc. are nothing more or less than the standards and norms agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. Tagging uncited facts, adding applicable templates, removing unencyclopædic text (OR, personal essays, large text dumps from web forums, etc.) does not constitute messing up an article; rather, those actions are each a part of working towards that article's improvement within the structures and provisions of Wikipedia. Each time I have tried to present this and other salient points of order and structure in Wikipedia, they've gone unread and explicitly dismissed by 64.107.58.130. Until s/he understands that Wikipedia's policies, standards, and norms apply to us all, I imagine s/he'll continue to feel censored, "wikistalked", and otherwise mistreated — If not by me, then by the next editor who comes along to clean up an article to which 64.107.58.130 has contributed unencyclopædic content."

Please note that Scheinwerfermann refuses to discuss changing his viewpoint on the matter. It is my fault, and now apparently your fault. He has made, in this long-winded reply, no real compromise, nor shown a willingness to discuss the article that started this dispute. He does not own up to his abusive editing and stalking of me across two other articles. In short, it really is “his way or no way”.

I would also like to let Scheinwerfermann in on how some of us write. We don’t write an article, with nice citations and references all at once. We may have have some time and write a paragraph, clean up a few paragraphs, then take a break. Then we’ll come back, maybe add a relevant photo, maybe add a citation or two.

According to Scheinwerfermann’s view, it seems, we should have everything all nice and perfect and ready to type in during one session at the keyboard. If we don’t, everything gets reverted, all work gets undone, and who cares about “some” citations when all of them are needed in order to satisfy Scheinwerferman’s “rules”.

” I provided the citation requested, but you deleted the referenced source, and the citation, for the above two examples, as well as for numerous other requests for citations. You seem to be deliberately sabotaging my attempts to provide you with citations. Do you have a problem with a citation from a published book, with an ISBN number, that I cited down to the page number? You are a classic whiner. You can harp and criticize and find flaws, but what exactly are you adding to the project? I’m waiting to see. Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.221.60 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)”

I went through a bunch of talk pages and history last night. I don't know how to link to inner parts of pages, but I kept a log of where quotes came from. There is a CURRENT history of innocuous edits and softsoaping treatment in his first page and a half of edit history. You need to go back to before he first realized I might report him for a more relevant picture of his 'style' of editing and treatment of others.

So, all I take away from this is that Scheinwerfermann doesn't think anything's amiss. That he's right, everyone else is wrong, and everything should just stay the way it is. Is that everyone else's take on this roundy-round?

(Unindent) Well, you've totally lost me there. Disengaged quotations which I take to be unformulated diffs (and impossible for me to refer to easily), and which have severely backtracked this informal process. Quoting other people's gripes with Schweinwerfermann is nothing to do with this method of resolving differences.

I suggest you both now take this to a higher resolution process, because what is being brought out here is far beyond rectification through a Wikiquette alert. I did try. Thanks and good luck. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)