Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive41

Complaint against ScienceApologist

Resolved

 – Editor retracted comment and offered apology. DanielEng (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am considering a formal complaint about ScienceApologist because of his comment at [1]. I am co-director of the AA-EVP [2] and an active researcher in the field of EVP/ITC. He knows I monitor the EVP article, and so I am assuming that he intended his comments to me and my fellow researchers as a personal insult. Alone, this event could be considered an editor having a bad day, but he has used the same tone many times and his active expression of this attitude in his edits has become an obstruction. I now believe the only remedy is to bar him from editing in the paranormal subjects. The offending quote is here:

"This topic is pretty ridiculous, almost to the point of patent nonsense. Almost everyone who believes in this stuff is basically a moron or an absolute wacko, so it's a little difficult to write an intro that they would find fair. Nevertheless, we are instructed by Wikipedia to write an article with wording that follows NPOV. That's our goal. The perceived slights by those who believe in EVP is not our concern. Since there is no "theory" to speak of, nor is their really anything more to this than the pop-culture significance of it, we are basically charged with writing an article about something that is simply so preposterous that it's "not even wrong". We'll continue to pursue a neutral wording given that we must maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)" Tom Butler (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are an "active researcher" on the topic of whether ghosts live in my tape recorder? I guess we'd better do what you say! Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy Blackamoor, if you have no constructive comments, then please do not interfere with this effort to find a peaceful resolution to a serious breach of social etiquette. Tom Butler (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious? We are on a website where people play a game in which they pretend to be encyclopedia editors, that is devoted mostly to making lists of where silverware has been referenced in Family Guy and arguing over which picture of feces to use, talking to a guy who believes in ghosts, until I get banned for pointing out that water doesn't have the ability to remember which molecules it has come into contact with. I can't think of anything less academic or less serious than this. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments seem to be a mere inflamitory attempt to make things worse. If you can't say something which is constructive and which helps to create harmony and consensus, and to build an encyclopedia, please refrain from commenting. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist should play nice. Just because people believe in tape-recorder ghosts doesn't mean that you should be mean to them on WP. Tom, the article in question needs real, scholarly sources, not references to web sites and popular books. ScienceApologist would be justified in chopping out whole sections of it because they're not properly sourced. But if he does that, he should do it without insulting anyone. Leadwind (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Leadwind. It is indeed very hard to work around here when -whether or not you believe in the material- if you aren't openly derogatory toward it you get told you are a fringe POV pusher. Then, you get insulted, and it is insulting whether or not you believe, because you know that the person thinks you do, and absolutely nothing happens to them, because they haven't named a name. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My advice to you would be to not be so thin-skinned. I know ScienceApologist can be a bit difficult to deal with sometimes; I have tangled with him before. However, the most important thing here is to not worry about civility, but to produce reasonable articles. So try to work with SA to produce a reasonable NPOV article. And that means including the mainstream position in a substantial way, not trying to promote this as some sort of real phenomenon that is well documented. It is highly controversial, and it should be described as such.--Filll (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I could call those who believe as the author's on Ramond Arritt's page kooks, pseudoscientists, nutjobs, kookasauruses, crazies etc. -all things they call people like Tom Buler. I'm sure you wouldn't think that poisons the atmosphere. Just ignore it and write an article. That's fine for you, but most people call that poisonous atmosphere. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SA was commenting on those who believe in EVP/ITC, and not on a specific editor in general. While SA can be hard to deal with at times, it is best to work along with him to produce an article that is not only unbiased, but factual and reasonable to both sides of the dispute -- those who discredit and those who hold full belief in EVP/ITC. I agree with Leadwind's statement above; the article is full of unverifiable third-party sources that consist mostly of web-sites or books that you can find in the bargin bin of any bookstore. It lacks first-rate sources, and SA's analysis is pretty much dead-on (sans the comment regarding morons). seicer | talk | contribs 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please research the history before commenting like this- I know you're a good admin, but this isn't informed. To be specific, those are the only sources that exist. Thus, they are ok per WP:FRINGE. There are editors there who want to pad out the article with OR, by using sources which don't mention the subject- I won't name names. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WQA is for discussing civility, not content. SA's "Almost everyone who believes in this stuff is basically a moron or an absolute wacko..." has no place on Wikipedia under any circumstances whatsoever. Can't believe there's a "debate" over this. WNDL42 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither can I. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it might sound uncivil, but it all depends on the context. If someone is trying to introduce a source by people who lack in intelligence or sanity on a equal basis as sources like The New York Times then the comment goes to address a concern about the reliability of the proposed sources. Granted he/she could've phrased it better to make clear they were discussing a source and not another editor, but isn't necessarily an egregious violation. Anynobody 05:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no such sources, or we would have used them long ago. And these comments -at least from othere editors, I won't say anything about the current one- are usually directed obliquely at persons, not sources. Consistently. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think it is pretty clear that SA is attacking me personally. In the same thread:

AAEVP is not quite good enough to source this. They make up all kinds of things at their website. What would be best is if we found someone who didn't believe in EVP reporting on the classification scheme (per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources). Barring that, if we could find one of the people mentioned in our article (like Raudive, for example) who used the classification scheme, at least that would be more authoritative than some website that Tom Butler made up one day. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course none of that is either true or provable, but it is convenient for SA to say. If I am not mistaking, that is a sign of a sociopath ... but then I would not want to assume your implied approval of insulting people I disagree with.

Okay, so as I understand your valued advice, it is okay to be insulting and make personal attacks if it concerns a subject that you happen to agree with the offender. You have decided that EVP is only believed in by morons and that SA was just calling it as it is; therefore you all would have said pretty much the same thing. That sort of gives SA and his ilk a license to say what they want, as I assume you also do. (I know Randy Blackamoor does.) I also assume that you have studied the evidence about EVP and are making an informed choice.

Thank you for your time and sincere advice/guidance. Tom Butler (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen. I certainly don't think that calling someone a moron is the right thing to do, but the rest of SA's comments are neither insulting nor out of line. S/he seems to have a wish for the article to be neutral and factual, and that's what we strive for here. In the comment you quoted above, there's nothing amiss. Since you're heavily involved with this subject outside of Wiki and quoted in the article already there is a probable conflict of interest and demanding a neutral and reliable third party source, rather than a website promoting the subject, is reasonable. That's not just about you, that's how it is on every article. You're dealing with a topic that is not exactly widely accepted and there's thus going to be greater scrutiny on the sources and a demand for reliable ones and a neutral POV. There's been a lot of back and forth and arguments on that article and it seems as though it's frustrating everyone. DanielEng (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any argument about the substance. If Tom has a COI, which is not true since his edits are NPOV, then I second him in complaining that you will do nothing about editors -and the current one is only the very nose of the whale- who insult without mentioning names. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he came here and said "I'm a researcher in this field..." and the quotes he gave us seem to suggest that he had a problem with the request for NPOV sources. If that's not the case, my mistake. And again, I don't condone calling anyone or their beliefs names, because it obviously doesn't contribute to productive editing or discussion. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure what we can do for you here. We could ask SA to play nice, but we can't force anyone to apologize, the comment wasn't directed specifically to TB (if he had said "TB, you are a moron and a wacko!" it would be far more cut and dry as a PA) and there does seem to be frustration growing on both sides. If you have any suggestions as to what WQA should do here, please let me know.DanielEng (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand these things, and thank you (The sources are not a real problem, because they are about the best one can find in the field without doing OR). Here is what I think ought to have happened. First, it should have been totally apparent to everyone that the statement was not appropriate- and there should have been some outrage that any editor would act that way. I am nervous because in the past I've been blamed totally unfairly for the other editors actions, so let me again repeat that he is only one of many. Second, there should be some outrage that others have downplayed the seriousness of this. Here is a quote from Jimbo: [3] That is what I'm saying here: poisoning the environment is not in any way shape or form tolerable, from anyone, and it should meet with outrage. I ask you to think a little about what the response would be if Tom Butler had made such statements. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your discussion here. We're completely on the same page that the 'moron' comment was out of line. But what is 'outrage' going to solve here? If a bunch of WQA editors get mad and give SA a sound thrashing, how is that going to help contribute to a better environment in the article? How is that going to help alleviate the negative opinion that is already there? If a bunch of you working on the article step in and say "hey, SA, that comment was out of line" it will probably have the same effect, and have less harm, because SA won't feel as though a bunch of outsiders is being sicced on him. Fillil had some good advice above about not being thin-skinned. Unfortunately discussions on Wiki can get heated, and if you want any sort of longterm life here, it's advisable to choose one's battles carefully and not get outraged about the small stuff. If you look above, we have a case of someone who is being harassed by multiple sockpuppets--that is something that calls for outrage. Of course incivility of any kind is hard to work with, but disengaging, ignoring and continuing to work--and taking Wiki remedies for disruptive editing if necessary--is preferable to running to complain about every comment. It's like being back at school--sometimes walking past the bullies without responding is a lot more effective than running to the teacher.

One of the things that needs to be understood about WQA is that we're not here to ban, block or get people in trouble. This isn't a formal complaint that is a negative mark on someone's resume. We're here to try to work through incivility and perhaps get everyone to the table before it turns into a situation that requires action. And on WQA, just as on any other forum, you're going to see a lot of editors with different perspectives. Tom's original request here was that SA be banned from editing paranormal articles. We can't do anything about that, of course. And adding NPA tags to his Talk Page or talking to him isn't likely to accomplish much. Again, then, I'd like to ask you what you think WQA can do for this case. What clear action do you want us to take here? Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, through ArbComs and years people have done what you say, and it has had no effect. Outrage of the community is in fact what is generally lacking: the thought is that they are a bunch of fringies, and deserve all they get. I haven't gotten outraged for years. That is changing, because the community thinks of these things as having no history. They do. It has been going on for years. We've been walking past the bullies for years. These editors still do the same things, in spite of everything the ArbCom and admins have tried to do. It's about time for some outrage. You ask what clear action you should take: this complaint was obviously brought to the wrong place. But in general, outrage that this is the environment and a determination to do whatever it takes to eliminate such behavior would be the appropriate thing. You should have referred Tom to a better venue, like AN/I or something, if you believe as you say that talking won't help. And thanks for the response (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, a complaint like this wouldn't have gotten much traction in AN/I, I'm afraid. If it had been brought there, it would have likely received the same response as you received here: "well, it's not nice, but move on." Unfortunately, I don't agree with you that being outraged over small issues and doing "whatever it takes" to correct them is the right way to go: creating an atmosphere in which everyone is 'running to the teacher' over every small slight, instead of disengaging, and getting bans for small civility transgressions is not conducive to a harmonious editing atmosphere either. And I don't believe that Jimbo' quote was suggesting such a thing. At any rate, SA has refactored his comment and seems to understand that it was not a good idea, so I think we can all consider this matter to be closed. Happy editing to all! :) Best, DanielEng (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of diversionary tactics going on here. SA, a simple and civil statement here to the effect that you regret that your statement was taken personally would probably suffice. The entirely civil discourse here about the issues with the sources, had it been conducted on the talk page instead of the incendiary and personally directed comments including "ridiculous" and "nonsense" and "moron" and "wacko" that you posted there, would have resulted in a much more effective use of everybody's time and would have prevented this WQA.

Also, a comment for those editors here attempting to justify SA's remark by contextualizing it...you are not helping. WNDL42 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, it would be nice if someone would mention the filing to SA himself. I just posted a notice to get his side of the events. seicer | talk | contribs 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One) My "moron" comment was not talking about any editor on Wikipedia, and will refactor since it seemed to cause offense. My point was intended to be about the "balance" that the editor I was responding to was trying to draw between people who believe that ghosts interact with poorly-made electronic circuitry and people who actually understand something about reality. I think the point is valid and still stands. Let me put it this way: If there are hypothetical people who have beliefs that run counter to basic reality are trying to have a hand in writing articles for an online encyclopedia, there will obviously be issues with people who are a bit more, shall we say, mainstream. This is my personal opinion, but I was more concerned with the fly-by-night commentators who swoop in and say, "This article isn't fair" when they don't really understand that WP:NPOV is not WP:FAIR. Two) Thank you, Seicer, for keeping me in the loop. This should have been done earlier. Three) I understand that I'm abraisive. Wikipedia culture is steadily changing toward mealy-mouthship, and I try to keep myself as in-line as possible. I apologize for any slips in this attempt at conformity, but dealing with the amount of craziness that I deal with in Wikipedia means that I may be sometimes too quick to appeal to spade. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:AE#Complaint against ScienceApologist, this is more of a civility issue that has since been corrected by SA retracting the comment and apologising. What more do you want? seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but you asked...

I apologize for thinking that this forum was the best place to begin without making my complaint a major issue. I was only following the suggestion at [4] to:

Step 6: Turn to others for help

For incivility

Turn to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for problems with uncivil editors.

Obviously, the instructions were wrong.

In answer to Seicer's "What more do you want?" I want the insults to stop and I would like SA to offer proof of his claim that I fabricated material for the AA-EVP website. [5] which he posted here [6]. A very large percentage of the world's population believes in things paranormal. If a "scientific" person like SA is not willing to find out why through proper investigation, at least he can resist calling millions of people morons.

His comment here is only a rewording not a retraction that would suggest that he is ready to speak in terms of the subject and not personality. Look how fast Randy Blackamoor was to attack my personality when I opened this complaint here. How can you approve of a culture that condones that? SA calls the opposite, "mealy-mouthship." I think that hiding behind a screen name and breaking social mores with impunity is a pretty poor example for the readers here who review the talk pages.

If you have to ask what more I want, you are part of the problem. Tom Butler (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a legitimate question. What exactly do you want to happen here? By rehashing this issue again and again, and demanding that editors get angry about it, what do you want to accomplish here? SA retracted his comment, apologized and was blocked for twelve hours, which would seem to satisfy the "insults" part of your request. As for the second, that he should offer proof, that's a content issue and has no place here. Not to mention that as the person providing the source, as per WP:PROVEIT, the onus is on you to prove that it is credible; it's not on other editors to prove that it isn't. You're welcome to bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like to see if it is verifiable and can be accepted as a legitimate source or not. With all due respect, it seems as though you want SA to continue to be chastised over and over again. He's apologized, he's been admonished, and at this point, it's time to drop it and move on with your editing. DanielEng (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an old comment that was since resolved at WP:AE. I sent you an e-mail too :P seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

user:North Shoreman

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Not a WQA issue; editor referred to RFC/HISTDanielEng (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is with regret I am putting a Wikiquette alert on a user. I think a better system would be where a Wikiquette alert is placed upon an article and the article is monitored for breaches of etiquette.

• User comments have included personal attacks and incivility: [7]

[8] and elsewhere.

• User dismisses other editor's objections as "frivolous": [9],

[10]

• User has labelled tags placed on articles by other editors as "inappropriate and frivolous".

• User violates Wikipedia policy concerning tagging of articles and has removed article tags on articles when a consensus has clearly not been reached, such as: [11], [12]

• User dismisses alternative reliable sources.

• While I have tried to ignore all comments I consider a personal attack or include incivility, user has attacked me for not responding to his attacks. I have on the user's talk page requested the editor not engage in personal attacks without success.

• When I proposed neutral 3rd party mediation user not only rejected the offer but did it with incivility.

• Other issues and other instances could be enumerated if it matters.

I will not be making further edits to any of the related articles until a neutral 3rd party takes the articles under watch to ensure proper Wikiquette and Wikipedia policies are followed. BradMajors (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, we can't intervene in content disputes or step in to watch articles. Please tell us what else you'd like WQA to do to help. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DanielEng. There really is no wikiquette violation here. This appears to be a strong content dispute, but this is really not the place to solve content disputes. I would suggest trying Wikipedia:Request for Comment. Given the importance of the article to American history, I would think there are many editors with expertise in American history who would be willing to chime in. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So it is OK then to call other's positions "inappropriate and frivolous"? It is OK to remove tags when a consensus has not been reached? It is OK to label the placement of tags on articles inappropriate and frviolous?BradMajors (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not taking sides here, we're simply saying this isn't an incivility issue. Calling something inappropriate is most definitely not a personal attack, and the other issues you're mentioning are not breaches of Wikiquette, they're part of a content dispute. Please read the "What WQA CANNOT do" at the top of the page: we can't intervene in content disputes and watch over pages. WP:RFC/HIST is the place to discuss an ongoing content issue. DanielEng (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question called the dispute frivolous, not the editing. As far as consensus, consensus is not a vote of a small number of parties, which is what appears to have happened here. I could be wrong, and don't claim to be an expert by any means, but from where I am standing this is not an etiquette issue. Removal of tags is also not an etiquette issue, and should be pursued through proper channels, and have made a suggestion above as to how this might be pursued. It is not a question as to whether or not this is "OK"; rather it is a question as to whether this issue belongs on this board, which deals with etiquette issues or requires help regarding content issues. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I misunderstood. I have always personally considered labelling other people's opinions as frivolous as uncivil. It will make my life easier on Wikipedia because I am free to express my true opinion of other editors opinions. Meanwhile, outside of Wikipedia I will continue to consider the outright dismissal of others opinions as uncivil. BradMajors (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that anyone dismissed your concerns: on looking at the diffs, it appears that the user very clearly gave explanations for his edits and gave you a chance to state your case for objection (and in one of the diffs you've cited as a personal attack, you told him he did a "good job"!). I'm sorry if you're unhappy with the response you've received here, but you've been given a suggestion on where to take this, and told why it isn't a WQA issue. Also please note that when you file a WQA, it's considered good form to let the other person know about it so they can come and respond for themselves. I've let NS know about this posting, as he doesn't seem to be aware of it yet. DanielEng (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

anti-Semitic rants by EliasAlucard

Resolved

 – User warned

Despite numerous requests, EliasAlucard, a proud member of the KKK Stormfront [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=4968410&postcount=10 forum], seems unable to control his obsessive posting of anti-Semitic claptrap, particularly on the Kevin Macdonald talk page. See e.g., here and here. I'm more than accustomed to having to wade through various editors opinions all over WP talk pages, but exactly how much Jew-hating bile must one put up with from this bigot?

Despite having brought this to AN/I, EliasAlucard continues with his rants, the most recent [13] where this Stormfront member reassures us "that doesn't mean I want all Jews to be killed or anything. All I'm saying, is that they should be criticised so that they can improve themselves" and that Jews "simply need to knock it off with all this warmongering and start realising that criticism can be valuable. In other words, all Jews, "get your shit together" and we can live in a better world."

Besides the flagrant violation of WP:TALK's barring of using Talk Pages for airing personal opinions, this user has leveled a number of anti-Semitic attacks against me including:

• here: "If you feel offended every single time someone is critical of Jews, such as Kevin MacDonald, you have a serious emotional problem, or, you're probably Jewish."
• here: "To call it "hatred" is ridiculous, and if you keep twisting it into hatred – when it's not hatred – there might come a day when "hater" and "antisemite" becomes a badge of honour, because people like you misuse these words of shame to silence (valid) criticism of Jews every single time."

Tells me to keep my "pro-Jewish" views out of an article:

• here "And likewise, I ask of you, to keep your pro-Jewish views out of the article when you edit and don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of genocidal supremacist manic, simply because he is critical (and good at it) of Jewish influence. here]: "And likewise, I ask of you, to keep your pro-Jewish views out of the article when you edit and don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of genocidal supremacist manic, simply because he is critical (and good at it) of Jewish influence."

And more Jew-baiting of me:

• here again: Your Jewish idols aren't any better, and you should follow through with your logic and accuse them of the same thing you seem to think the Nazis are the "bad buys in your neighbourhood". But hey, you being impartial and everything just can't be honest enough to do that, because you get "offended"

And defends his anti-Semitism and membership in the Jew-hating Storfront forum:

• here "Unfortunately, forums like Stormfront are the only forums where you can openly discuss Zionist influence, which means that forums like those are the only places where you can be critical of Jewish power."

And this particularly vile rationalization for his antiSemitic rantings:

"here: If Jews like Alon Ziv wouldn't be promoting miscegenation for gentiles (and they never promote miscegenation for Jews, of course) like it was the next best thing, people like Kevin MacDonald would have no case against them, and people wouldn't have a problem with Jews, and people like me wouldn't be posting on Stormfront complaining about it"

It's nauseating to have to wade through this users slime to compile this. this needs to stop. Now. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - per the closing of the section at WP:ANI, I put the comments in archive 3 of the talk page. The diffs still work but the consensus from WP:ANI seems to be to let this go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, where do you see consensus to "let it go?" there? The only admin responding said "Shut the hell up", for which he was reprimanded. The rest of the discussion is by the anti-Semitic editor himself. Explain "consensus" there? Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the discussion from the talk page (now archived) consists of you two arguing, and two other editors telling you not to go into personal attacks and to stop. Next I see on your user talk page that two more editors have told you to let it go, both before and after the WP:ANI posting. I will add a similar opinion of my own. If there is any reason to believe someone else feels differently, they can comment at WP:ANI below mine or the article talk page or your user talk page or here, or on my talk page now. I think this spot would be the appropriate place to centralize. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whyare you and others covering up for flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy and a vicious anti-Semite? I don;t get it. Explain please. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This user certainly seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the Jews. I remember removing [14] a long and pointless debate from the Armenian genocide talk page, which had started with him proffering the allegation that the Jews might have been behind that event (on the basis of some crank claims off the Net). --Folantin (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This may indicate a long-term pattern of abuse. I would suggest those involved keep a watch on the user's edits and to remove any offending or trolling comments. Looking over the pattern of edits, there is a clear indication regarding his bias against Jews, which has been cleverly disguised in many of his posts. seicer | talk | contribs 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I will place a warning in user's talk. If he persists, he will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He's now been banned. However, to complete this record, I'll add that his postings to talk:David Duke are eaqually outrageous:

• Obviously, the entire gassing with Zyclon B thing is very suspect and very likely just nonsense propaganda...This gas chamber thing is likely to be derived from the same nonsense.[15]

This guy does not appear interested in collegial dialogue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this user banned, but rather blocked for 72 hours. Am I reading the log wrong? I think an indef ban is a no-brainer here. IronDuke 23:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, my error. Based on comments here, on AN/I, and on the the user's talk page (including his own defiant remarks), as well as the user's long record of previous blocks, I am going to extend the block duration to indefinite. If any admin feels that's too long we can talk about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bogdangiusca

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.

---

Resolved

-- Closed after review as per original closure on 2/26--NWQA; no incivility notedDanielEng (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusation of trolling here [16] see last comment bogdan (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC) --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• the "diff" [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, here's how things went:

• you're proposing changing the policy (removing all diacritics from Wikipedia titles), therefore changing the titles of more than 100,000 articles, just to annoy the Eastern Europeans
• some people write their opposition to your plan
• you ignore them and start a nonsensical and endless discussion with some people who might want that.
• you announcing to the world that you found a consensus, writing with bold "With there being no further objections to the current proposal, it is therefore considered approved."

Isn't that trolling? bogdan (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Bogdan's comment. Mrg, please do not misuse WP's procedures like this. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. There's no reason this ever should have been brought here. DanielEng (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Clarifying "thirded" per the Urban Dictionary - To diminish to one-third of the original value. I.e. to divide by 3)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

'Thirded' is an extremely common term in parliamentary procedure, where it expresses agreement, just as it does here. I'm sure you must be aware of this, yes? Perhaps you could provide the diff requested now?DanielEng (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to John Stevens' translation of Quevedo's Comical Works, 1707 in his advice on eggs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note:

• I never asked for a consensus, and this was explicitly stated at the start of the proposal.
• The user Bogdan stated he ignored the discussion, so how can he attest to me being a troll?!
• The issue under discussion has been disruptive to Wikipedia since 2003, and was commented on this by no lesser person the Jimbo himself.
• If the user did not participate in the discussion, how can he know it is "sterile"? I suspect this is another veiled insult.
• The user Bogdan can not speak for "every other Wikipedian" regardless of their country of residence. In any case, the discussion was about what English speaking countries use, and not every country.
• The user Bogdan had every opportunity to announce the discussion of the proposal on every page he thought appropriate, but the appropriate place to make the proposal was on the naming conventions (use English) page, and not on every page that is remotely connected with Eastern Europe!
• Ditto for noticeboard.
• I have no intention to "argue". A discussion is not an argument. An argument is a part of discussion when backed up with logic and facts.
• Number of participants does not necessarily translate into quality of discussion. There are archives of the last five years to back this up!
• Bringing logic and facts to the discussion is the point of participation!

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please provide the diff. Your comments above are not a diff, they're discussion of a content dispute which does not belong here. Please give the specific diff where the offending comment was made. If the only complaint is of the ongoing content dispute mentioned by Bogdan and the diff provided, I'm standing by my original assessment, which is that this Alert should not have been made. I see no compelling reason this discussion had to be reported, and could not have been addressed in the ongoing thread on the article's Talk Page. DanielEng (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tell me DanielEng, do you enjoy being called a troll?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Refer to my previous comment. If an editor feels you are being disruptive, he or she has a right to express that opinion, and doing so does not constitute a personal attack. You're attempting to start another debate here, you're specifically trying to engage me for some unknown reason, and I refuse to participate. This is not a WQA issue, and arguing isn't going to make it one. DanielEng (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, YOU jumped into the alert, and no one made you do so! The said editor by his own admission refuses to participate in the discussion, which is his choice. However, calling someone a troll is not civil, particularly since proof to the claim is not brought to the discussion.

My comments above concerned Bogdan's comments only, and it is you who tried to engage me in discussion (User talk:DanielEng|talk 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC); User talk:DanielEng|talk 05:07, 26 February 2008) which I frankly have no intention in engaging in. My only response the first time was to link you to the correct Wikipedia article on what you asserted was "correct".

If you want to be an admin, please feel free to follow the process and policies of Wikipedia and not offer summary decisions based on assumptions. This is besides the point that you are far from impartial from the discussion in question, so can hardly participate in this alert, as is Buckshot06.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I work here, I answer alerts. If you do not wish for comments from the WQA staff, you're more than welcome, and in fact, invited, to take your complaints elsewhere. I notice that no other editor has stepped in to justify your complaint, in spite of the fact that other alerts are being answered. If you're going to work on Wiki, you're going to have to learn that disagreements do not constitute impartiality and incivility. At this point, you're exhausting the patience of the community and being disruptive. Please do not abuse WQA with complaints like this again. DanielEng (talk) 05:12, 27 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:Bueller 007

At a minimum, this problem involves what can charitably be construed as an abrasive editing style. However characterized, the cumulative issues have annoyed me since August. For me, this has become intolerable; and fortunitously, someone suggested this forum might provide some movement towards a more palatable resolution than is otherwise likely.

Alternately, I'm too sensitive; but there you have it.

Whatever it is that is going on can't continue unaddressed.

• User talk:Bueller 007#Hōkō-ji (Kyoto)
• Talk:Kōryū-ji#Wrongful deletion
• Talk:Japanese era name#Disputed citation
• Talk:Daijō-kan#Simplification

I posted the following on User:Bueller 007's talk page and other places which arguably represent open threads:

Whatever good which might have attended a discussion here is best held in abeyance pending whatever develops from inquiries at WP:WQA. In this context, I take some comfort in learning from HelloAnnyong that, at the higher levels of dispute resolution, both users come under scrutiny. I'm quite confident that my entire editing history can withstand close scrutiny. I can't see how User:Bueller 007 can feel similarly at ease with the prospect of a too-revealing examination.

Perhaps a good place to start is "my aching arse" and "plagaiarism" ... or maybe that's not the way to go. If I had any better ideas, I would have tried them out before resorting to this uncertain option. I don't quite know how to proceed here; and if this needs editing, I'll do whatever is called for.--Tenmei (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide specific diffs' regarding the abrasive editing style? seicer | talk | contribs 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just throw my two cents in here, since I've been sort of roped into things. I believe this to be more of a content dispute than a Wikiquette issue and have stated so before, but I mentioned to Tenmei that for issues with users and not content, this is the place to go. I'm pretty sure that both editors are wrong here; I see that Bueller has been accused of overreaching on Talk:Daijō-kan#Plagiarism, and perhaps hasn't been all that vocal on the talk pages, but I think Tenmei is in equally hot water for being overzealous and hot-tempered (see my talk page). This is not a good situation, and I almost wish both editors would just avoid each other for awhile. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of request for assistance in this venue
In response to a question which I did not intend as rhetorical, I discovered that all I can likely hope to gain from WP:WQA would be something as hollow, meaningless, and impractical as a reprimand. I myself have no fears of being slapped across knuckles with a ruler, and event he suggestion that I need to be concerned about such an odd prospect is troublesome; but worse still is the implication that there's nothing to be learned by anyone. That's pointless a priori. No, no, no -- I am only prepared to invest time in a complaint process which serves inform my future actions, my future responses to who-knows-what. In this context, what is to be made of the following:

• User:HelloAnnyong: You yourself send me to WP:WQA -- now the unanticipated sequelae begin to accumulate. Have you so little faith in the resolution process that you think it won't work when all is said and done? Think again.--Tenmei (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• I do have faith in the process, but I'm also separating out article content from user conduct. I'll say it again: WQA is not going to bring the content resolution that you want; it only deals with user conduct, and it will only end in one or both of you being reprimanded. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problems and opportunities of the present are wasted unless experience is used to ameliorate the unanticipated stumbling blocks which are inevitable in a joint-venture like Wikipedia. Now that I actually put the notion into words, it sounds too lofty; but there you have it.

I'll withdraw my complaint here and re-address my this problem with mediation. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

user: IrishGuy on List of zombie films

I fear that IrishGuy, an editor and administrator who contributes to List of zombie films has created an atmosphere in which it is difficult or impossible for others to contribute. He seems to show contempt for other users, and rarely feels the need to explain himself. People feel marginalised by the fact that he reverts almost any addition to the list, invents criteria for inclusion into the list, doesn’t feel the need to discuss his actions, and completely disregards consensus. I think the conversations here and here give a good idea of how IrishGuy’s unwillingness to communicate has effectively ended any contribution to the article. I understand that nobody’s perfect, and I myself have been slightly out of line at times in the article’s talk page (especially towards the beginning, I am still a relative Wikipedia novice). However, I think things have gone as far as they can at Talk: List of zombie films and I would appreciate any guidance. SaintCyprian ^Talk 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I went back and reviewed the links provided by SaintCyprian. I can't find anything above your run of the mill content dispute. Am I missing something? Based on what I am reading, this really is not a Wikiquette issue. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Lonely beacon, I honestly do not see this as a dispute over content, as a content dispute can be overcome by openness in communication and some effort in reasoning. IrishGuy doesn't seem to want to communicate or reason, and if you go further down in the conversation you will find some evidence of the strain that other users are experiencing in trying to level with him. Ultimately what we have is a very experienced and involved administrator dominating an article and defying the consensus that is being built by a number of editors. If you have any suggestions as to where I should discuss this problem (if not here), I would welcome them, but I and the other editors involved are convinced that there is a problem. SaintCyprian ^Talk 17:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think there may need to be another, perhaps more experienced editor who needs to get involved. I did read down quite a way both of the links you provided. I ddi see that there is considerable disagreement over what should be included on the list, or even if the list should exist in the first place. IrishGuy was expressing himself strongly, but at no point did he seem to direct comments toward an editor, which is what would constitute incivility. If you are unsatisfied with the finding here, I would suggest that a next step might be to Wikipedia:Request for Comment, or bring this directly to another administrator by posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Make sure that you state that you started here, and that your problem is with a specific administrator. You may also choose to wait this out a bit and see if any other editors post here. I can give only my opinion, and it isn't necessarily always the majority or hte right one. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the advice. I think it might be prudent to give it a bit more time before going on to any other "stages", hopefully things will improve in the near future. SaintCyprian ^Talk 19:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Although I'm not sure that I'd say Irishguy has been directly uncivil as such, I did think telling SaintCyprian that he has provided nothing but personal opinion and that 'he just likes arguing', (which would seem to imply that SaintCyprians motivation was not to have a genuine discourse in the interests of improving the page, but to be deliberately divisive for the sake of it), was a bit out of line. I have also been mildly frustrated by his continued assertions that no other editors have backed up their position with reference to any guideline, when I have repeatedly, and directly, answered him on that point with specific and relevant portions from the guideline quoted. Unfortunately he has not engaged any of those specific responses, and I feel that just back and forth repetition has led to a stalling in any conversation that can be had on that point.Number36 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not saying that [User:SaintCyprian|SaintCyprian]] is out of line. There can be a lot of gray in these areas, and its not always cut and dry. I think the whole purpose of a board like this is for many editors to take a look and offer advice. Sometimes, I have given advice, and others have agreed. Sometimes others disagree with my advice. I never claim to have the one single answer, and that my opinion is the only one. I think all any of us can do is assess the situation and make a call. The two quotes mentioned by Number36 are aggressive, and I can imagine that an editor with a counter stance can be frustrating. The fact is: I can't claim to know enough about the technicalities of the subject you are editing. From my stand point of ignorance on the topic, I cannot make a judgement as to who is right or wrong. All I can offer is a direction as to get more experienced (and perhaps more knowledgable editors involved to better resolve what lies at the heart of the dispute. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SaintCyprian is also S0343463. As the talk page can attest...yes, he likes arguing. First he decided that Ghosts of Mars was a zombie film because... well he wanted it to be one. He blatantly admitted his entire argument was why couldn't the people being possessed by ghosts be called zombies? He also thinks his own opinion is consensus. I was called pedantic and my arument was far-fetched...which he later altered. Another editor added a non-notable direct-to-DVD film with the argument that this article should be a nice reference for a NetFlix queue. Of course, immediately S0343463 to make it a large discussion. IrishGuy ^talk 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think arguments can be shortened significantly when all parties involved are open and willing to communicate. I think the discussion at Talk: List of zombie films shows that this just isn't the case. However, I appreciate LonelyBeacon's advice that this isn't the appropriate forum for this discussion, so I suggest that we bring this discussion back to the talk page. SaintCyprian ^Talk 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.101.160.213

This user has had civility issue for a while. You can see at [18], [19], and [20], he has had hate against users, especially. Compwhizii. He seems to be discriminating against 13 year olds, getting mad at people for reverting his vandalism, and it doesn't stop. He does not seem to know Wikipedia policies, and is questioning them in the wrong places. He has claimed also to be a dynamic IP address, as seen here. I don't know if this user should be blocked, or just given a severe warning. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may not have started out as vandalism, no one would give him the time to get traction to make his edits, and when you accuse someone who is editing in good faith of vandalism, I can see them getting annoyed. And Compwhizii should really not be telling people "go away, you won't be missed". It appears that CWii simply reverts without actually paying attention to what is being done, he recently had rollback pulled for just this reason. I say both editors should be warned. Maybe someone with more article writing experience than I have could offer the IP help to get the article sorted out in a sandbox space? Legotech (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting unconstructive edits may not always be the best course of action, but when an IP user who contributes alot of said edits starts lashing out, "go away" isn't such an unreasonable response (although no response is usually better). Also, if you're going to quote "go away" you might want to provide a source - decontextualizing a part of what CWii said makes it sound alot worse than it was. As for "traction" - the hostility that this IP user expresses is completely independent of his contributions - even if his contributions were the best ever, such behavior isn't acceptable. Let's also point out that CWii has made a number of obviously valid reverts like this. In fact, that's CWii's only revert in the recent history of that article. I will also note that several others are reverting the IP's edits, which amount to removing content that links to another article because it's proposed to be merged somewhere else (a merge that the IP himself proposed!) That is not a reason to remove content from an article (certainly not reason to edit war)! (See [21] [22] [23].) I see little good in warning either editor (the IP because I don't think it'll help, and CWii because s/he's done nothing wrong), but if someone else wants to stick out their neck and drop the IP an npa level 2 or something, that might not hurt. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mitrebox

Resolved

 – User blocked due to inappropriate usage of bots. Issue can be revisited if it becomes a problem in the future. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mitrebox (talk · contribs) recently came across the article Hungarian league system, which at the time was completely in Hungarian. This apparently prompted Mitrebox to ask "what forigen basterd wrote this crap". I told him that calling the author of the article, Codreanu (talk · contribs), a "forigen basterd" constitutes a personal attack on a fellow Wikipedian. Mitrebox responded by asking "If you don't know who you're talking about how personal can a statement be? ... Technically and legally it's only a question, not a defamatory statement." I responded to this by stating "When you are asking the question "what forigen basterd wrote this crap", you are calling the author of the article a foreign bastard. That's a personal attack by any definition of the word, and no amount of Wikilawyering can change that." Mitrebox then accused me of a personal attack, saying "Please refrain from accusing your fellow Wikipedians of Wikilawyering. It is a instigative trolling statement and may be considered a personal attack." Aecis·(away) ^talk 15:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to commendAecis·(away) ^talk for his rather through report for his detailed report of this incident and for taking responsibility for his accusatory statement. In this day, with all the politics of conflict going around to see this kind of proactive responsibility is quite surprising and refreshing. I encourage Aecis·(away) ^talk to continue on his path and wish him the best in his future endeavors.--mitrebox (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. Calling another editor, even one you do not know, a "foreign bastard" who is writing "crap" is at the least uncivil, and at the most a personal attack. Aecis was absolutely right to warn you about it. DanielEng (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Two WA's beneath this ("veiled threat by user Wikidea"), Mitrebox writes a response that I think is either prejudicial, or can be taken that way ...... I am not 100% sure because his statement is a bit of a ramble. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitrebox should've been more careful about this and an apology might be a good idea. However, since the person he was talking about clearly can't read english, there's no harm done, eh? What's the point, here, of complaining about an edit summary by Mitrebox that Codreanu can't even read? Is somebody here planning on translating Mitrebox's edit summary into Hungarian, so that Codreanu can then flame in Hungarian on English Wikipedia?

Also, I looked into the matter and the article above, after this WP:WQA is over, should be speedy deleted. You see the content in the article that's all piped? It was added by a user with an unapproved bot, adding obscure European athletes to Wikipedia. [24] An article added that ISN'T in English, containing content that was added by an unapproved bot -- Mitrebox has some reason to be upset over the horribly low quality of Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

None of this is relevant, and none of it excuses incivility. Such behavior is inappropriate, regardless of the English skills of the person who is being subjected to personal attacks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article wasn't of the best quality, I agree, but nothing ever warrants calling an editor a foreign bastard. Nothing. Whether the target may have understood it or not is irrelevant. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. And I also want to respond to Zenwhat's question, "What's the point, here, of complaining about an edit summary by Mitrebox that Codreanu can't even read?" Firstly, Codreanu can understand at least some English, as you can see in his edit comments. Secondly, and more importantly, there is harm done whenever an editor launches personal attacks against another editor: it creates a bad atmosphere and discourages editors from working here, which degrades Wikipedia's quality overall. The best work is done when people have an inclusive, respectful attitude. That's why there's a "no personal attacks" rule in the first place. -- Hux (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who asked "what foreign bastard wrote this crap?" should apologize and play nice from now on. Leadwind (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this can be closed, as Mitrebox has been blocked "until assurances are made that malicious bots will not be used". --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei

Resolved

 – User blocked for 3RR, edit warring has ceased, and as for civility - the discussion seems to have stopped. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Huaiwei is not respecting WP:CONSENSUS on Certis CISCO. There was a dispute between two users, and a third opinion was called in. The third editor gave an opinion that Huaiwei did not agree with, which ended in an argument. The head editor of one of the Wikiprojects under which the article falls - and an administrator - also gave an opinion agreeing with one of the original editors and third editor. Despite this consensus, Huaiwei remains defiant and is still reverting edits, the latest with edit text of "no due consideration for concerns raised." Discussion is on Talk:Certis CISCO#Incidents section. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the following text is probably unwarranted due to procedures as outlined above, but I must point out that this is a highly one-sided comment. Clear WP:CONSENSUS has not been established in the said article, particularly when there was not even ample time given for me to give my opnions before each member proceeds to revert the article. Defiance is not the word to describe someone who has been following basic wikipedia guidelines all along, while a few users with less familiarity of the said topic persists to allerge non-notability despite full compliance with WP:Notability. Kindly be conscious about the selection of words and WP:assume good faith.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability does not govern article content, and a third opinion is one of many steps in the dispute resolution process intended to stop content disputes, not exacerbate them. If outside opinions weigh in and you're the only one who continues to disagree, you might want to think about the fact that WP:Consensus is not WP:Unanimous. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I am implying that WP:Notability "governs article content" exclusively. I highlight its relevance in a situation where individuals with less familiarity of a topic continue to allerge non-notability when notability was proven. I fully understand the virtues of inviting third opnions, but when the third opinionator than attempts to enforce his opinion by wikiwarring as thou he has the finaly say in the matter, I consider that an overstep of authority. WP:Consensus is not WP:Unanimous. Well WP:Consensus is not WP:Democracy either. While I am fully aware of the possibilies of being more accomodating in this dispute, that a small group of users continue to demonstrate non-familiarity in the said subject cannot be discounted.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not wikiwarring; it's trying to put a debate to rest. This issue isn't about non-familiarity; you don't WP:OWN the article. While it's good to have someone editing the article who's familiar with the topic, the article still needs to conform to Wiki policies. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would challenge you to provide evidence on my alleged ownership of the said article. Do not escalate a simple content dispute to one on article ownership if you cannot find a better charge to accuse me of. Till this day, you have failed to support your opinion that the said article do not conform to wiki policy, with many of my comments on notability and NPOV sidestepped or simply ignored. Is this the true spirit of concensus building in wikipedia, or a display of bullying tactics by several individuals who are indifferent about the topic at hand against a single contributor who was only interested in writing an article of reasonable quality?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that everyone but you shares the same understanding of the relevant policies and content - that's called consensus, not "bullying." WP:OWN is a perfectly legitimate concern in many cases, and cannot be dismissed by "you can't prove my version of the article doesn't conform to policies." --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is not appropriate to bully other users into agreeing with you, as you did with this edit SGGH ^speak! 09:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Elrith

Resolved

 – Complaining user "declined" this complaint when asked to provide diffs. Matter appears to be resolved for now. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I, along with several other users, are having some problems at trying to get through to this user. He is on a rant about a policy that has been established on Wikipedia is in being very rude and uncivil about it. He has taken parts of a conversation with another individual and used in on his talk page as a way to attack the other user. Some other opinions would be nice. Grsz11 (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs (or at least links to particular conversations) so we can see what's up more clearly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Constantzeanu - racial/ethnic epithets

Resolved

 – User warned that such racial terms, pejorative or not, are absolutely unacceptable (this is clear and not open for debate, per WP:NPA) and will result in blocking (escalating if repeated). No content dispute, no ongoing hostility, no disruptive or tendentious editing on anyone's part changes the fact that such language is inappropriate and completely unacceptable. For the record, the user in question has not posted since this WQA. I presume that if he comes back to Wikipedia and his language continues to be inappropriate that action will be taken. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Recently, I edited the article Moldovans, where I corrected a spelling error in version that User:Constantzeanu did not like. Consequently, Constantzeanu reverted both the version and the revision, and attributed both to me. His edit summary, you will note, accuses me of "vandalism". I was upset by his behavior, especially given that Constantzeanu has a history of doing such things, and especially since his version misinterpreted a source and used bad English. I left a message on his talk page, indicating my strong objection to what he was doing. I then left a second message, telling him that he could have tackled the problem in another manner, and even suggesting to him an approach that would have been validated by wikipedia guidelines (i.e.: cite a source that contests the source instead of adding original research about the source).

He replied to neither message until earlier today. His reply was in Romanian: "da, merci bai tigane :))". It translates as "yes, thank you, you Gypsy".

To begin with, I am not a Rom, nor have I suggested that I am. I am a member of the WikiProject Romani people, and I have written articles that have to do with Romani culture, and I did express my disgust at all attempts to discriminate against Romani people. But I never did imply that I am a Rom myself, and I suspect that someone identifying me as such on the basis of my edits is not editing in good faith. Reason why just addressing me in this way is as an attempt to brand me. This, I do believe, fits the description of two kinds of personal attacks. One is: "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." The other: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

Moreover, as Constantzeanu and all other Romanian-speakers know, both Romanian and English attach negative connotations to the term ţigan/"Gypsy". In Romanian especially, because: 1) the word is an exonym which traces its origin to athiganoi (used for a group of heretics); 2) in common language, it has gained a most unfortunate use as an epithet for "persons with bad habits" (Epitet dat unei persoane cu apucături rele - one of the main uses of the word as recorded by the Romanian equivalent of Webster's). I presume that these ambiguities were intended in Constantzeanu's message - as I have said, users who speak Romanian know all about these demeaning connotations. Members of the Rom community have rejected the term for years now, while the nationalist and racist groups in Romania use only this term when referring to the Romani community - I suppose this too is well-known to Constantzeanu.

Constantzeanu's block log comprises an impressive number of blocks received for incivility, edit warring, and use of sockpuppets. This should clarify that Constantzeanu has received plenty of warning, and knows what is and is not accepted on wikipedia. In fact, the log also proves that Constantzeanu is familiar with the problems posed by the terms he used, as one of his blocks involves edits made on the Roma people page. Other blocks were received for edit warring on precisely the article that sparked this here controversy. Dahn (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This accusation is totally unfounded. The user Dahn has chosen to interpret the word ţigan as an insult and open this WP:WQA thread in order to divert the attention from the article on Moldovans where he has constantly pushed his POV and purposely misinterpreted a source in the article. The word itself denotes an ethnos and nothing more than that. As a member of the WikiProject Romani people Dahn should know better. Dapiks (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"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." Dahn (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dahn is correct. It is absolutely unacceptable to use such racial/ethnic terms in this fashion. Dahn even quoted the policy (right above this comment). User:Constantzenau (aka Dapiks), I strongly suggest you apologize and (honestly) promise to no longer use such language. You are very likely to be blocked for using such language, and while the WQA isn't an administrators' noticeboard, this board gets enough administrator attention that you may already be on your way to block-city (and if you aren't, your failure to turn this situation around could easily put you on that path). Using a racist or otherwise inappropriate epithet is not excusable on the grounds that "Dahn has chosen to interpret the word ... as an insult." If you are using a word that could be interpreted as an racist epithet/insult, you've already crossed the line. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dahn, I would recommend no longer engaging in such length discussion with Constantzeanu. If he seems uninterested in engaging in a dialog regarding his conduct or behavior, it's best not to go on at length - a short warning will suffice, and there is no need to reply to any unconstructive or inappropriate responses. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits of both parties involved, I will go on note that Constantzeanu (talk · contribs) has had a history of not rampant incivility, but 3RR vios and block evasions with the use of sock puppets. The last block was for two months, which indicates that Constantzeanu hasn't learned his/her lesson, and that any future violations will only add more time to the meter, so to speak. We can't keep giving these trolling accounts indefinite chances to correct their behaviour, and I would fully support an extended block if this abuse continues. I've left a note on their talk page regarding this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I fixed a typo for you. I wanted to be sure there was no confusion - English is not, I don't think, this editor's first language, and I wanted to avoid any confusion by jumping in and fixing the typo ASAP. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would support escalating extended blocks, unless/until this user reforms. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys have jumped to conlcusions without even listening to what I have to say. Unlike Dahn I don't have all the time in the world to come here and check out what's going on but I don't think that this is enough to assume that I am guilty of a racial slur. Please note my history at Wikipedia. I have started several articles, contributed for quite some time - the only offense I've commited was the 3RR vios and please note that on one of them I haven't even violated it - but the admin, at a "friendly request" has blocked me even though I have made 3 rr but in a span of more than 24 hours. My reply was sarcastic, at worst, and by no means did it have racist connotations. I don't agree that anything can be considered racist depending on the other's interpretation. I mean, where would that leave us? Who would decide what a correct interpretation would be? Given my history of disagreement with Dahn, anything I say or write can be interpreted as a personal racist remark. Which, I repeat this was not the case. The real issue is his reverts at Moldovans, which if they are not vandalism they are reverts in bad faith, given the fact that over the past few weeks he's been pushing his POV despite the source provided which states otherwise. In an attempt to get me out of the way, he has brought up my comment here, hoping that I would be blocked forever so that he'll have one less person on his case whenever he'll be pushing his POV. I don't know if any of those that have commented here are his friends or not, but please before stating that I am a troll, disruptive, etc, and accusing me of making a racist remark - please look into this again. Maybe you'll see that Dahn's story is not all that complete after all. Dapiks (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not expect apologies from Constantzeanu/Dapiks - though it was hinted that providing them is in his best interest, he is at liberty to stand by his statements and face the possible consequences. I note that the above message, which repeats part of the allegations and expands on issues that have little business being discussed here (and that he seems to distort), also features a new allegation that I would ask the editors involved to take into consideration. I am referring to the "all the time in the world" insinuation in the second phrase of post above. Also, two of the many blocks received by Constantzeanu were in fact due to incivility. Also worthy of interest is this post by a native Romanian speaker, who also seems to have Constantzeanu/Dapiks' message as an attempt to insult me. I do not want to take up any more space here, and the warning received by Constantzeanu is probably a firm enough consequence for his actions. However, I could also interpret his message above as proof that not only does he not admit the problem in his previous actions or seek to amend it, but is determined to continue in this key. Dahn (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, the content dispute you are in has no bearing whatsoever on whether you can use racial/ethnic terms like "Gypsy" towards other users. You cannot. It is absolutely intolerable and will result in you being blocked if you continue. Policy does not care whether your "intent" was not to be inappropriate, or whether "anything...can be interpreted as a personal racist remark." That is a total cop-out, and it is a cop-out that is explicitly irrelevant according to policy. What you said is inappropriate. No matter whether you realize that, you must stop. If you do not, you will have to face the consequences. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, if user Dahn is really insulted by the name "Gypsy", I honestly apologise. The term Gypsy however is not a racist remark. It is the name of an ethnic group just like Italians, Germans, Russians, Hungarians you name it. It's the same as if someone would call me a Romanian and then I would bring that up here, claiming I was insulted. I honestly thought that user Dahn was a Gypsy since I saw he was a memeber of the wikiproject in that language - I just assumed that since he knows the language he had to be part of the community.

The point is that all the fingers are being pointed towards me here and user Dahn is assumed to be the sole victim. I have been a victim of his ironic remarks, sometimes even personal as well. I have also been a victim of his attempts (including this one) to "put me out of business" because he did not like having someone watching over his POV in certain articles like Moldovans. No matter what I will say, user Dahn always finds issue with everything coming from me - note his comments above. Dapiks (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have said I would not waste any more time, and indeed I would not waste any more time discussing Constantzeanu's generic disregard for policies. As per the NPA rules, it is enough that he decided to brand users with it as a means to single them out, disregarding the clear-as-daylight fact that this term does have negative connotations. Were this not the essential issue, there would still be two other reasons why the above excuse is very weak: 1) the WikiProject is not in a language other than English; 2) if this user was able to pick up what projects I am a member of, he was presumably also able to see what languages as speak in my Babel box. Dahn (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of correcting my spelling error (yo->you) (thank you Chesser for that), look at the corresponding revert. I've already reverted it based on stalking by Netkinetic, who has had no prior interaction in WQA or with the user. Come on -- is it really refactoring a comment to change the meaning when you are correcting a spelling mistake? seicer | talk | contribs 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

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. I will not comment here on the behavior of Constantzeanu and/or Dahn. I just want to say that the word "Tigan" is not a racial slur, as Dahn pretends. The word "tigan", which Dahn translates with "Gypsy" is the traditional Romanian name for the Roma people, as shown by the official Romanian dictionaries found online at http://dexonline.ro . The use of "Roma" instead of "Tigan" is recent, as is usually restrained to minority rights organizations and some official documents written under the pressure of such organizations. The word "Rom" was inexistent in Romanian 20 years ago, and was introduced only after 1989. Dpotop (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC) I am writing this because I am sick with "Minority rights" money-hungry NGOs do nothing (in Romania) but promote stupid changes in vocabulary when the real problems of the Roma minority are elsewhere. These guys imagine that saying "Roma" instead of "Tigan" will somehow change the sordid public image of the Roma people. Well, it didn't work in the US for "afro-americans", which still fill up the prisons because there's discrimination against them, even though the name changed 2 or 3 times in 50 years. I don't see why it would give better results for Romanian Roma. After all, we could call them Indian Romanians. :) Dpotop (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC) And, of course, I just wait for the Gypsy Kings and Romanian "Lautari tigani" to change for "Roma Kings" and "Lautari romi" before they ask everybody replace one word with another. Dpotop (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC) BTW, Dahn, if you look for the actual racial slur, it's "cioara" (crow). You can find it on dexonline. Dpotop (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Dptop, no matter what your views on society are (and this is still not the venue for them), you have: 1) wikipedia rules which prevent users from even more remotely picking on each other on the basis of ethnic characteristics, supposed or real - especially when I never applied any of the terms to myself; 2) the very dictionary we both cited, where you can plainly read a secondary definition that you did not cite (and you're not going to be very convincing when you start arguing you never heard it); 3) the rationale behind not using that term as provided by those who shun it, which would make it pretty clear that addressing someone in this way is a personal attack. Furthermore, you say: "Dahn pretends" the term is a racial slur. That is either a failure to inform yourself or a lie: by looking at my posts and the history of this page, you will be able to see that I defined what Constantzeanu did as "trolling" and the term he used as "demeaning", and that I referenced a rule which includes ethnic epithets alongside racial slurs and says that there is no excuse for using either. Yes, I do happen to think the term is also a racial slur (just like its English equivalent "Gypsy" is), but it was actually defined as such by the people who answered to this request, based on the context, the analogy with English, the translation I provided, ad Dapiks' self-contradictory justifications. As for your theories about races and jail terms or about "Indian Romanians", I remind you that wikipedia is not a forum. Dahn (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC) As for my "theories" about "races and jail terms" in the US, I suggest you inform yourself, e.g. here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-07-women-prison_x.htm . I hope the source suits you, but I can find more, because it's everywhere in the news today, when the US carceral population is over 1 person in 100 adults. If this is not an obvious proof of discrimination of the same type you and your buddies claim for Romanian Roma, I don't know what is discrimination. As I already said, I will not discuss your behavior or Constantzeanu's. This being said, many words can be used in a demeaning way, including "tigan", due to the sordid public image of the Roma minority (outside some fields, such as entertainment, where nobody seems to want to change Tigan for Rom). My problem with your post is pushing for political correctness in your invented Romanian language instead of focusing on your wikiquette dispute with Constantzeanu. Dpotop (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Huh? Dahn (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Once again, Dahn is correct - even if it is not a particularly pejorative word (opinions may vary, or Dahn may be "oversensitive" - that is not a matter we should nor shall discuss), if I were in a dispute with a black editor and I said "thanks alot blackie" I would probably be banned on the spot. I'm collapsing and closing this branch of the discussion. It's way off topic and smells alot like soap. Rants about NGOs, political correctness in Romanian media, and racism in US prisons don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, and surely have little relevance to this discussion. Next time anybody wants to post on the WQA, I suggest they consider that if their comment starts with I will not comment here on the behavior of User X and/or User Y. I just want to say... then it's probably not germane. If you get onto a rant about political correctness in Romanian popular entertainment, it's definitely not germane. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:56, 4 March 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.

Opinions of other's choices

Resolved

 – User in question responded civilly to the note from LB (and the initial notice from Anynobody), I see no uncivil-streak going on, I think (and hope) that this was a one-off mistake that SD will not repeat. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment in response to a good faith argument in a content dispute between myself and this editor seems to be lacking somewhat in Wikiquette. While I am fortunate enough to not care what someone I'm in a content dispute thinks of me personally this type of behavior should be discouraged. (I'd do that myself, but being in a content dispute with this person means they aren't likely to listen to advice about Wikiquette from me.) Anynobody 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Steve Dufour should not have made those comments, I would have suggested simply stating an agreement to disagree. I will leave a note on his user page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help :) Anynobody 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistent false accusations/threats

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Reverting factually incorrect (and non-MOS complaint) contributions is not incivility. 3RR and other warnings appear to have been made appropriately, and if an editor is reverted s/he needs to follow the consensus building process and perhaps investigate why their contributions are being reverted (since there is quite often good reason). It may be advisable to be deliberately over-explanatory when reverting such contributions, to avoid editors mistaking these (appropriate) warnings for inappropriate ones (and subsequently filing complaints such as this). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor called One Night In Hackney has persistently reverted a specific edit I have made to an article, claiming one of three things: that I am experimenting, adding incorrect information, or vandalising. I have informed him on more than one occasion that I am doing none of the things he has accused me of. He has threatened me with being 'blocked'.

What gives this sole editor the right to dictate to me what is 'right' or 'wrong' or to accuse me of vandalism and threaten to block me as a result of what he sees as 'vandalism'?

Please see my allocated talk/discussion page to follow the discussion thus far on the issue.

Thanks in advance. --90.203.247.219 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly added deliberately incorrect information to the Brian Faulkner, Baron Faulkner of Downpatrick article. He was not born in Northern Ireland as it did not exist at the time, he was born in Ireland. This was explained by myself and another editor, and there is consensus for this standard discussed here - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Archive 1#Ireland pre-independence biographical convention.3F. The introduction of deliberate factual errors is vandalism, it's that simple. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The information was not deliberately incorrect and was added in good faith. A timely and courteous explanation, not breaking 3RR, and not misusing the rollback tool, would have all gone a long way. Pointing to a discussion deep in the talk archives after adding four warnings and reporting to AIV would seem a little unfair. A little AGF please. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello all!

1. If there is a already-arrived-at-by-consensus Manual of Style, that should likely be followed.

2. Can't the person's birthplace be listed as >insert city or county here<, Ireland (currently Northern Ireland)? This follows with a lot of articles about people whose homelands underwent name change between birth and now.

I think you both need to go have some ice cream and lower the temperature a little. Maybe I'm wrong, but this looks like a minor detail with a simple fix. It seems like we have an IP newbie who may be little ignorant of how things work, and is editing forcefully without knowing that some decisions about how things should be done have already been made. I wasn't able to trace back all of the discussion, so I might have missed this, but I think this newbie should have been warned about there already existing a consensus built standard. If that was the case and 90.203.247 went ahead anyway, then that editor was wrong for ignoring consensus. [User talk:90.203.247.219]] needs to be careful with WP:3RR. I think that User:One Night In Hackney needs to do fewer warnings and more attempts to educate if the issue is about a break in consensus (unless you honestly did try that already).

What am I missing? There has to be more to this than this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the talk page and article histories, it continued to be added after an explanation from myself and another editor (who's a Unionist!) had explained the situation. This isn't even a new editor here, this is an editor who's repeatedly pushed the exact same disruptive POV with his abandoned account. And by the way, I didn't break 3RR. Deliberate factual errors are vandalism, and that's what I was reverting. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this situation and article cited by One Night In Hackney, Brian Faulkner, Baron Faulkner of Downpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), he's right; The IP was adding factually inaccurate information, Northern Ireland didn't exist until sometime after May 1921, this dude was born in February of that year which means if we went with the IP he was born into a country yet created.

The only thing I can think to say is that in the future it would be advisable to explain why something is/isn't factually inaccurate and that this is probably a misunderstanding. (PS Personally I think using templates to discuss these issues is usually a really bad idea, people are either confused or feel they are being treated impersonally.) Anynobody 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

True, however in this occasion this isn't a new editor, this is an editor who edits from dynamic IPs instead of his account which has a long history of this sort of biased editing, chaging pre-1922 mentions of northern Ireland to Northern Ireland. Therefore as the editor in question knows full well what he is doing, it isn't a misunderstanding, it isn't an honest mistake, it's a deliberate attempt to add factually incorrect information into articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you consider amending to County Down?

I agree that County Down, Northern Ireland is worse than County Down, Ireland. But this question is more complex than it looks, being at base a question of what actually created Northern Ireland, and therefore implicitly who had the authority to do so. Compare the insistence that Bertrand Russell was born in Wales (he was born in Monmouthshire, which was in Wales in 1200, and is again, but was it in 1872?)

Can't we evade this sort of thing in infoboxes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just about infoboxes though, he'll do it in main articles too. When it comes to Ireland the birth and death locations in infoboxes can get a bit longwinded, as it's "town, county, whichever bit of Ireland". AFAIK, the discussion on IMOS covered anyone born before 7 December 1922, although a case could equally be made that it applies only to anyone born before 3 May 1921. Either way, it applies to Faulkner. If you think this is problematic, you try and retroactively apply a "where is it now" standard to many of the people in Category:People from Jerusalem and watch all hell break loose. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, dirty pool is the game then. So far my experience is that the best way to counter such tactics is by playing especially clean. Even though you know this person will disregard any polite warnings or explanations they do serve a purpose to show you are assuming good faith when people who don't know what's going on join in, you aren't automatically "the bad guy". Anynobody 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dorftrottel

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – No real civility issues here. Warnings were issued in good faith, and with good reason. As the ANI discussion indicates, there may be more issues on the other side of the fence, in terms of civility. Complaining user also deleted this complaint (since restored), but I'm taking that as a sign that we can put a fork in this one. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This user is constantly leaving me messages on my talk page. I left just one on his that said "do not message me unless you have something constructive to say." Despite this, he has left me two more messages, and one was (ha!) to warn ME about being uncivil. This is uncalled for (and quite ridiculous) — I can't see how I'm being rude by not replying to him.

He needs to be warned. I'm tired of these pointless messages. Timneu22 (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right--your Talk Page is there for your use, and you're under no obligation to reply to messages left there. It would help a lot if we had diffs here, though. I'm not seeing anything on your Talk Page from this user right now (as in, there aren't any messages there, not that the complaint is without merit) and it would be a lot easier to see the specific diffs than to wade through your TP's history. Thanks, DanielEng (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Timneu22 appears to have anger management problems and has rowed with quite a lot of editors. Have a look at what he's deleted from his talk page and check out the comments on WP:ANI here. andy (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to let someone else handle this one. DanielEng (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm pretty sure that Andyjsmith is a sockpuppet of Dorftrottell. Further, I have no anger management problems. All I'm doing is wiping out ridiculous comments from my talk page. Is this disruptive? Dorftrottel just keeps leaving me messages. I have not responded to this user. I've just wiped them out. Anger management? Give me a break. Timneu22 (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, it is Anydjsmith who leaves me messages calling me an ass. I'm not the disruptive one here. Again, your accusations are absurd. Timneu22 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Kindly note that this is an instance of WP:Forum shopping. Timneu22 simultaneously started an ANI thread here. In that ANI thread, I have now posted diffs that should sufficiently illuminate the whole issue. Dorftrottel (criticise) 14:26, February 27, 2008

  I don't know what Forum shopping is. I just didn't know the best place to add this discussion, so I added it twice. Sorry. Geez. Timneu22 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note:Timneu22 (talk) removed this section. In view of the accusations that have been made I thought that was wrong, so I've restored it. andy (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper

Resolved

 – Content dispute / 3RR problem regarding inappropriate changes from British to US English. Complaining user upset that he was called out for making such changes, but that is a great example of unproductive tendentious or at least disruptive editing. Complaining user appears to have apologized for this and things appear to be straightened out. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This person was very aggressive and appears to not have bothered reading the talk discussion in the Concorde article. This person threatened me with blocking and saying I am vandalizing the article on my personal talk page. Editors were reverting my edits while I was trying to fix a problem. I described what had been going on in the talk area and how I had misidentified a tag as being visible in the article (though it actually wasn't), which was what started the whole thing, with me at least. There was a simple fix which another editor did after reading the talk page which solved the problem. This User:Wolfkeeper antagonized the situation. If Wolfkeeper is an administrator then there should be action taken for administrators should not abuse their authority.UB65 (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This person is continuing to aggravate the situation badly and is making unfounded accusations and being very uncivil. UB65 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this user is trolling now. I don't know what the problem is but could an admin please speak to this user. I am being accused of things and I have tried to explain but to no avail. There is a real problem with this person. UB65 (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper continued to make personal attacks in the talk thread and I think may be guilty of 3rr revert violation though I didn't actually think this until after reading User's complaint on me accusing me of violating 3RR which I don't think I did but if I did it was not intentional. I really need help with this. It basically is an experienced user bullying a less experienced user and is very trying for me. I have tried to discuss this civilly and to no avail. I really need some advice and help with this person's behavior.UB65 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz & PeteStJohn

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – User referred to WP:HAR if harassment is going on - if not, it is suggested that unconstructive, unwelcome, or even regular comments from Ronz be ignored if this is an issue. We can't block Ronz from posting to anyone's talkpage. If you don't like him or his comments, but there's nothing wrong with them, ignore them and/or delete them. Unless they constitute harassment or become inappropriate, there's not much anybody can (or will) do about it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: in consequence of Cheeser1's conclusion above I created this AN/I Pete St.John (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronz posted the following at my Talk, here; my response is appended. I'm posting it here on account of an ongoing feud; I claim it is uncivil for him to continue posting at my Talk page when I have asked him not to. I'm happy to debate him, but I believe he moves the debates to my talk to evade oversight by third parties. In this particular case, it's a good question that deserves an answer; I can't answer at my talk (because he is not welcome to post anything at my talk) but it would be inopportune to copy the question with my answer to the article, because it's from a noticeboard that wants to stay on-topic. (Of course if anyone objected to my language there, I would answer there; I just don't want to digress there myself.) In the indicated link, a complaint is made against ScienceApologist for uncivil conduct. SA is generally civil to me, but I discern a discrepancy in too much lattitude for uncivil conduct against "anti-science" editors, while the same cabal hypocritically whines when harsh language is directed to them. Just once I would like to see Ronz criticise SA for incivility, or SA criticise Ronz for evading specifics.Pete St.John (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring

I don't think there is any reason for you to mention me here: [25] --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're an example of unbalanced treatment of editors. The paranormal researcher can be called a "moron" with impunity; but I can't call you that. I don't advocate calling editors "morons", particularly, but I'm very concerned with the what is to me an apparent bias. My complaint against you is just a documented example (not that the documentaion was efficatious). Pete St.John (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The previous wikiquette alert, which I had brought directly, is this diff; the only comment was that it was too complex, so I created an RFC referring to the WQA; which never got any comments at all, and timed out. Pete St.John (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason nobody responded to the RfC is because you didn't put it in the right place - you've got it tucked away in your userpage instead of on the proper page - WP:RfC. Follow the instructions there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in the right place, after it timed out it was moved to my user space at my request (it had been deleted) so I could more conveniently keep reference to it. In fact, it got more than normal time, because I had bungled the creation procedure (it was in the right place, but not listed); I fixed that, and then got full time from after the correct listing. But no comment anyway. Pete St.John (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

From Ronz's talk just now:

notification

[this WQA] moved from my talk Pete St.John (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Thrown into the briar patch! --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. This isn't about me winning the arguement. This is about ethics. Not wikipolicy, and not winning, but about ethics. Go ahead and bring widespread attention to my excesses. Just STOP POSTING ON MY TALK. Not because an admin will force you; far from it. No admin will force you. Because it's ethical. Pete St.John (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The first part I posted as obligatory notification. I miscontrued his response as dialogue, and responded to it. As I said, I don't wish to evade debate with Ronz (or anyone); he is particularly (and knowingly) unwelcome at my talk. He's welcome to ignore me at his, and I'd be happy to not post there. He hadn't asked me not to, and I'm not sure that's the reason he reverted my answer. Pete St.John (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The "discussion" with the admin who had earlier blocked me for Ronz, and which has the content "your incivility is obvious" (meaning me) is at this diff. Pete St.John (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronz just posted this at my Talk (where he is unwelcome):

Purpose of user talk pages

A user talk page is the primary forum for discussions with and about the specific user. While users are given a great deal of latitude on how they manage their own talk pages, it is not for their personal use. See WP:UP#OWN and WP:OWN. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(end copy). So I'll reply here:

First, why not rebut me here at this WQA? Why does it have to be at my talk page (where he is unwelcome)?

Whether certain actions are uncivil (such as unwelcome posting at a user's talk) pertains to others than just the individual users. Particularly when they start as content debates (at article talk pages) and are moved to user space for the apparent purpose of evading third party oversight. If I spam Ronz every day at the homeopathy page, other editors would criticize me. But he can spam me at my talk with impunity (apparently). The debate about the civility of abusing a talk page this way belongs to the public; if not this WQA, then perhaps the talk page for WP:CIVIL, if Ronz wants to argue that spamming user talk pages is excluded from civility policy, or propose that it should be.

I have been trying to get any of Ronz's supporters to flatly assert that "Posting to a user's talk page where you are definitely and explicitly unwelcome is not uncivil". So far none of them have done that. Ronz himself is the only one arguing that he has the right, nay duty, to post to my talk page no matter what.

My talk page is not for my personal use. Everyone is welcome to address questions to me, or rebut me, there, except Ronz. I have refused to continue debates with other people with whom the debate had degenerated beyond any utility, but Ronz is the only one who continues to post to my talk past that point. Past any point.

The "primary" forum is not the "only" forum. Why this one?

"Latitude". Why can't Ronz give me this much latitude?

No one clip from Ronz is by itself actionable. But the aggregate of his underhanded, eristic abuses is driving me nuts. Why would anybody want to drive me nuts? What does it gain them? I have month long debates with other editors; look at BrownHairedGirl. ScienceApologist. My talk page has been used for duplicitous insinuations and vapid claims and bad logic and everything else, so has everyone's, but they don't need to go to this uncivil excess to fight me. Why does Ronz? And what am I supposed to do about it? Pete St.John (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's really not much you can do. He still has the "right" (not that we really have "rights" on WP) to comment on your talk page. And you have great latitude - delete his comments, ignore them, archive them, print them onto photopaper and mail them to the moon. But honestly if he's not being abusive in any particular comment, and if it's not harassment, just posting there (regardless of how much you want him to go away), it's not really something we can do. I'd like to help, but I don't know that this is the sort of thing that can be addressed here because if there is something going on, it's subtle (or as you say, aggregate). If it keeps up or gets worse, you may consider the AN/I, although again if it's not something that's escalated to "easily visible" status, I don't know if they'll be willing to intercede. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely not covered by WP:CIVIL? Should I propose a new policy or guideline to the effect that repeated unwelcome posts to a user page can be considered uncivil? It ought to be, because it is. Should I seek a programmatic solution? I would favor users being able to block other users from their talk pages, arbitrarily (where I come from, admins would be excepted)? But meanwhile, thanks, really. Just anyone acknowledging that I'm typing meaningful sentences (in this context) is warmly welcome. Pete St.John (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser is correct; its what I've already told you. Your remedy is simply to delete his comments if you don't like them. I see no evidence that he restores comments you've deleted - that would be impolite William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like us to be definite. A few moments ago, WMC, you asked me not to "copy" to your talk page; so that may be referencing something that Ronz does not do. And I'm not sure what definite declarative sentence of Cheeser's you agree to. So:

• Would it be WP:CIVIL for me to post anything I like (other than dirty words) to your talk page, every day? For you to simply delete?
• Would it be civil if it had no dirty words, and also had no copying?
• Would it be civil if I posted nothing but citations of wiki policies to your talk, every day? How about every hour? If I programmed a bot to post to your Talk every minute? Is there some matter of degree?

Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is covered by WP:COMPLETEWASTEOFTIME. Find yourself some positive editing to do William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get you to enunciate an administrative policy that defines Ronz's actions as civil and mine as uncivil, other than "you say so". Something that would be reproducible by other admins who seek to emulate you. Pete St.John (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pete, like I said, if you think this qualifies as harassment, see WP:HAR (see step 2). But in terms of etiquette, there is a line, and that line needs to be crossed (or at least gamed). It doesn't seem that way. Your examples/questions are interesting, but they are hypothetical. We deal with incidents as they happen, and we can't do that by instead examining these hypothetical situations. Although I will comment that one of your examples is clearly abuse of a bot. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm using hypotheticals to explain my position. Ronz is the concrete example. Should I post a summary of diffs? (And re abuse of a bot, I just want to clarify for others that you mean "the example would be abuse of a bot" not "the example is itself abuse of a bot" (which might be the case if I abusively used a bot to construct the example.)

I wanted to add in reply to WMC, that our own situation parallels my situation with Ronz. From "WASTEOFTIME" we can infer that WMC is exasperated and no longer wishes to debate this with me. Since one of us is exasperated (at least) and sees no use in further discourse (presumably), it would make sense if we stopped arguing and went elsewhere. That's the situation with Ronz; here I recorded where (in the process of a long debate) he wrote, You've made my point for me. Thanks! When you actually want to discuss facts, let me know by actually discussing them yourself and I replied I was going to answer the last iteration of your question, because I finally figured out (part of) the confusion, but I'll let your remark right there settle it. Bye. Unfortunately, he followed me on my Talk. So the hypothetical "would it be uncivil for me to post such-and-such on your talk?" is meant to illuminate what Ronz is doing (despite every reasonable effort on my part, and arguably some unreasonable efforts as well). Pete St.John (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pete, it doesn't matter - the point is that unless it constitutes harassment, he's allowed to post on your talk page. You have every right to ignore him, delete his messages, tell him to stop posting there, whatever, but "he posts on my talkpage frequently, and I don't want him to do so at all" is not incivility. Please review WP:HAR and let us know if he's crossing these lines, but if he isn't, I suggest you simply move on, take the high ground, get back to positive editing, and ignore anything unconstructive messages that he might post. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, three things: I advocate that in particular, posting unwelcome to a user page should be considered uncivil. I advocate the programmatic solution of allowing users to block specified other users from their own space, by analogy with locking rooms in MOO. That advocacy I'll take elsewhere.

Second, I believe there is a serious syndrome (maybe call it, Don't be a submarine) where any individual bit of rhetoric falls within the threshold of civility, but the aggregate effect does not; making it difficult for oversight by neutral parties. That syndrome should be identified and addressed, but I'll take that elsewhere also.

Finally, OK. From the WP:HAR link:

• Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment. [emphasis mine]

So prima facie it would seem that WP:HAR applies, but presumably is a matter of degree. Personally, I can live with (insert pejorative here) annoying me, it's the syndromes that concern me. Ronz has a "legal" (that is, viewed as unactionable) way to harass people, which he exploits to the detriment of constructive editting (but which presumably he means to the detriment of disagreeable editting). I just don't want such people to believe that their ends justifies their means; but they do believe that. Pete St.John (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• addendum. I had missed that the WQA was flagged as "resolved" (moved elsewhere) with that last post from Cheeser. So I'll follow the WP:HAR process as indicated. Pete St.John (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  Note that I have not necessarily concluded that this issue is "resolved," only that we aren't going to address harassment - that's not an etiquette issue, that's a step up and isn't really as cut-and-dry or DIFF-able as the complaints we can step in on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  agreed, that was I had also put "resolved" in quotes, myself. And indeed, it's not DIFF-able; my complaint is that he is diffuse (amusing pun) to evade oversight. Pete St.John (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP addresses 99.235.43.93 and 24.36.9.241 continuing to make personal attacks

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – We can't block IP vandals/trolls - that's not the function of this alertboard (it's not a vandalism/spam noticeboard, nor is it an administrators' noticeboard). You've already got an AN and an ANI going, that should be plenty. If it's patent vandalism, try WP:AIV too. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

After vandalizing Wikipedia pages and my userpage, User talk:99.235.43.93 is on his third block, this time for a week. Despite being warned about removing notices from talk pages, he continues to do so, and he also adds strange notices to his talk page like "Starbucks has bad coffee". Now he is resorting to personal attacks on his talk page, and after denying that he did any vandalism, now is saying that I deserved it when he vandalized my userpage. Because of the complex edits he makes to templates, it is obvious that he is actually an experienced user. Maybe we can file for Checkuser? Another IP address, User talk:24.36.9.241, which is also been associated with vandalism on the same pages at the same time, is now also making personal attacks on User talk:99.235.43.93. The IP address User talk:24.36.9.241 is most likely a friend that User talk:99.235.43.93 recruited to help him out with the vandalism, and make the personal attakcs. Please extend block for both users and protect talk pages. Thank you. (If you have to respond to me for anything, please do so on my talk page. Thanks!) DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Given you've posted this to ANI and AN, I think this can be closed. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, they have not responded over there, and this is actually the appropriate place for it. DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Complaint with little to no merit. Complaining editor engaged in obvious tendentious editing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am having some trouble with snowfire51 and JuJube. (please see their talk pages). I have asked them to stop calling me a troll and a sock but they contuine to do so. They are looking to get me blocked. Can someone please help. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneHH (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be specifically reverting the edits of Snowfire51 and Seicer, which makes me agree with them that you are a sockpuppet account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. PLease see your talk page. I have corrected mistakes on the city of Belleville page and you changed them without checking. I am not a sock or a troll so stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneHH (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how adding huge piles of text on the curriculum constitutes "correcting small error section 3"? And then you insert it again under the claim of "Snowfire violation of rr3 policy. on going"? I'll like to see how your edits shouldn't be considered unusual, to say the least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

how about we check the info that I added!!! IF it is correct should it not stay? IN anycase, being called a sock and a troll for hours because I changed one page is not nice. I have no problem with snowfire51 or anyone else on wiki. I ask that I be treated in a friedly manner. That is all. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneHH (talk • contribs) 06:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you explain your edits first, before we completely dismiss this? The fact that you may be right (and I doubt that) doesn't means your means are justified. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone whose first edits include a bad faith assumption and sockpuppet-like activity (along with the removal of comments) will draw the watchful eye of at least one interested party. In addition, reverting the edits of varying users with no explanation or discussion will draw the ire of many. seicer | talk | contribs 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Incivility and Personal Attacks by User:Cebactokpatop

Following two previous postings on this page here and here, both of which were resolved in my favour, I am having further trouble with user Cebactokpatop, repeatedly (falsely) calling me a liar, and threatening to report me to WP:3RR (which I have not broken) if I do not revert edits 'within 15 minutes' [26]. Seminarist (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I gotta say to both Cebactokpatop and Seminarist, your edit summaries give the appearance that you are both single issue/topic editors, and I'd suggest you both take a look at WP:TEND for some guidance. Religion and faith traditions are notoriously difficult areas in which to edit, and civility is even more important in this context than anwhere else on Wikipedia. That being said, and without having spent enough time to dig deep here, my first impression is that Cebactokpatop needs to take the previous advice more seriously, and really should not ever comment about the editor -- lose the "you" words is my advice, and don't threaten people or issue ultimatums. As difficult as it may be, you really need to be civil. Seminarist, are you making sure that you are hearing Cebactokpatop's concerns fully? Clearly Cebactokpatop is going too far, but can you do anything at all at your end to turn down the heat? Take my two-cents worth for what it's worth, and peace to both of you. WNDL42 (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this has already gone to 3RR [27]. I also notice that you and Cebactokpatop are seeking mediation, which is a very good move. [28] I honestly think that at this point, mediation's the best route to try to solve this. I'd also repeat my previous suggestion, which is to find a mediator or another set of eyes to look at the article specifically through WP:RELIGION. Any religious topic has the potential to be contentious and has special considerations and it seems as though WP:RELIGION might have some experience there. Good luck. DanielEng (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Saul Tillich

Stuck

 – Single-purpose account seems to be engaged in tendentious editing, with substantial violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Does not seem to be interested in participating in the WQA process, despite writing volumes in his own defense (and elsewhere). I recommend an RfC if the content issues cannot be resolved. If the editor does not respect consensus, I recommend WP:3RR and WP:ANI, or even an WP:RFC/U if all else fails. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Paul Tillich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saul Tillich (talk · contribs)

Help would be welcome at Talk:Paul Tillich. Article development has completely halted due to disruption by this single purpose account editor who wants the theologian Paul Tillich to be described as "an atheist". The consensus is that this is unsupported by sources, is a breach of WP:SOAP, and is based on original research - particularly this user's personal synthesis of primary sources (in clear breach of WP:PSTS). Excessively long postings are also proving obstructive. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs that show uncivil behavior. What I'm seeing on that Talk Page thus far is that it's an ongoing content dispute and that's out of our area. If it is content and not incivility, you might want to ask at any of the Wikiprojects associated with the article to see if any of the editors there might be willing to step in and build consensus. DanielEng (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

please note that all previous talk page commentary for the article had to be archived very recently, as this user's massive posts had in a very short time bloated the talk page to enormous proportions. it may be worthwhile (or not, depending upon how much free time one has) to look at the recently archived material. the user routinely ascribed motive to me where none was even evident from my relatively terse commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is not content: whether Tillich is an atheist is not unarguable per se. It's the disruptive tactics and incivility this user is applying to push this view.

• 2800-word polemical essay defending breach of WP:NOR [29]
• Personal attack on Anastrophe - assumption of bad faith motive for removal of badly sourced material [30]
• Modification of another editor's Talk page comment to change the meaning [31]
• Lengthy OR essay including personal attack "I realize that the other contributors to Talk have closed minds when it comes to the possibility that Tillich’s God is nonsupernatural" [32]
• False accusation of wikilwayering when warned of overt breach of WP:NOR [33]
• Personal attacks: "You are back to your old trick of basing your claims on nothing but imagination and preconceived opinions" ... "Anyone (meaning you) who does not understand the concept of atheism and thinks it is just an empty label should not be discussing theology" [34]

DanielEng, would you be able to advise? Incivility is only part of this: the major cause of disruption is this user's long and repeated disputations that he refuses to accept are original research. Is there anywhere better to tackle this? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me take a look at this in just a bit. The original statement was in regards to this mass blanking and this. It may be an indication of a longer issue, as indicated above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk page. There are clear cases of not only incivility, but a personal attack and bad faith assumptions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks more and more like a prime example of WP:SOUP. I can't see how the article can be developed while this editor's activities are unchecked. Discussion is proving useless: try working from sources, but whatever they say, the guy simply writes some obscure personal gloss of their meaning - against WP:PSTS - that comes out showing they prove his point. Would a user RFC be justified at this stage? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted before, habit of blanking article without explanation is another problem [35]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Saul Tillich Replies: The above posts are full of false accusations.

1. I am accused of "Modification of another editor's Talk page comment to change the meaning." This never happened. The only modification I ever made was to capitalize the first word of a sentence in a paragraph I was replying to. You will note that the accuser avoids before-and-after specifics.

I'll reply to this point because your response is so outrageously untrue in all respects. I provided the diff [36]. You changed Anastrophe's "and not contain original research (per policy)" to "and try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia.(per policy)".

As to the rest: you see the problem... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the two full paragraphs -- the one Anastrophe wrote and the one I wrote in reply. Let's see what was really said. (Use copy and paste.) My quotation sounds accurate (the sort of thing Anastrophe was telling me) and does not appear to be a reference to what you say I am misquoting. You are claiming that Anastrophe did not say I should "try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia.(per policy)" Although this goes back several weeks, I clearly recall his giving advice to that effect. He also claimed I was using "original research," but that is not the claim my alleged "change" refers to. When you provide the two paragraphs, please also provide the heading under which they appeared so I can go back and check to see whether it sn't you who is misquoting my reply (by claiming a reference to point B was a reference to point A).Saul Tillich (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOUP - quit waffling. The diff [37] shows perfectly clearly that you changed text within Anastrophe's original comment, and not within a quote of it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

click on the link that Gordonofcartoon helpfully provided. it is the actual edit you performed, which is machine generated and cannot be misconstrued or modified. there's no way to weasel out of your actions, shown in bright red text, in the diff. Anastrophe (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I went to that page just now, using your link, and found the following comment by you under a separate heading ("Contributions") but made on the same date: "there's been an enormous amount of verbiage expended in response to my reversion of the wholesale replacement of the tillich biography with one editor's work. i'd like to refocus again on what i said early on: post portions here on the talk page. let other editors review and discuss it. if you're feeling bold, post a portion into the main article, and we can still discuss it. try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia. i welcome better content for this article - i only ask that it be properly sourced (per policy), properly formatted (per policy), written from a neutral point of view (per policy), and try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia.(per policy). that's not an accusation, it's a request. post a paragraph. post a section. let's have a look at it. it will probably 'fly' with only a few improvements to formatting and citation. again, i and i'm sure other editors will welcome better content for this article. jumping from the frying pan into the fire however doesn't improve the article. neither does throwing the baby out with the bathwater, while i'm in mind of cliches. give other editors an opportunity to review wholey new content. don't post a massive new version, expecting other editors to then laboriously work their way through a massive amount of what may not be acceptable in this consensus driven medium. that's all i ask. it is not unreasonable in the least. Anastrophe (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence or clause that appears in two places and that I have changed to bold face is the one I quote and then proceed to refute. I did not change your sentence. You put it there -- in two places. It is there in plain sight, and I quoted it accurately, using copy-and-paste.

How the identical sentence got copied into your earlier comment I do not know, but I can guess. You apparently used the copy button to pick it up and move it to another location in your "Contributions" paragraph. Then you forgot to delete it in the original location, and next you went up to your earlier quotation and copied the same point in there -- possibly because you belatedly realized that I had already refuted "original research," or possibly accidentally as a result of the copied sentence still being available to your paste button. I note that both of the widely spaced comments have not only the same date (January 22) but the same time (6:19). This suggests that both were copied and pasted at the same time from an MS Word draft, which you could have done quickly in the same minute (6:19). My rebuttal is dated a day later, January 23, which is a day after your thrice-appearing comment was entered on the Talk page. You are the one who changed your original comment.

In any case, it would have been pointless for me to move copy and paste your sentence from the "Contributions" heading, because your original comment that it replaced is even easier to refute. I had no motive to delete or replace your original comment.

That comment, made January 22, accuses me of "original research." But four days earlier, on January 18, I replied to your previous accusation of "original research" as follows:

"Unsourced Original [sic] Research"

"Anastrophe is wrong in many respects. The reference to "unsourced original material" and "entirely his own version" is demonstrably wrong. Tillich's "God above the God of theism" has been identified for 38 years--ever since the publication in 1970 of Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God (Johns Hopkins Press), by Leonard F. Wheat. Everything in the article can be found in that source. And that source is thoroughly documented in the revised article.

"Tillich's being an atheist is not "unsourced original material" either. In addition to quotations from Tillich himself and from Wheat, there are references to two books by Walter Kaufmann, who also recognized Tillich as an atheist; both books were published in 1961. Alasdair MacIntyre, writing in 1963, also identified Tillich as an atheist, and MacIntyre is cited as saying so. Rabbi Bernard Martin also seemed to regard Tillich as an atheist--1963 again--and Martin is cited in reference to this interpretation.

"On the subtopic of Hegelian-Marxian dialectics, I cited not only (1) Wheat but (2) Robert Tucker, who wrote a book about Marx and also commented on Hegel, and (3) Tillich, who explained the relationship between thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics and the Christian concept of separation and return. So where is this originality to which you refer?"

Can you explain why I would have been motivated to delete such an easily refuted claim of "original research"?Saul Tillich (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2. "Blanking article without explanation is another problem." I have repeatedly explained in earlier edits that the material was being deleted because it was false -- essentially the same reason Anastrophe and others are deleting my edits, which they regard as false.

3. "There are clear cases of not only incivility, but a personal attack and bad faith assumptions." The personal attacks and bad faith assumptions come from the other side. I have repeatedly been accused of vandalism and bad faith. Specifically, I was accused of "attempting to discredit" Tillich. (Apparently the accusers think that calling Tillich an atheist discredits him, despite the fact that many interpreters and three encyclopedia articles have said, either explicitly or in effect [by calling him a pantheist], that Tillich is an atheist.) I am not trying to discredit Tillich, and neither do I believe that calling him an atheist discredits him. Does calling Hegel and Sartre and Nietzsche atheists discredit them? My accusers should be censored for bad faith and personal attacks.

4. My accusers have not only engaged in personal attacks on me, they have engaged in personal attacks on my primary source (Wheat). In the process, they have engaged in ad hominem argument -- attempting to discredit a person rather than the argument with which they disagree. In the process, the accuser reverted to sarcasm, a form of uncivil behavior, which is the very thing he accuses me of.

5. My arguments on the talk page are well supported by quotations from Tillich and other sources and by logic. Those who disagree with me have been unable to either support their own arguments with either quotations or logic. Instead, they choose to accuse me of "vandalism," "uncivil behavior," and personal attacks. This is simply a renewal of their earlier ad hominem argument -- attacking the opponent rather than his arguments.

6. Speaking of civility, Anastrophe wrote on Talk that "my good will is utterly spent in dealing with your poisonous methods. i did not remove your comments from this talk page. period." My reply (available on the talk page) was this: "Well, somebody deleted my refutation of the question-and-answer interpretation of Tillich's method of correlation. I assumed, apparently erroneously (and on the basis of your previously having impugned my motives), that it was you. I'll take your word for that it wasn't you; perhaps it was Gordon. In any case, I apologize for the hasty assumption." Meanwhile, whereas I am accused of editing the talk comments of others, something I haven't done, the others (or one of them) have actually deleted the evidence I presented that their article's interpretation of Tillich's "method of correlation" is wrong. And then they claim, falsely, that I have not given reasons for my deletion/edits.

7. The accusers repeat above what Anastrophe falsely said, and that I previously refuted, in the earlier Talk page that he archived: "The consensus is that this is unsupported by sources, is a breach of WP:SOAP, and is based on original research - particularly this user's personal synthesis of primary sources (in clear breach of WP:PSTS)." If they didn't know this statement was false when they made it earlier, they knew it when they repeated it on this page. My refutation was that this so-called "original research" is not at all original. As I said on the archived Talk page, Wheat's thesis that Tillich's "God above God" is humanity has been around for 38 years, ever since his book was published by Johns Hopkins Press in 1970. There is no "personal synthesis of primary sources." Wheat provided the synthesis and the quotations. After checking the quotations against the primary sources for accuracy (they were all accurate), I used them in the article, citing the primary sources, which should always be cited when possible. The only thing original in my first-cut (and admittedly too long) article was a count (taken from indexes of Tillich's books) of the numbers of times Tillich referred to Hegel, Kant, Schelling, and Marx -- philosophers to whom Wheat attributes the origin of Tillich's concept that God is man. I acknowledged that these counts were original and deleted them.

8. "I can't see how the article can be developed while this editor's activities are unchecked. Discussion is proving useless: try working from sources, but whatever they say, the guy simply writes some obscure personal gloss of their meaning." I can make the same accusation: I can't see how an accurate article can be developed while these accusers' activities are unchecked. Discussion is proving useless. The accusers are unable to refute my arguments or my evidence (primarily quotations from Tillich). Instead they resort to the personal attacks you see on this page. As for the "obscure gloss" refuting their articles versions of (1) Tillich's "norm" and (2) Tillich's method of correlation, I invite you to undelete my article and read what I say about these two topics. Then ask yourself, is this "obscure gloss"? Or is "obscure gloss" name-calling?

9. Regarding my saying that Tillich is an atheist, my accusers write that "the consensus is that this is unsupported by sources." Actually, my conclusion is thoroughly supported by sources, which I gave. Here is what I replied on the talk page: "Your argument is false because my view that Tillich is an atheist is as mainstream as any other view. At least 12 interpreters have directly or indirectly labeled Tillich an atheist, sometimes by calling him a pantheist. These interpreters are Sidney Hook (1961), Walter Kaufmann (1961), David Freeman (1962), Kenneth Hamilton (1963), Alasdair M MacIntyre (1963), Bernard Martin (1963), John A. T. Robinson (1963), J. Heywood Thomas (1963), Guyton Hammond (1966), Nels Ferre (1966), William Rowe (1968), Leonard Wheat (1970). Several others have expressed uncertainty concerning whether Tillich is a theist. Now, how many interpreters can you name who have affirmed that Tillich believes in the God of theism?" The accusers failed to name even one interpreter who considers Tillich a theist, a believer in the traditional God of theism (although there are three or four such interpreters). I later added, again on the Talk page, three encyclopedia articles that treat Tillich as a pantheist, where pantheism is a form of atheism. And I still later added Nels F. S. Ferre's discription of his person-to-person questioning of Tillich which made it clear to Ferre that Tillich is an atheist. As for the idea that my accusers' "consensus" that Tillich is not an atheist makes their view correct, I would reply that (1) there once was a consensus that the earth if flat and that the sun revolves around the earth and (2) the consensus of interpreters -- the fifteen I named (including the encyclopedias) weight more heavily than the consensus of three poorly educated editors, who are unfamiliar with the Hegelian dialectical formulations on which Tillich's theology is based. (By poorly educated I am not referring to their college and apparent divinity school educations but to their lack of knowledge of the philosophies, particularly those of Hegel and Marx, on which Tillich's "philosophical theology" is based.)Saul Tillich (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

10. With further regard to the issue of who is being "uncivil," I offer the latest exchange, wherein I am (a) once more accused of "vandalism" for the heinous act of deleting someone else's demonstrably false interpretation of Tillich's theology -- essentially what the accusers have been doing to my edits -- and (b) threatened with being blocked from Wiki editing if I do not block myself. Threats and accusations of "vandalism" clearly constitute uncivil behavior. Here is the exchange:

ANTONIO LOPEZ: The recent edit you made to Paul Tillich constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Antonio Lopez (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

ANASTROPHE: Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Paul Tillich, you will be blocked from editing. Anastrophe (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Message for Anastrophe and His Colleagues: May I remind you, Mr. Anastrophe, that you are deleting my edits as often as I am deleting yours. Back in January you took pleasure in quoting to me the following: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Well, just as you have been editing my work mercilessly, I am doing the same with yours, which I am entitled to do. I am deleting your false descriptions of Tillich's theology because they are false, and false material does not belong in Wiki. That is not vandalism; that is editing. Please do not "continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Paul Tillich." In other words, stop blanking out and deleting portions of page content, templates, or other materials.

That you and your compatriots regard my article as "unconstructive" is irrelevant. I regard your work as unconstructive -- false and naive. In the talk discussion, you have never been able to support your position with quotations. Instead you use ad hominen argument and sarcasm. Worse, you dishonestly accuse me of attempting "do discredit Tillich," whereas I am doing no such thing. Your accusation seems to reflect a belief that, as a theologian, Tillich could not possibly be an atheist. In the process, you ignore the evidence I have presented that a very strong majority (not your "tiny minority") of Tillich's interpreters regard him as an atheist -- either a pantheist, a mystic, or a complete nonsupernaturalist. To base an article, as you are doing, on nothing but personal prejudice and a closed mind is the epitome of "unconstructive" behavior.

So come off your high horse, cut out this holier-than-thou nonsense, and accept the fact that I have as much right to edit as you do. Grow up, learn that people disagree on many things, and realize that disagreement does not constitute vandalism.Saul Tillich (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

BERIAN: This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:COI and WP:POV, as I have tagged Paul Tillich. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

11. Here's an attack I failed to respond to in my earlier enumerated points: "Personal attacks: "You are back to your old trick of basing your claims on nothing but imagination and preconceived opinions" ... "Anyone (meaning you) who does not understand the concept of atheism and thinks it is just an empty label should not be discussing theology."

That's a "personal attack"? That is an attack on an unsupported claim. Here is the exchange.

• Saul Tillich: "If he [Tillich] was “not a supranaturalist,” he was an atheist, because all theists are supranaturalists."
• Jonalexdeval: "Wrong. Tillich differentiates supernaturalism from theism."
• ST: "Tillich does no such thing, which is why you are unable to produce a quotation from Tillich supporting your position. You are back to your old trick of basing your claims on nothing but imagination and preconceived opinions. The God of theism is and always has been supernatural. Name, if you can, a theist who is not a supernaturalist --someone whose God is not supernatural."

When a claim ("Tillich differentiates supernaturalism from theism," along with others before it, is made without any semblance of support -- no quotation from Tillich, no other evidence, no argument -- and when the author makes it clear that he simply can't believe Tillich was an atheist, then the assertion that the claim is based on imagination and preconceived opinion is justified. The preconceived opinion is readily inferred from the earlier charge that I am trying to discredit Tillich by calling him an atheist. Who would hold such a view? Answer: someone who thinks atheism is evil, who would certainly be a religious conservative, who is just the type of person who could not imagine that Tillich, Bultmann, Neibuhr, and Robinson could be atheists.

Here is the exchange associated with the second quoted remark:

• Jonalexdeval: "There is still no justification for your nearly pathological obsession with the "atheist" label. It is simply a label, overly simplistic and basically meaningless in relation to the complexity of Tillich's thought. We do not further our understanding of Tillich in the slightest by being so concerned with it." [Comment: JAD complains that my reply (below) is a "personal attack." Might not "pathological obsession" be construed as a personal attack?]
• Saul Tillich: "Anyone (meaning you) who does not understand the concept of atheism and thinks it is just an empty label should not be discussing theology. Theism, according to the dictionary, is 'Belief in the existence of a god or gods specif.: (a) Monotheism. (b) Belief in the existence of one God, transcending, yet immanent in, the universe; -- disting. from pantheism and deism.' Tillich could thus write, 'The God of theological theism is a being beside others and as such a part of the whole of reality' (Courage, p. 184). Tillich has repeatedly said there is no such God. For example: 'Ordinary theism has made God a heavenly,completely perfect person who resides above the world and mankind. The protest of atheism against such a highest person is correct' (Courage, p. 245)."

I stand by what I wrote. It is not a personal attack. Anyone who thinks that atheism is just a simplistic and meaningless label should not be discussing theology. Atheism has a clear and widely accepted meaning: belief in the God of theism, the traditional Judeo-Christian God, a rational, self-conscious supernatural being.Saul Tillich (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

your last sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. it is the exact opposite of the commonly understood meaning of Atheism.Anastrophe (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem reluctant to stick you neck out and say specifically what your "exact opposite" (of mine) definition of atheism is. I'm saying an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Not only nonsupernaturalists but deists and pantheists are atheists. Are you saying that deists and pantheists are not atheists? If not, just what are you saying? What is this "commonly understood meaning"? And what is the "commonly understood" definition of God on which the definition of atheism depends?Saul Tillich (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus, unless there's some layer of subtlety I'm missing, "You are back to your old trick" is what I consider an attack. You may be attacking their argument style if you want to quibble but you are still attacking them. Plus, Gordonofcartoon's link shows clearly that you did try to edit someone else's comment, so I wouldn't keep arguing that point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See my refutation of Gordon's link above, under my numbered point 1. There I show, using a copied and pasted paragraph posted by Anastrophe under a separate heading on the linked page, that the quotation you claim I invented appears twice in the same separate paragraph. I have quoted Anastrophe correctly.Saul Tillich (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the hostility and incivility here is, as far as I can tell, due to a conflict of interest. I strongly suggest to Mr. Tillich that he refrain from editing an article about any member of his family. Furthermore, if he cannot amicably and productively contribute to the discussion page, I suggest he find an area of Wikipedia to which he might contribute productively and without a conflict of interest. I don't want to be too reductive here, but this issue is generating alot of conflict, and regardless of whether there is incivility, personal attacks, edit warring, whatever else, there is a problem, and that problem is stemming from issues that exist only because someone who really shouldn't be editing the article is doing so. WP:COI makes it clear that editing in this fashion can lead to blocks, and that may be warranted at this point. Mr. Tillich, what do you think of my suggesetion? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get your information that I am "a member of [Tillich's] family"? Aren't you just making an unverified assumption -- shooting from the hip, so to speak? You ask, "what do you think of my suggestion"? Answer: I think -- in fact I know -- you don't know what you are talking about. This question came up earlier on the Tillich talk page. Go read what I said there. By the way, in case you're wondering, not all persons named Bjornson are related. One other point: what do you think of my theory that fundamental disagreement on what is true and accurate can lead to the sort of "blocks" you refer to? Saul Tillich (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your username and the single-purpose nature of your account. Editing an article about Paul Tillich while using the name "Saul Tillich" creates the obvious impression that you have some interest in the subject of the article. Our username policy is pretty clear about how usernames are to be used - using real names or the names of real-life entities is generally frowned upon unless it is actually your real name. You've created the impression that you have some sort of relationship to this person - regardless of if that's actually true, you use your account to almost exclusively contribute to this article in a tendentious fashion, and take the time to write excessively long defenses of such tendentious editing. I apologize that I didn't take the time to look through the entire archive of that talk page, but with a username and an editing history like yours, WP:COI may still be a concern, regardless of your denial (flippant, I might add) that you have a conflict of interest here. Furthermore, I have absolutely no interest in your content dispute. I clearly and plainly explained which policy could lead to a block: WP:COI. If you choose to admonish me for not thoroughly reading the entire talk page archive somewhere, you could take the time to thoroughly read my comment to you. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and you need to keep that in mind. Being hostile and over-assertive, unwilling to compromise or work together, that will not help anyone, most certainly not yourself. This alertboard is here to provide feedback and help you steer your editing on the right track. Being hostile and defensive is not going to help. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any provable COI. I take the username to be a statement of agenda: Saul was the non-Christian name of Paul, and this user's sole purpose is to get Wikipedia to portray Paul Tillich into an atheist "Saul Tillich". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, you say that "editing an article about Paul Tillich while using the name 'Saul Tillich' creates the obvious impression that you have some interest in the subject of the article." How can a user name create that impression when it is already obvious that every person editing the article on Tillich has an interest in Tillich? I happen to have an interest in quite a number of philosophers and theologians. When I signed on to Wiki I was asked to make up a user name; I recall nothing in the instructions (I don't even recall instructions) saying I could not use the surname of a dead person, whether the name be Truman, Caesar, Hegel, Tolstoy, or Graham. Without giving it much thought, I more or less arbitrarily chose the name Tillich, because he is a philosopher (more that than a theologian) that I admire -- despite the claim of Anastrophe or Gordon that I am trying to discredit him. I chose the name for purposes of editing other articles in other fields; at the time I had not read -- much less had I thought of editing -- the Tillich article. So your suggestion that I chose the name so as to mislead people is totally off base.

If you go to the Wiki article on Aquinas and click on "discussion," the first editor's name that comes up is Franks Valli. Except for the s, that's the name of pop singer Frankie Valli. You might want to consider wandering over to that discussion and admonishing Valli about his choice of names. (I think Frankie Valli is still alive.)

Gordon, Saul is the first name of Saul Bellow, and with my warped sense of humor I thought it would be a fine idea to use his name: it rhymes with Paul. By the way, Gordon, can you explain why you decided to use Gordon Brown's first name, given that he is not only a real person but, unlike Tillich and Bellow, a LIVING real person? Are you perhaps trying to create the impression that you are a prime minister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Tillich (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sumoeagle179

After trying to reign in some problematic comments made about me in various venues, Sumoeagle179 (talk · contribs) made a personal attack against me [38]. I would like an apology. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how that is a personal attack with greater detail? At best, it is a very weak case at incivility. seicer | talk | contribs 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The history is that this user is very good friends with User:Rlevse and has been harboring a vendetta against me since the latter left Wikipedia over a dustup with me at WP:ANI. Since then, he has taken every opportunity he can to disparage me personally. It seems to me to be a mocking case of incivility, and I'm trying to keep a document of this as it becomes clear there is a group of people who have decided to start attack campaigns against me personally. More diffs to follow. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence that this user is friends with Rlevse and takes a certain personal interest in the ongoing dispute I have with this administrator
• What has been called by others a "bad faith" filing at WP:AE by this user against me.

In sum, there is a history of bad blood between myself and this user, and this incivility is unwarranted, especially since this user has taken it upon himself to try to "teach me" about civility:

• Calling me out for incivility
• Borderline harassment - attempting to get me to leave the project

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The most you can garner out of this is perhaps the last note regarding your numerous blocks and warnings, which can be construed as being possibly out-of-line or poisoning the well. But that's a pretty weak case at best in light of the comments you have made in the given examples above. At this point, it is probably best to let it go; escalating a relative non-issue will only shift more eyes towards you. seicer | talk | contribs 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And some of those date back to January 2008. Did you make a note regarding bad faith at AE at the time? seicer | talk | contribs 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't comment at AE when you're blocked. There's plenty in the history of my user talkpage about it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, this is not a personal attack. Tom Butler calling you a sociopath was a personal attack. This post from now-banned Matt Sanchez is a personal attack. I undersatnd that you are irritated (to put it mildly) by the gaming of the system arounf civility which some tendentious POV pushers enjoy, but I seriously doubt that trying to game the system in the same sort of way is a good idea - you don't have the temprement for it. I fear that you are ultimately going to offer enough evidence that will allow those gamers to win the battle and have you banned. Don't give them the satisfaction. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidence am I "offering" by pointing out that this particular user is gaming the system and behaving badly? A simple apology will suffice. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist I mean no offense but you're not exactly seen universally as a bastion of polite disagreement, and even though I personally don't think you're so much rude as you are blunt, it's likely that advising an editor you've been in a disagreement with about rude behavior won't inspire good faith. In fact it may invite replies like the one you're complaining about. Anynobody 01:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, coming here to complain about "harboring a vendetta", "disparagement", "mocking", "attack campaigns" and "bad blood" is the right thing to do, but the problem I see for you is in the idea that you need to "come with clean hands", and in this context, I think you come without. Especially ironic is your request for an apology, given your history of not making apologies and an overall unapologetic attitude for your incivilities. Here are just a few relevant diffs, in which you have (a) suggested other editors leave the topic, (b) displayed incivility in condescending tone, (c) suggested other editors should exit discussions when you "show up" and...well...you've got the idea. The offenses above are minor, and taken in context of the generally adversarial stance you take and the manner in which you have worn your contempt for Wikipedia's civility standards on your sleeve, I think whatever complaint you may have had is seriously compromised in this regard.

1, -- 2, -- 3, -- 4, -- 5

Recently, your more blatant incivilities have subsided, but only to be replaced (in my opinion) with more "low level" forms of "discrediting attacks". To the extent you'd like to now take civility a bit more seriously than you have in the past, I'd suggest you start by making some real amends, and giving your fellow editors some time to begin reacting differently to you. WNDL42 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is needlessly vituperative. I leave it to the reader to decide why this particular user felt it necessary to post this here. Poisoning the well seems to be the new favorite passtime of certain Wikipedians. Besides, bringing up instances that have nothing to do with Sumoeagle seems ridiculous. I'm therefore going to put it under a new heading. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Analyzing 1:If you feel that way, then you should stop editing the article. I for one do not feel that way. I don't mean to sound insensitive but this isn't a civility issue when one factors in the comment ScienceApologist was responding to. I don't mean to imply that WNDL42's comment was inappropriate either, however the basic idea it gave me was "By us arguing so much we're driving away neutral editors so we should just stop arguing." Responding by saying, "If you feel that way, then you should stop editing the article. I for one do not feel that way." meant, as I read it, "I don't think so, but if you want to prove your theory then by all means stop arguing/editing."

In short WNDL42 put forward an idea about editing which ScienceApologist replied to. It's obvious that somehow ScienceApologist has gotten under WNDL42's skin, but if this is his/her best example (presuming they put their best reason first) then I'd honestly recommend WNDL42 consider taking a break from editing articles with ScienceApologist OR accept that he/she doesn't agree with you and instead focus on backing your edits with sources etc. if at all possible, so that if ScienceApologist disagrees you can defer to our policies and guidelines. Anynobody 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find your approach unfortunate, in that you (a) contextualize my comment (incorrectly) and then (b) paraphrase what I said (didn't get that quite right), having the effect of (c) justifying SA's comment. IMO, an unhelpful approach here on WQA.

To clear the air, here is what I actually said, and you will please note that I was speaking to an entire group (of which SA was, at the time, only peripherally included), and that SA "jumped in" to knock me down with his suggestion that I leave the topic...here I am speaking to everyone in the midst of heated battle:

• Let's look to WP:CCC, and please let's respect those editors who are unable or unwilling to "ride" this article as tendentiously as many of us here have been doing -- including me. The best editors with the most reasonable and neutral POVs are continually being either (a) driven away, or (b) drowned out by our "noise", and the sum total of our behavior is tantamount to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I for one am not able or willing to "keep up". Wikipedia does not belong to the most tendentious partisans in any topic area, indeed the articles that result from the "winning" of such noisy arguments wind up being, in general, amongst the worst crap least encyclopedic articles found on Wikipedia. WNDL42 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that SA doesn't like to see others have or expand leadership roles, that's why he suggested I leave. He's done the same thing repeatedly in response to calls for peace and civility. WNDL42 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• SA, I advise against demanding an apology for someone calling you "rude". You just aren't that thin-skinned, are you? What's good for the goose need not be right for the gander. What would I prove by posting on everyone's talk pages "In light of <link to multipage diff> please refactor"? We all have different strengths and weaknesses, and I don't think you want to present dainty sensitivity as a weakness. Pete St.John (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyeverybody/Anynobody, where I come from, a negative comment becomes a PERSONAL ATTACK when the words "you", "your", "Yours" are introduced to direct the comment at a specific individual target, as SA did, and as I did not do. I'd assume that editors commenting here would be familiar with the basics of WP:NPA. Perhaps you'd care to review (a) Ad hominem, (b) Avoid personal remarks...specifically "if you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there — or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia.". Note that SA expressed an "opinion" that I (personally and specifically) should leave the topic. Do you care to review these basics and then restate your unhelpful characterization above? WNDL42 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment

Resolved

 – No further incidents, complaint has been withdrawn. --03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I keep being harrassed by user Gene Nygaard regarding the use of the defaultsort statement. To eliminate the dispute I have stopped using the defaultsort, but I keep getting agressive messages.

I don't understand what the issue is about. I am satisfied with the Wikipedia sorting and see no reason to change them. However I find it totally inappropriate for a user to set up new rules, which are nowhere indicated in prevailing guidelines and to force them upon other users.

I request help to stop these messages.Afil (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide DIFFs? seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the user and asked again for diffs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive behavior by JuJube

This editor has used abusive language towards me. Additionally, this editor continues to remove my edits to the Zangief page.

I have provided a valid reference for my edit, although this doesn't seem to concern this user.

Here's an example of what constitutes "talk" for this user.

You want to get blocked for the same crap you got blocked for before? Discuss it on the talk page, but it's pretty much certain you'll never get The Later Years on the page. JuJube (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the way to begin a discussion with another Wikipedia editor.

I admit to losing my patience with this guy when he first came, and even apologized for it (as a look at his user talk's history will testify), but another editor agreed that his addition was not a valid one, and Tdws got blocked for 3RR. And his first edit after coming off the unblock was to make the same change again. No discussion on Talk:Zangief, just continues the same behavior that got him blocked in the first place. I think this complaint is spurious. JuJube (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just remember WP:BITE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Juju based on your recent edits [39] and here (and most of your edit summaries) it is recommended you read up on WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. The issue on the Zangief article should be discussed on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nasty gratuitous vengeful personal attack by Calton

In a "comment" on my talk page where a complaint that I had filed here against a now indefinitely blocked anti-semitic former editor was under discussion, Calton launched a gratuitous personal attack here. This attack is the latest in his abusive comments against me, ostensibly as a result of my having filed a successful case documenting the massive longstanding sockpuppetry of an editor he seemed to have been allied with, (Griot). Calton had also had filed a bogus and disproven sockpuppetry case aginst me here This is at least the second time Calton, who seems to be stalking my activities, has made a gratuitous personal attack based on his vengeful attitude, rather than the topic at hand that he posts on. See, eg, here. I offered Calton the opportunity to provide evidence of his claims on my talk page, specifically, that I am:

• "condoning and aiding a long-banned and abusive sockpuppeteer"
• "using wiki to carry on my off-wiki political warfare"
• How a serial sock puppeteer whose began his puppet career over a year before I ever edited opposite him "was driven to it, in part, by my abusive behavior."

as well as apologize for his convoluted and largely incomprehensible rant.

He hasn't, so I need to report it here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton seems out of line. Do you think you are seeing some wiki-groupthink? If so, Calton may honestly be unaware of it, as it can ususally only be seen in hindsight. Seems like this problem as you have reported here and elsewhere involves a group of like-minded editors, and perhaps a larger problem?. Just a thought. WNDL42 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Boodles is unfamiliar with the meaning of "gratuitous", given that my message is a direct response to his message left on my User Talk page. He ought to, however, become more familiar with the term "psychological projection", given that the motivations he accuses me of applies to him: he's been told -- multiple times, even -- why, his peculiar, insulting, and just plain wrong characterization of my message notwithstanding. But to refresh his memory -- again -- Jeannie Marie Spicuzza. You remember her and her sister, the hatchet-job journalist right?

Given his recent block for his convoluted and largely incomprehensible rants on WP:AN/I, essentially accusing anyone not leaping to follow his demands of being closet anti-semites, I'd say he's in no position to be making overheated claims regarding personal attack by others.

And the less said about the bizarre theorizing of User:Wndl42, the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Boodles, but you've stepped in it now. No admin ever steps in against Calton, and the regular editors who complain about him usually end up being blocked in a questionable manner. You see above, how Calton twists everything around all the time to make herself look like she's the victim? As much as I hate to say it, you will never win, because she is so unpleasant that even admins are reluctant to admonish or *gasp* actually give her the block she sooooo much deserves. Walk away, man. Just walk away. Sorry. 24.220.220.117 (talk) 02:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The lack of response seems to confirm your point. I'll wipe the poo off my shoe. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton, Groupthink was discovered and documented in the 1970's, what makes you think that Wikipedia would not be vulnerable as well? Hell, Wikipedia is a virtual nutrient rich petrie dish for Groupthink, why does my question seem like "bizarre theorizing" to you? It was just a question. If the shoe obviously won't fit, then don't try it on. WNDL42 (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be a decent example of what is being discussed here on my talk page. BillyTFried (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling fellow editors axe-grinders and stalkers who lack credibility and who lie down with dogs and get up with fleas qualifies as incivil and NPA as well. BillyTFried (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I also doubt its appropriate for his user page to openly call people crackpots, trolls, spammers, quacks, and greedheads BillyTFried (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now asked Calton for the third time to stop his abusive behavior and personal attacks and he has refused stating that the names he has called me are true and are a Reality Check from him. I don't believe this sort of behavior should be tolerated on Wikipedia. BillyTFried (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton has put yet another a harassing message on my talk page here, which I deleted. He followed with a repeat, and additional vituperative bile here. Can someone explain how undoing changes I make to my own talk page (specifically removing Calton's ranting) is not harrassment? Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Runningfridgesrule

I am trying to have a serious discussion on some academic sources I brought forward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Some_more_quotes_on_the_Assyrian_Genocide

And I don't think I should have to face this kind of disruptive editing. I am not sure what WP policy is wrt racism but I would be surprised if this weren't in violation of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Bias_problems

The only reason why you recognise the events as genocide is because you're Greek. Simple. Why wouldn't you? After all, the most patriotic Greek is also the most anti-Turkish one. I've met many Greeks in my life and they're all hostile towards me. What have I done to them? Nothing, yet Greeks still discriminate against me because I'm Turkish, and let me tell you that I've never EVER done the same to a Greek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Bias_problems

Think about it. Think hard and reflect. I get gagged by Greek people at school all the time whenever I try to defend myself about the whole Cyprus issue. The moment I start trying to defend myself, they just tell me to shut up because they're not interested in the other side of the story. Well I am, and the last thing I will put up with is people trying to shut me up and violate my freedom of speech. I WILL NOT ALLOW, and I repeat, WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO VIOLATE MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH by reporting me for stuff I haven't done, K?! I haven't done anything wrong to you whatsoever, so stop making fabricated accusations..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Some_more_quotes_on_the_Assyrian_Genocide

Dude, all you're doing is wasting your time and increasing the length of the situation even further. None of what you've copy-pasted has actually answered my question, so all this crap is still null and void.

The user is probably too young to know better so don't be too harsh. Just advise them on WP:EQ. Thank you. Xenovatis (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a polite and thorough note on the user's talk page. I also removed a highly inappropriate polemical/racist comment from his userpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Take care.Xenovatis (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Keratoconus article and talk page friction

Some help is requested with an IP editor who seems to be having difficulty communicating on Talk:Keratoconus. Their first edit to the article was an editorial comment. After multiple unsourced edits, their IP was blocked for vandalism. Blocking got their attention and they came to Talk:Keratoconus to discuss their edits. Discussion on that page seems to have broken down entirely and outside help would be much appreciated. IP editor involvement is in this thread beginning about 1 March (multiple IP are used and they don't sign their posts). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel unable to continue. — BillC ^talk 00:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave notice. And noted the various SPA's. seicer | talk | contribs 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Edward Nyhouse

Resolved

 – User blocked 24h, indef block reasonable if behavior continues. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Has added this to my user page, in retaliation for putting warning tags on his talk page due to vandalism of articles todo with anti-racism. I don't think this individual has any intent for valid contribution to wikipedia. --Mista-X (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 24 hours for vandalism, though the lack of other useful contribs suggests that an indefinite block should be next step if this user continues to vandalize. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory Remarks Made By Shotgunromnce

Resolved

 – user warned, account inactive

This person wrote unflattering info on Sunny Kim's Wikipedia site. For example, he wrote "Yo Mama" for his real name.-DANO- (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user for vandalism. If the behaviour persists, I'll block him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the account has been inactive for a couple of weeks; I suspect further disruption is unlikely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Relata Refero

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.

---

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Content dispute, referred to WP:3O/WP:RfC. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

The "Denial of the Holodomor" article is now embroiled in controversy. There are three tags on the page, and it appears that the talk page has become polarized. Unfortunately, one editor makes comments like this [[40]], and titles edit diffs "what is this crap?" [[41]], and is ready to keep editing against consensus. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:CIVIL does it suggest we have to be civil towards articles. Pointing out that a particular article is particularly poor is hardly a violation of "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Extensive forum-shopping, on the other hand, is frowned upon. I'd suggest the above editor return to discussion on the talkpage of the article, where I have content-related questions outstanding for over two weeks. Relata refero (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it is exactly this type of wikilawyering that is particularly difficult to deal with for me. Just because something isn't expressly forbidden doesn't mean its OK. "comment on content" does not mean make comments like "what is this crap".

The article in question was written and developed over months, by more than 10 editors. Many of the issues raised now were raised, discussed, and agreed upon before.

That other contributing editors have ignored the questions by Relata Refero for over two weeks is telling.

Obviously, there is room for improvement in this article, as there is with almost every article, but there should be a standard of etiquette in discussion that can be expected by everybody. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just get back to discussion. You've complained at ANI, taken previous uninvolved editors to WP:AE, accused me of censorship, made several accusations of bad faith, accused me of not trying to improve the encyclopaedia, called me a vandal, and so on. That I have endured this patiently without even once commenting on the contributor rather than content - merely stating what is obvious, that the article is terrible in its current state - is, I think, truly laudatory. Relata refero (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop dragging out this dispute - both of you. If there are content issues, which is all this seems to be, I suggest you try to establish a consensus towards some version of the article that meets Wikipedia's core policies and is agreed upon by everyone. If you can't do that on your own, solicit a third opinion or submit a request for comment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. How precisely am I dragging it out? Seriously, you need to spend more than a second reading things if you're going to comment on something. Relata refero (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, for somebody who's been brought to the alertboard that deals with incivility, you should probably just hold your tongue when you feel like berating the people who are trying to help you settle your dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I would. If they looked like settling it, instead of stating that "both of us" need to stop dragging a dispute out. False evenhandedness is the scourge of our society. Frankly, I don't think WQA is in the least helpful if that's a common attitude, and I suggest you hold your tongue in similar situations in future if you don't want to put in the legwork to make an accurate statement. Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from ranting about the WQA or anything you might consider to be the "scourge of our society." I can't imaging how an assessment of "there is no incivility here" should be your cue to start being uncivil, but you need to stop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 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.