Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive48

Talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Edit war

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Not much we can do here about block-evading IP socks ;D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if someone could take a look at this please. There's an edit war going on over a fairly trivial yes/no point, and it has degenerated to very uncivil comments. I do not know the rights and wrongs of the situation, I can't seem to find an answer anywhere, meanwhile the two editors in question are at it hammer and tongs. A resolution and/or a blocking would be very welcome. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that, after weeks of revert warring, this was being addressed by an admin while I typed the above post. Coincidence of the week! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The admin's actions aside, the fundamental matter has not been addressed and no solution has been found. The main question is whether the lyrics were proper content for the article. The secondary issue involves the behavior of the anonymous editor, who used multiple IPs to evade blocks and continue to engage in disruptive editing and personal attacks. Clearly, said behavior is inappropriate and cannot be permitted. Said anonymous editor has not made a case for the inclusion of the questioned content, and other editors have, in the edit history, made a case against same. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is the point I am struggling with - if there's any actual dispute there at all, it requires someone with a knowledge of fair use etc and whether or not the lyrics are considered essential to the article. The second point you raise, that of the behaviour of the IP editor, is a no-brainer - his remarks and general behaviour are totally unacceptable. Plus, if his is the only voice for the inclusion of the disputed content, I'd venture to suggest his voice be ignored. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on this at Talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Edit war. To cut to the chase, I'd say the Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources is the main guideline to consider. The actual behaviour is unquestionably out: e.g. the repeated block-evading IP socks; this [1]; and the clear history of 74.230.99.202 pursuing RepublicanJacobite across unconnected topics with false accusations of vandalism [2]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Note further personal attacks from another IP sock 70.152.204.190 (talk · contribs) - [3], [4], [5]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I recall, I saw this being handled at ANI a few days ago. (That "creative" twist on RJ's name is not something one forgets easily :/ ) In either case, the IP's behavior is obviously unacceptable, but there's not much we can do at WQA to deal with block-evading IP socks. Hopefully this was worked out at ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Skoojal

Resolved

 – This is English Wikipedia, and there are no gender neutral pronouns for living beings in the English language. Editors may chose to refrain from using pronouns altogether when referring to Whistling42

The problem I am having is that User:Skoojal is using inappropriate pronouns to describe me; ze is referring to me with female pronouns despite my request that ze stop.

At 23:22, 8 July 2008, I requested that Skoojal stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. At 23:33, 8 July 2008 (eleven minutes later), Skoojal used a female pronoun to describe me, blatantly defying my request. I find this action patently hostile and inflammatory.

It is as inappropriate for Skoojal to make an unfounded claim that I am a certain gender, as it would be for ze to make an unfounded claim that I am a member of a certain religion. I would like to request that someone step in to make this distinct to Skoojal to avoid having to seek disciplinary action against this user. Whistling42 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I got your gender wrong, I got your gender wrong. So what? That's a mistake on my part, but it's not hostile. Skoojal (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Skoojal of this thread. Hopefully he or she will honor your request. In fairness, he or she may not have noticed your initial request (it was part of another remark and could have been glossed over) so it was not necessarily a "patently hostile and infallmmatory" action on his or her part.

Incidentally, I have a question about this "ze" business. When you said, "...as it would be for ze to make an unfounded claim...", you used "ze" as the object pronoun -- I thought it was only meant to be a subject pronoun? Shouldn't it be "zim" or "zer" or something if it is the object pronoun? Not to get off topic here, but if this artificial ungendered pronoun doesn't distinguish between grammatical subject and grammatical object, it creates more problems than it solves IMO... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, so, apparently Whistling42 objects to the use of the English language, as per here. I don't wish to make a federal case out of this, so my recommendation would be to never refer to Whistling42 using pronouns. This is English Wikipedia, and despite what Whistling42 may believe, there is no such word in the English language as "ze", and I am not going to start using a made-up word, nor am I going to ask anyone else to do so. I am marking this thread as resolved, since there is no reasonable request being made here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jay. We certainly have some control over what people will refer to us as that will fit into regular bounds of civility, at the same time, it's simply impossible and unreasonable to refuse not only he and she but also "he or she" and tell people to use a made up word. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of weird for me to be in this position, because I'm actually kind of a stickler about avoiding gender-specific pronouns when I am not sure about the person's gender. I use "he or she" all the time, and in situations where it is appropriate and where "he or she" would be too awkward, I even user the singular "they".

It is quite unfortunate that English does not have a gender-neutral single pronoun (other than "it", which of course is quite insulting when used for a living being). I don't even necessarily object to someone taking it upon themselves to try and propagate the user of a made-up gender-neutral pronoun such as "ze" -- after all, that's how language changes, right? If "ze" were to appear in enough published texts, it could officially enter the language one day, and in theory that's all fine.

But I for one think "ze" sounds forced and artificial, even though I support the concept of a gender-neutral pronoun in theory. So I'm not going to use the word "ze," and it's not reasonable to ask other editors to do so either. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand: it is absolutely inappropriate to use "he or she" to describe a person who has specifically requested not to be referred to as "she" or as "he". If a person refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns on the grounds that they are neologisms, and if they refuse to use singular they due to a belief that it is grammatically incorrect, the only civil option is to refrain from using pronouns altogether. Whistling42 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I normally do not like to argue about such things, but since I am already involved I'll respond. "Absolutely inappropriate" is in your view, there is no hard and fast rule saying using he-or-she is incivil, offensive, inappropriate. I'm not going to get on your case for having an opinion on the matter, even if it is a minority one. I will say that while it is certainly your right to have a problem with such usage, it does not mean that the Wikipedia community or internet users in general will comply. In my humble opinion, they aren't being rude or unreasonable, but it appears we disagree on that point. I generally default to "he" on the internet, if I am corrected then I switch to "she". I have never in my memory seen anyone offended by this, even those that choose to stay 100% gender neutral in their online identity haven't complained to me. I believe the reason Jay originally said "wow", which I basically agreed with, is because the request you made didn't seem realistic and will prove to be problematic if insisted upon. In the end, you and I will disagree on considering such usages as uncivil, but it will never be my personal intent to offend you and I will likely go out of my way not to refer to your "gender", though it is totally improbably that the entire community will respond to such a request, and I hope you understand that and it won't continue to create issues with interactions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to echo the portion of Gwynand's comment where he or she promised to personally try to abide by your request. I will do so also. I just don't think you are going to have much luck getting everyone to abide by it, and I don't think the community is going to enforce your request. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did I request that anyone should use "ze" to describe me. If you disagree, please provide a diff of the comment where I supposedly said such a thing. All I stated is that a user should stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. Provided that they do not use "it" or other inflammatory language, the choice is theirs. Whistling42 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ze is not just a "made-up" word but an attempt by many to find useful non-gender specific pronouns for a variety of reasons. As a default, using someones wikiname is an easy way to avoid these issues instead of making gender assumptions. Banjeboi 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is flagged as resolved, but for future reference not everyone lives in the LGBT-o-sphere, and transgendered and third-gendered editors that have special requests or requirements for people referring to them should either note that on their userpage or not get too upset when someone mistakenly refers to them in the 3rd person as he or she. -- User0529 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't need to be in the "LGBT-o-sphere" to avoid inferring gender, especially when editing articles related to ... gender and gender variation. We also should only need a civil reminder to avoid using a specific gender pronoun if it's been made clear that doing so is insulting. Simply using non-specific pronouns (they, their, etc.) or a username is all it takes. No need to try to get everyone on board to new-to-them gender terminology. Another possibility is what you just did, he or she, a perfectly reasonable alternative. University-level texts have been doing this since the 1980s so it's not a terribly new concept. Banjeboi 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject... I just want to point out that when I initially responded to this request, I said, "Ah hah, Whistling is right!" and asked Skoojal if he would please address Whistling using "he or she". I thought that was a perfectly reasonable solution, and in fact I already take care to use "he or she" when I am not sure. This only became an issue because, as Whistling said below, Whistling does not accept "he or she" either. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"He or she" is not a reasonable alternative; it enforces a binary and infers that the person identifies as one or the other, which may not be the case. Whistling42 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You will note that this issue has been listed as resolved. Your continuing to persue it is a distraction from more substantive issues. Skoojal (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I request that any further discussion on this matter should take place at my Talk page. I say this only because it is the one place I know where no one can easily come along and insist it be removed. Whistling42 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max

User advised on WQA issue by Jaysweet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) McJeff has taken this to ANI --Jaysweet (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Theserialcomma (talk · contribs)

The issue right now is that there is a disagreement on a criticism section in the article Tucker Max. User:Theserialcomma has been increasingly incivil. [6] Accuses me of vandalism, designates various malicious motives to me. Claims to be assuming good faith but clearly isn't. His lack of civility takes the form of long, rambling posts that briefly address the subject matter in dispute and then attack both my motives and me personally.

User has also been re-adding the disputed criticism section that I (and others) have been removing via WP:BLP, and calling it vandalism. [7] [8]. Also leaving harassing messages on my talk page [9].

I've tried both reasoning with him and being firm, but neither has worked. Theserialcomma is a new editor and I believe he simply doesn't know better, which is why I posted this here instead of at AN/I. McJeff (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the message in your talk page was "harassing", but you are right that Theserialcomma seems to be having a little trouble grasping WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEASEL, etc. (Although I haven't looked really carefully yet, so it's possible Theserialcomma is right) I will advise Theserialcomma to try harder to assume good faith, and caution them about throwing around the V-word in situations where it is inappropriate (even if we assume TSC's additions are valid, your removal is clearly not intended as "vandalism," so that word is not correct or helpful here). --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

for over 3 weeks i've been trying to add the criticism section under the consensus that a criticism section is warranted. i stated repeatedly that if the content added to the section is under dispute, it should be edited and made more acceptable, but not removed completely. everytime i added the criticism section though, mcjeff deleted the entire thing. while i admit to accusing mcjeff of vandalism, i meant it was vandalism in the sense that he was deleting an entire section instead of editing it to make it acceptable. he agreed it should be there, yet kept reverting its existence for around 3 weeks straight. if this is an improper use of the word vandalism, then i apologise. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This incident has been upgraded to an AN/I which can be found here. McJeff (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming WQA issues are sorted. If not, 'stuck' tag should be left. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 14 July 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.

Copenhagen

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place. I posted it on the Vandalism warning-page, but it seems to be directed at the vandals and not the vandalism. Anyway Copenhagen has been seriously vandalized by hacking and the article history and talk pages cannot be accessed. I only have a Lilac Soul on my watchlist as the last one editing the article, but I doubt that that is the person responsible. Please revert the article if it is possible. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats odd. Works fine for me as well now. Thanks for the response though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

IP user 86.136.125.181

Resolved

 – As per WP:ENGVAR, this is appropriate when the subject is primarily related to one variant of English or the other

IP address 86.136.125.181 is constantly changing US English into UK English. Can someone take a close look? Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like their changes are OK based on WP:ENGVAR. I'm not sure I see any wikiquette problems in any case. --Onorem♠Dil 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like Lycaon needs to read up on his rules before threatening to ban my IP. I'd never consider changing articles on the US, or other 'neutral' articles using US spelling to a different type of English. My edits are more to improve consistency of variety. 86.136.125.181 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:BigDunc - persistant incivility.

Resolved

I have had a few run ins with this user in the past. However his behaviour over the past few days has deteriorated. This edit spawned this exchange on his talk page in which he went out of his way to attack me on an unrelated matter. Despite the fact that this user was subsequently banned this edit summary was utterly uncalled for. This edit summary was potentially inflammatory given the subject matter, which is a much debated topic. It has never been proved to my knowledge that anything was planted on that day. This user has been engaged in inappropriate behaviour over the past 24 hours. Perhaps an uninvolved contributor's input would be helpful.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, I'm about as eager to jump into an Ireland/England debate as I am to jump into a Israel/Palestine debate, but I'll give it a whirl anyway.

Regarding the "idiot" edit summary when he removed content from his talk page, I don't think it's a big deal and I would be inclined to let it go. The guy got trolled by a sockpuppet -- that will piss anybody off. He wasn't calling the guy an "idiot" because if any Ireland/England history, he was calling the guy an idiot because he was a sockpuppet of a banned user. I don't have a problem with that.

The nasty argument you two got in on his talk page is more troubling, and he did appear to start the nastiness by calling you out on your presumed party allegiance (based on your username). I will leave him a note reminding him of this thread and suggesting that impugning your political allegiance was probably a Bad Idea, especially given that people tend to get a little upset about England/Ireland issues.

I don't really see "persistent" incivility though... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a big deal, but I didn't think calling me a troll was that civil. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigDunc&diff=prev&oldid=225639113 Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. While I would not have bothered to warn over that issue, your comment was clearly in good faith. I will issue another warning, and hopefully BigDunc will get the point sooner rather than later. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all that is required is a word in his ear - this is as far as I'm concerned nowhere near deserving a block. These things can get out of hand, when I a user is less than civil to me, my first (stupid) instinct is to be just as rude back to them.. We can disagree, we don't have to put things on a personal level. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am marking as resolved, since it appears based on this that you two have worked out a truce :) Kudos for that! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User PainMan

• PainMan (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Just leaving a heads up that I have warned PainMan (talk · contribs) for continued hostility and incivility. I won't bother to detail all of the violations here, but a quick browse through his contribution history (especially in the User Talk namespace) will give a good indication of my concerns. Comments from additional editors might be helpful. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Truthsayer62

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I submitted a group of articles under the AfD Process, and this user took offence, by removing the templates from the said articles, and now has started to edit my own user page. I'm not impressed by such activity. What do I do? (20040302 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

If his disruptive conduct stops, then that's that. If not, take it to WP:ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comment on your User page, I think he just meant to put it on the User Talk page. Not sure if it was that he pressed the wrong button or if that he was unaware of the policy, but in any case I have moved the comment to your User Talk page. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's as if you read my mind; I thought the exact same thing. I went back in his contributions and he knows what a talk page is (he's been on a few), so I wasn't sure what the story was. Anyway, the move resolves that issue for now. I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ncm, jaysweet - thanks - wow you were fast.. Should I have posted my issue directly up on WP:ANI? Was it not a Wikiquette issue? (20040302 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

The posting on the User page could arguably be a Wikiquette issue, although I'd say it was a mistake.

The removal of AfD tags is a technical issue that is explicitly prohibited by policy. Wikiquette alerts is more for handling civility issues and things like that, and we sometimes handle other things where there is a gray area and maybe we can work things out by just discussing with users.

For the removal of the AfD tags, it's not a civility issue, and it's entirely unambiguous -- removal of the tag while the discussion is still underway is not allowed, especially not by someone who has participated in the discussion. Probably you do not need to report it to ANI right away, but you should warn the user about it (as you did) and if he persists despite multiple warnings, you would then report it to ANI for administrator action. I hope this helps clear up the confusion! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:71.226.169.187

Resolved

 – for now. El_C is monitoring associated edit-warring too. Filing party also advised of WP:SSP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I re-blanked the ip's page, per their wishes. Please stop adding templates to it. Moving and removing comments from both sides has been an issue here. Please be mindful of newcomers' sensitivities. El_C 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Oni Ookami Alfador

Resolved

 – User has indicated he will try to improve. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – There is already a user RfC on this --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cali567

Resolved

 – User advised by Jaysweet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been debating about a certain controversial study involving many Argentinian articles. But one of the people who I been debating turned it personal. That user is User:Cali567. This user is accusing me and another user who disagrees with him/her of Sockpuppetry. This user did on Dúnadan's Talk page and now in my talk page. This is really unprofessional for wikipedia. User Cali567 is trying to kill the debate by trying to remove two people who disagrees with him/her. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy and something should be done. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the 'trying to kill the debate by removing two people who disagree with him/her'? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you read Dúnadan's Talk page. Cali567 was clearly trying to instigate an false accusation against me, and Cali567 wanted Dúnadan to be part of this instigation. Cali567 solution to the discussion I had with him/her was clearly getting me ban from Wikipedia through a false accusation of Sockpuppetry. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just notice that you talked to Cali567, and the reply of Cali567 still shows his/her intent. Cali567 didn't mention me, who sent this Wikiquette alert, instead he/she mentions the other user who he/she accuses me of controlling. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may, in a situation like this admins will ask for DIFFs to make it easier for them to see what's going on. Just telling them to read someone's talk page or go through their entire contributions list isn't enough direction, even if you feel like it would be obvious. It helps to show uninvolved admins exact instances of the behavior you're referring to, that'll help them quickly. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see, I didn't know what DIFFs were. Okay then, here is the DIFF where Cali567 left his/her message to Dúnadan: [13], and here is the DIFF which Cali567 left in my talk page: [14]. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cali has been advised and has stated that he feels he crossed the line with some of his comments. I have advised Cali that he may want to consider an WP:RFC to resolve the content dispute.

Lehoiberri, do you feel this resolves your issue? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! Cali567's response to Dayewalker (here's the DIFF:[15]) his/her response does not mention me, just the person he/she accuses me of controlling, basically showing this user's intent. I didn't remove the study outright, like that other user did, I just removed Cali567's manipulation of the study (claiming Mestizo majority or large Mestizo population). This user has been quite rude to me, especially he/she doesn't mention me in the response. Cali567's comment in the response "Although, to be honest they weren't all that terrible", so he/she does not regret trying to start a smear campaign to get me ban from wikipedia. Am I being a little overexaggerated, yes, but I not going to be harassed by a bully like Cali567. Lehoiberri (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So what would you like to see happen? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved?! So wikipedia allows bullying and smear campaigns, and let the user get away with it?! So sad! Lehoiberri (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lehoiberri -- what would you like to see happen? I am trying to be helpful here, but other than saying that some his comments were over the line (though not so egregious IMO that it is blockable), I don't see much else that can be done.

In any case, if you want administrative action, this is not the place to ask for it. You can always try your luck at WP:ANI, but I can tell you right now that since Cali has admitted he probably crossed the line and has not resumed the behavior, it is unlikely that anything is going to be done.

Please answer my question what would you like to see happen? before you continue to criticize and complain. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there is nothing we can do, then why don't you make Cali567 give a real apology, not the half-ass apology it gave to Ncmvocalist (Note: It wasn't an apology since Cali567 negated it with the statement "Although, to be honest they weren't all that terrible"). Cali567 had and still has no problems on starting a smear campaign against me. Let me remind you Cali567's "apology" DOESN'T EVEN MENTION ME! I already tried WP:ANI, but I never got a true response, only a response of a Admin look down on me and my complaint. I am angry because it looks like you (and other admins) seem to be siding with the smearer. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am not an admin, let's clear that up right away.

Next, I definitely am not siding with Cali, and I agree that the sockpuppetry insinuations were out of line. If somebody really believes another account is a sockpuppet, they should either file a report at WP:SSP, or shut up. (I said as much here) However, I don't see any ongoing disruption by Cali, so I'm not inclined to ask for any action. If that means I'm "siding" with Cali, so be it, heh....

Lastly, on the subject of "why don't you make Cali567 give a real apology," heh, well, forced apologies seldom really count for much, don't you think? Even if you got a friendly admin to say, "Tell Lehoiberri you're sorry or else you will be blocked!", would the resulting apology really count for much?

If you merely want acknowledgment that Cali's insinuations were out of line, then you've got it: Cali's insinuations were way out of line. It seems other editors agree, and nobody's really defended what Cali said. It's just that nobody really feels it's that egregious either. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Jaysweet. But just to reinforce; if you think at WQA, or any other avenue of dispute resolution on Wikipedia that uninvolved users are going to force a party give the kinda apology you're looking for, you're mistaken. That's not the way we work here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 587

Resolved

 – It appears GHT has gone ahead with the split, and everyone who had objected has moved on. The original alert is a moot point. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Polaron keeps reverting my WP:BOLD edits in reconstructing a page for I-587. He keeps reverting the edits to embed I-587 within NY 28. That is a very narrow view to place an interstate on a state route page. That can be very confusing to those looking at interstate pages from the rest of the country. I know I'm from Wisconsin and am an Interstate geek. I want to know about I-587, not some rural state route. Most of the writers from this page have a narrow view here. Frankly, I believe the writers just put I-587 into NY 28 so that it would make feature level. That is wrong. We try our best on Wiki not to confuse the reader and a redirect to I-587 does that. I suggest Polaron and other writers get into this discussion instead of ignoring me and constantly reverting my edits. That is wrong!!! --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing discussion at here. It is usually the case here at Wikipedia that the status quo be maintained until it is shown that a consensus has changed. This user is also possibly a sock puppet as the user is new and is suddenly aware of the dispute without having ever participated in the discussion. --Polaron | Talk 17:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm an interstate nerd and I've seen you revert several edits. The Interstate page should remain as the default until a discussion is finished. And Polaron has violated the three revert policy. See here. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a formal discussion in progress, no involved party (i.e. neither of you) should be doing related reverts either way.

That said, there is some precedent when the discussion involves a potential merge to leave the page unmerged during the RfC, so that people can more easily see what the unmerged page looks like. Note that I am not proscribing this course of action, and I would caution both editors once again to refrain from further edit warring. But I am floating this possibility in case Polaron would be amenable to leaving the original article intact for now on those grounds. Thoughts? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarifyin that this not a potential merge but a potential split. The original state that has not in dispute for a long time is what I am restoring. --Polaron | Talk 18:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I understand your point about defaulting to the status quo. There is no official policy on this, but in the case of content you are right that it is usually done that way. In the case of a merge or a split, it is sometimes useful to leave the page in question as a separate article, to help new participants in the discussion locate it.

There's no policy mandating that, either, it's just a suggestion. The one thing on which there is a policy is edit warring, so I trust both of you are done reverting until the discussion at WT:IH concludes. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jaysweet. Have both articles present for people to see. It is confusing right now and the little blurb within NY 28 doesn't even give I-587 justice. And status quo is not going by a previous discussion that was strictly in the New York Routes forum. Wikipedia is a public place, not confined to a couple roadgeeks from New York who want to have things their own way. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep

Resolved

 – See below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Has listed multiple images of mine for deletion. He's only going after mine. It is just a grudge he appears to have because I listed some articles he likes for an AfD. You can find the images in question on SS's contib page. How are my images any different than the one found on the 2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship for example? They are clearly under used under fair use like that one. If someone can respond to this that would be great. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note this revision of BB's talkpage. I've explained what needs to be fixed and it hasn't happened. Hosting these images is clearly in violation of copyright and they need to be fixed or removed as happens to every other image on Wikipedia that is NF. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • This complaint is not within the scope of WQA. Please try WP:EA or WP:3O. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • This isn't about the images per say. This is about Shep's proposal for my images to be deleted but not others of similar nature. That is a violation of wikiquette. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep has also violated the three revert policy of Wikipedia on those images. Look at the contribs. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 07:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not within the scope of WQA, and insisting otherwise will not make it otherwise. Please try the appropriate steps of WP:DR (for 3RR, WP:AN3 is the scope it would fall under). Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion pointed to this section. Third opinions requests should concern disputes where only two editors are involved. BurpTheBaby and StepShep are the two, but others have weighed in over the past few weeks, so WP:3O isn't really the best place to request assistance.

In any case, based on what I can read on various talk pages, it seems that BB needs to make sure that all uploaded non-free images are less than 300 pixels wide, and contain not only a copyright notice but a fair use rationale. The procedure for uploading images prompts you for this. Or you can look at the page source for a valid non-free image, such as Image:2008OpenLogo.gif, and use it as a template for your own image pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They've been deleted. User:Stepshep and User:David did not wait for discussion to be resolved, and did not give proper time for me to fill out long fair rationale paper work and did not give me proper time to re-size the images. It takes time! They clearly have precedent for existing! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Current images

Resolved

 – Despite some confusion about back-dating of tags, etc., everything worked out in the end and BtB is currently defending his fair use rationale in the proper venue --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Stepshep posted two more images of mine for deletion. I thus added the fair use rationale, but I think it should be brought to everyone's attention that tagged them today but marked them for July 9th. Therefore violating the 7 day policy. See the edit marked fix date and its the same here too. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the tag dates are wrong, and I consider it poor etiquette to provide misleading dates to artificially imply that more time has passed since the tag was placed. However, if this tag was put there by an automated tool or 'bot, it's possible that the wrong date is due to a software error. In any case, now you know what to do for future images to avoid getting them tagged at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do. They were clearly altered by Stepshep though. The tag wasn't put there by a bot, Stepshep noticed he missed two of my images and labeled them 7/9 on 7/16. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the modification of the date on the image tags was irregular and I have asked Stepshep to clarify. Let's not make a witch hunt out of this; even if Stepshep didn't have a good reason for it, you have fixed the fair use rationale and in the end no harm is done. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jay, and that is true, but if I could get the others that have already been deleted back, I'd fix those too. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_16#Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg. Some support there would really help resolve this problem. I know exactly what I have to do with those images now and I can have them appropriately tagged in a 24 hour turn around. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured if BB was going to fix the images he would have atleast by now fixed the two he already uploaded (June 24). They were meant to be tagged with others from awhile ago; that information I did gather by bot. I altered the tags to try and keep everything together; in no way was I trying to fraud anybody. This will be my final comment on the matter. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly BB is new to the process. Your date change made it appear as if you were trying to accelerate the deletion process, or at the least indirectly violate WP:BITE. In the future, when you place a tag, date it correctly. Don't back-date it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much resolved. The back-dating of the no-fair-use tag was probably inappropriate, but since BtB caught it in time and was able to mount his fair use argument, it's a bit of "no harm, no foul" situation. Stepshep, if you are still reading this I'd just exhort you to probably not back-date tags anymore, even though I acknowledge your intentions were valid. If nothing else, it out of context it looks like an attempt to game the system, and I don't think there was enough of a benefit in keeping the debates dated the same to justify that appearance of impropriety.

In any case, everything has more or less worked itself out. I am marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Addresses 62.64.200.0 - 62.64.239.255

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – "Handled at an3 and at talk pages. El_C 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon—Repeated deletion of relevant, cited facts without cause

Resolved

 – Wikiquette issues are resolved. Taivo's reversions were acceptable. Ongoing content issue discussions are at Talk:Book of Mormon. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Concerns about WP:OWN:

• One editor, Taivo, insists that edits to Book of Mormon be cleared at the talk page first, and says "you have no inherent right to change this article" (my emphasis).

Taivo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks): link, link, link

Concerns about WP:PRESERVE:

• Deletion of relevant well-cited facts from the article Book of Mormon without specifically addressing the content that they are deleting, or citing Wikipedia policy that would justify the deletions.

Taivo (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks): link, link

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you citing those sources here? It's just adding clutter. Please try to better summarize the breaches in etiquette, because it isn't entirely clear. El_C 15:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope this is clearer. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the full comment from Taivo was "You have no inherent right to change this article on your personal whim and according to your clear anti-LDS agenda." I agree that it was poor phrasing, but I think the point he was trying to get across is that part of the WP:BRD cycle (please see the link) is the R portion of it. If you boldly make major changes to an article, that is fine -- but if it is a highly controversial article that editors have worked a long time to get to a neutral state, you should not be surprised or upset if you are reverted.

I think some of your proposed changes to Book of Mormon are reasonable, but I suggest with such a highly controversial article, you discuss the changes one by one on the talk page and try to get a consensus, rather than adding them all at once. The totality of your changes significantly skews the neutral tone of the article, even if all of the information is factual (see WP:UNDUE for how it is possible for factual information to be pov).

And, if you can't get consensus on the talk page, don't worry too much... It's not like anybody is going to be a believer, then hear the details of the Martin Harris story and change their mind. Faith doesn't work that way. Those who truly believe in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon will find a way to incorporate these facts into their worldview, and those of us who don't buy into it really don't need more convincing. For those approaching it from a purely rational viewpoint, the story rather speaks for itself, even without your proposed additions -- don't you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with WP:BRD, but it's the D-part that we're have difficulty getting to—we seem to be stuck at the to-be-avoided-forth stage of "opposition with little or no supporting evidence" in Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. These facts are among the first to be found in most reliable sources describing the Origin of the Book of Mormon, so I do believe that there's an important place for an NPOV representation of this history, which has nothing to do with "convincing" people one way or the other. Frankly, it's an opportunity for the LDS crowd to provide a plausible version of this history, now known to many if only for South Park's representation of it. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the talk page and one problem is that your RfC may suffer from a WP:TLDR problem. There are just so many issues being tackled at once.

One issue is that the Martin Harris thing seems more appropriate for Origin of the Book of Mormon than the actual BoM article, but I notice it's missing there, too, which is problematic. The "lost plates" story is a rather significant part of this story, both from an LDS and non-LDS perspective. I agree that it seems to belong either in one place or the other. I can back you up on that on the talk page.

Some of your other edits are more problematic. For instance, the Christopher Hitchens quote is just not going to fly. Even though you are quoting another journalist, it is highly pov and clearly intended to present the information in the most negative light. The presence of Indian burial grounds and treasure-diviners in the Palmyra area around that time period is potentially interesting, but again I think it is more appropriate in Origin of the Book of Mormon, and even then we need to take care about the reliability and neutrality of the sources (I'd have to look at that point more in depth).

In any case, I'd definitely recommend to pick one small issue first, and work to get that changed, and then move from there. I cannot fault Taivo and others for the reverts, because the overall effect of your edits was to skew the tone of the article away from neutral -- even if some of the individual modifications are salvagable. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TLDR—love it. Thanks much for your thoughts. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Historicity of the Book of Mormon might also be a good place to edit. I don't think the article is NPOV, but given the vehemence of the arguments, I wouldn't do much there personally. And Jaysweet is quite correct. Mormons believe in the BOM, even though there isn't a scintilla of historical or archeological proof, and that's the point of faith. You write anything against that faith, and you'll not get far. The historicity article is much more interesting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that the current Book of Mormon article is not NPOV, but I don't think Ecrasez's proposed version was either (e.g. the Christopher Hitchens quote). That's why I still suggest taking it issue by issue -- if anybody has the energy to do so, of course :D --Jaysweet (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the energy. The lead of the article should have a sentence or two that there is no archeological evidence supporting the historicity of the document. But that's a battle that ends up being faith vs. verifiability. I wonder if the editors at Encyclopedia Britannica deal with these kind of issues?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is DNA evidence that completely contradicts it, for which the researcher was excommunicated: "LDS author facing excommunication". Deseret News. 2005-07-17. I'll go edit in that WP:VF and watch what happens. The Book of Mormon article violates completely the letter and spirit of WP:NPOV:

content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have my personal POV on the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and it's probably close to yours. And yes, you are correct what NPOV says. However, and this is very subtle, the NPOV of a mythical document is just to describe the myth--where NPOV comes into play is whether one version of the myth takes precedence over another. See Noah's Ark, where it is a factual discussion of the myth. The historicity article is where you discuss the verification with reliable sources. I hope this helps.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• A general comment. Obviously this is going to a contentious issue with lots of POV flying both ways, but this is WQA - not a forum for working out content issues. So in the event of specific name-calling or other such wikiquette violations between involved editors, this is an appropriate venue. But a general discussion of what constitutes reasonable content is beyond the purview of this page. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The initial issue was an WP:OWN concern regarding Taivo's reversions, but I think the reversions were acceptable -- he did not 3RR, he explained his concerns on the talk page, and Ecrasez's reverted edit had a few major pov problems (e.g. the Hitchens quote). So that much is resolved; the content dispute is unresolved, but should be discussed at Talk:Book of Mormon. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:34, 18 July 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:Loonymonkey

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Filing party advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looneymonkey has engaged in a fairly hostile long term editing pattern on pages related to the 2008 US presidential election. Tonight, he on multiple occasions removed a properly sourced news article from politico.com[17], accusing me of edit warring and labeling the article a "blog editorial".[18]. He did this in a manner that pushes 3RR and would push me toward 3RR if I would correct his edit. This last edit was either intentional deceit or gross negligence on his part, and reflects a POV mentality with which he has been approaching pages.Trilemma (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised (or maybe not) to find this thread here. I will not go into further details about it even so this editor [Trilemma] accused me and "threatened" me to file a complaint about me here. too. After thinking about it I offered him a "private" discussion by e-mail with the intention to straighten things out and was delighted to get a positive response from him (that seems to show his willingness to further discuss this kind of issue). Therefore I will wait to see if something positive comes out of it and will share the outcome here (w/o exposing any correspondence between him and me of cause). Till then I'll stay neutral. Regards --Floridianed (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not in the right place. If you feel that there are conduct issues on the part of Loonymonkey, for issues outside of the scope of WQA such as edit-warring, you'd need to go through RFC on user conduct - here we only cover civility issues as the page states. In any case, note the policy on edit-warring and remember the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. It's not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert...etc. For content issues, per WP:DR, you'd need to try Article RFC or mediation as it's also outside of the scope of WQA. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Posturewriter

Stuck

 – Proceeded to User conduct RFC cited below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There have been long-running problems over this SPA, and now this - using a Talk page as a venue for an extended personal attack and breach of WP:AGF.

• User talk:Posturewriter#The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics

Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread and advised them that the section in question may run afoul of WP:UP#NOT, entry #9. I'd like to see what his/her response is before proceeding. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

However clearly ill-informed he may be in terms of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and norms, I don't think the rant on his page is quite a personal attack. But I do think this is more RFC material, possibly with multiple conduct issues (but even then, you'd need to have diffs of conduct problems like edit-warring - that talk page comment on its own would probably be insufficient). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to doubt whether there will be a response so I'm tempted to tag this as stuck...but it's still very early - will give it a bit more time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

He replied to me today and said he wants another day to think over what I said. So probably Wednesday night we can make a decision on how to close this. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet; I was apparently successful in the COI Number 1 discussion, and later, Gordonofcartoon started COI number 2 with a week or two of more than 5000 words of incessant criticism from him and WhatamIdoing here [19] They just kept going relentlessly here [20] and from 10:15 on 20-3-08 here [21]

The volume and numerical number of tactics was so enormous that I decided to sit back and watch, and later presented my response here at 04:16 on 24-5-08 [22], and then Gordonofcartoon dismissed my 2500 word response 8 hours later with the words “Please cut this readable length” here [23], and they continued incessantly down the discussion page from the same day here [24] and added another 7 topics of criticism. I was considering which ones to deal with on a priority basis, and in due course took my final response to the COI page but was 15 minutes late. The decision had been made without me being there.

Please advise me if I have 8 hours, or 2 weeks to respond here, so that I can time things better in this new policy matter (how many policies are there in wikipedia?) In the meantime I will add some more later to dayPosturewriter (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)posturewrtier

Jaysweet; I have responded to your question on my User talk page as forecast earlier today, and will respond further, but would appreciate a time frame. ThankyouPosturewriter (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Given the obfuscating verbiage thrown at the topic [25], with an excessive proposed time frame - "I will then consider my response in due course (in the next 2 to 4 weeks preferably" - I'm of the strong opinion that we're being jerked around here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon; I don’t think it is appropriate for you to be acting as a referee on a matter in which you are part of the dispute; re your non - neutral point of view, and your obvious conflict of interestPosturewriter (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Quit Wikilawyering. Anyone, involved or uninvolved, can comment here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet and Ncmvocalist; Please understand that I spent two hours yesterday providing several different responses to several different matters because of the ambiguity of the situation where I got the impression that a decision was to be made by you within 8 hours. I was not obfuscating (Gordonofcartoons words), but gave several clear answers to multiple criticisms that were designed to be obfuscating in an attempt to confuse me (and you, the referees). My reasons for requiring a time frame were related to previous experience where I have prepared responses to matters which were decided before I posted them. Decisions have also been ambiguous. re; the COI cases did not end with a final clear statement of outcome. I am asking you how long this new matter takes so that I can plan a response in a day, or a week, or a month etc. I am also requesting that you move the information to the appropriate page so that Gordonofcartoon can’t say that I did it wrong in relation to one policy or another. I also prefer the way things are on my Usertalk page at the moment, so if you don’t wish to change it I will leave it there. Posturewriter (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

I probably should have been more clear when I said "make a decision on how to close this." I had assumed that either you would graciously choose to remove the section in question from your Talk page, or else you would unambiguously tell us to piss off, in which case I would suggest possible follow-up options to GoC if he wanted to pursue the issue. I suppose a compromise was also possible.

But what really happened is that the two of you generated a whole lot of text :D Partially, you are trying to convince us that what you say on your Talk page is accurate -- which is not really the point. Accurate negative stuff about another user doesn't belong on your talk page, unless it is temporary, e.g. if you were preparing to file a user conduct RfC or take a case to WP:ANI or something.

Ncmvocalist suggested as a possible compromise that we explore the possibility of striking negative commentary about you that has appeared elsewhere, as a show of good will if you remove this section. I can't guarantee anything (generally talk page archives are not modified, but if the involved parties agreed, it is not out of the question) but would you at least be amenable to this possibility? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist suggested ...

Where was that suggested? I'm not sure that's appropriate. If there's negative commentary about Posturewriter elsewhere that's untrue and/or in breach of policy, it should be dealt with anyway, so no need for a deal.

Why should we have to placate an editor who has posted inappropriate material - including bad faith assumptions and unproven accusations of sockpuppetry - and whose agenda has repeatedly been assessed as tendentious from the word go? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my fault, I was thinking of a different WQA where an editor was falsely accused of sockpuppetry, and then subsequently put up an attack page about his accusers. His argument was that all of the false accusations of sockpuppetry were still floating around and it was unfair for those to remain but for his rebuttal to be removed, so Ncm suggested removing all of it as a compromise. Totally different case, and you're right that that suggestion wouldn't work here. My fault.

Uh so.... hrm. Unfortunately, the method for tackling these sorts of user pages, where they aren't quite attack pages, but they certainlty don't foster good will, has not really been hammered out. I can think of at least two or three ongoing cases right now...

How would you feel if Posturewriter moved it to a subpage? Would that still be unacceptable? (It's okay if it is, I'm just trying to find a compromise first because right now enforcement on this sort of thing is just not really happening, I'm afraid...) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet; Have you noticed how Gordonofcartoon creates the image that I am causing trouble for a lot of editors, when 99% of criticism is coming from, or incited by him and WhatamIdoing, as here [[26]], and here [[27]]. Have you also considered how he is trying to make your group look. He comes asking for help, and when you start to mediate he sidles next to you and acts as if he thinks that you are his toadies, who should routinely move to the back seat while he takes control of the referee process as a recalcitrant dictator. That is the impression he gives me, and presumably other readers - what do you think? Also I will be happy for your group to referee as NPOV’s, and would like a time frame of next Wednesday for my first response, and the following Wednesday for my final comments so you can decide. I don’t see any urgency in taking it further before then. Posturewriter (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

I don't mind external scrutiny of the situation. But all it takes is a quick glance at Posturewriter (talk · contribs) - starting with a The posture theory being rapdily deleted by consensus, then entire edit history devoted to arguing the toss about a single article - to see who's the one with the agenda.

WP:MFD looks fine. But personally I'd like to see a more robust admin response to a refusal to promptly remove contentious speculations about other editors' motives. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon; Do you want single purpose athletes (SPA’s) banned, and replaced with all round athletes (ARA’s). If so, why don’t you suggest it on the wikipedia 2008 Beijing Olympics page here [28] ? Please let me know how you get on - and good luck with your idiosyncratic ideaPosturewriter (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Jaysweet; I will be providing you with examples of my other interests in due coursePosturewriter (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

It would be a better display of good faith to actually go and edit some articles, or otherwise help Wikipedia, in some area not remotely relating to Posture Theory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Posturewriter has been initiated. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:19, 20 July 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.

89.1.240.199

Resolved

 – User warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[29]. Could be related to User talk:71.53.113.13, the only place I've said anything recently that I can remotely imagine ticking someone off. Anyway, as the target of the incivility, I'm not the one to give a warning. - Jmabel | Talk 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably better to pass it to WP:SSP or to a checkuser on that issue, but I've warned the 89 ip about personal attacks. Leave an update if the personal attacks or incivility continues. And don't worry about secure diffs like that in the future - ones like this are fine. Thanks for being concise! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much always log in secure, so if I grab a URL, it's pretty much always the secure one. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you'd gone to some trouble to get those diffs - and they can take a while to load. But in that case, no worries. Cheers again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:757 Sports Historian

Stuck

 – User warned, but has indicated no intention of changing. If unseemly conduct continues, filing party is advised to go to the next step of WP:DR or to go to WP:ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks. I just got a out of the blue, and pretty rude, message from 757 Sports Historian regarding an edit I made about 3 months ago (view it here). The message was pretty agressive and uncivil, and figured someone other than me maybe dropping him a line to discuss civility may be good, especially since he's a pretty new editor. I am more than willing to discuss his issues with my edit, but only in a civil manner. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah quit erasing me and other users "correct" edits and there won't be an issue. I think my message to you was very straight to the point and civil.757 Sports Historian (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the subject of this WQA. If content issues persist, you can try Article RFC or mediation per WP:DR. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cumulus Clouds

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user and I have been involved in a protracted debate ranging all over the place (to include 2 RfCs, an MfD, 3 ANIs, too many talk pages to count, etc.), but things do not appear to be improving (see User_talk:Rlevse#Query). One Admin has suggested arbitration as the likeliest venue. Your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

RFCs are a later stage in WP:DR than WQA, so this is not the forum to be at. You can try contacting individual editors, or at an admin noticeboard possibly - but Rlevse is an arbitration clerk, and fairly experienced, so you could also ask him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 20 July 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:TheSeer

Sorry, to bother you again, but apparently the World Youth Day 2008 makes some people emotional. ;-) I was again the target of a personal attack, this time by User:TheSeer. don't crap out of your mouth again. Also the use of constant foul language by TheSeer is against wikiquette in my opinion. --Saint-Louis (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit I'm being uncivil, but I've never personally encountered anyone so unreasonable (you want a TEMPORARY section) on Wikipedia. Also, it's not a personal attack (criticising a particular action isn't attacking YOU personally - but I have called you insensitive frequently!), it's just being uncivil. But hey, if you care that much I'll remain civil (... well, more civil anyways) from now on. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok :-) --Saint-Louis (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Carlosguitar

There is a long standing debate between User:Carlosguitar, myself, and a couple of other editors at the Parkour article. It is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour.

Throughout this discussion I have felt constantly baited and bullied by Carlosguitar in a passive aggressive way. You can make up your mind for yourself from the links I provide below, but I feel that I have been extraordinarily patient. A neutral third party also expressed similar opinions.(here) At every stage I have attempted to compromise, for instance, letting go a point in the interests of peace when suggested by the neutral third party. Carlosguitar then responded hostilely to the neutral editor.[30] (at the bottom)

I feel that Carlosguitar consistently used the letter of the law rather than it’s speared to try to force his views. For instance repeatedly trying to use WP:WEIGHT to justify removing the criticism section from the article (you will note that this was explicitly rejected by the neutral opinion).

He has made several accusation of being personally attacked. here for instance (4th and 5th paragraph down). Finally just recently he accused me of personally attacking him, when I got fed up with what I see as a particularly bizarre piece of logic[31], and expressed my opinion that he was WP:LAWYER. (Which I can back up with ample evidence if need be). He has since used this alleged attack as a weapon, while adopting an extremely insulting condescending tone with me.[32][33]

There are many other problem posts.

The full discussion can be found:

• here
• here
• and here

I’m not allways perfect on talk pages, but am I’m completely unjustified in feeling attack and disrespected by these messages? Thanks for your impartial opinion. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, once something has gone to Mediation, it is already beyond what can be done here at Wikiquette Alerts. Heh, in fact when there are problems that can't be solved here, it's not uncommon for someone to say, "Try taking it to mediation."  :)

Since Vassyana has been mediating, I will ask him/her if there's any suggestion for what we can do here, but otherwise I am inclined to just refer it back there. Sorry. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet has summed up what happens (or is likely to happen) generally. However, there are a couple of things said by the both of them that have me concerned, at all points of this dispute so far (including at mediation). I honestly think S.dedalus & Carlosguitar, both, need to avoid the article (and each other). Both of you have said some things that are problematic, and are at the point where no amount of discussion or edits concerning this matter (between the both of you) will be helpful at the moment. After a period of time, a week maybe, or once a formal mediation request is accepted, you could resume. Formal mediation is definitely a good idea. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a generally supported opinion, I will voluntarily leave the article and discussion for whatever amount of time seems appropriate. In fact I have taken several breaks from the discussion due to frustration before. So that I can improve in the future, which of my comments do you feel are problematic Ncmvocalist? --S.dedalus (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I should've been clearer; problematic in resolving the dispute. Comments like 'i do not appreciate your depracating tone' by you or 'i don't appreciate your accusations of owning, disrupting and trolling' by carlosguitar should probably be left to user talk pages. Replying to each of those comments while discussing content on an article talk page is not going to keep discussion focussed on resolving the content dispute. While I do understand that things get heated during a dispute, sometimes, it's unavoidable that you'll need cool-down breaks so that the dispute isn't prolonged unnecessarily or ongoing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just realized Carlosguitar was never notified of this thread. I have now done so.

Vassyana replied to me and suggested we continue the discussion here, to see if we can't work something out. The mediation discussion is frankly too long for me to have time to read the entire thing, and it is hard to comment on specifics without the full context. However, I will say this: While I don't see any horribly egregious civility problems, both sides are having a little trouble assuming good faith about each other. And just in general, you both seem really pissed ;) Which is only natural, I suppose (and in fact Vassyana commented that in some ways, this sort of bickering is "par for the course" in a topic on which both editors feel so strongly) but it doesn't really help anyone come to a better conclusion.

I would basically echo what Ncmvocalist said: Both sides would benefit from taking a deep breath/taking a step back/having a nice cup of tea. Vassyana is a good mediator, and will not be fooled by trickery or gaming the system -- so if you think the other side is engaging in shennanigans like that, so what? It won't work. The most effective way to make your case is to keep calm, state your position clearly, answer any questions the mediator might have, and try to keep a professional demeanor. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Carlosguitar was notified here.[34] --S.dedalus (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, I was checking the Talk page. Well, it can't hurt to ping him in both places I 'spose :) --Jaysweet (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and thank you for your incite. I would say that “both sides are having a little trouble assuming good faith about each other” is a pretty accurate way to put it. :) I’m also reassured that Vassyana sees this level of disagreement frequently. It’s unfortunate that more editors are not involved in the discussion, because I think with more input, consensus could have been reached long ago. I’m be going on a short vacation this weekend, which will give me a breather from this discussion I suppose, and perhaps I’ll return with a new approach. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:A Link to the Past

• A Link to the Past (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

A Link to the Past has been continually rude and blatant towards others and biting newcomers despite being treated kindly. Specifically taking edits to Talk:List of Wii games personally and undoing any major changes made by others while having conducted his own un-discussed changes in the past. He will not change his attitude despite being told to many times by myself and others (even newcomers). Help would be appreciated. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is more about his attitude than his edits, do you want me to link to specific posts he's made that I feel are out of line? Including the majority of Talk:List of Wii games, he has repeatedly bitten other editors for making mistakes (Keep scrolling down on that link) and acted condescending towards me personally for attempting to calm him down. Otherwise, flipping through his contribs should suffice.

On the List of Wii games, his story changes each time he fires up. First his complaints were that it lacked specific dates for Australian releases, then he removed all other dates repeatedly and without discussion other than passing remarks in the edit summery ([35][36][37][38]), they were returned by me and other editors who saw this as either the wrong way to handle things ([39][40][41][42]). Then he complained that the article was too big, so the article was split into three ([43][44][45][46]). Sadly this WP:BOLD action was reverted with an incorrect assumption of the events surrounding it and Link's defense to this was "combined" the articles together were larger than the original article by itself (Which is not how Wikipedia regards article size). The discussion process for how to handle the article is moving along (And it's been a done deal between many of us for a while now), however he continues to talk down to everyone with a differing opinion and will not cooperate with the group. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after closer examination (particularly on the article talk page), I can see those problems. I'll first notify the editor of this WQA. Btw, have you considered filing an Article RFC or trying mediation per WP:DR? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's difficult to discern the difference between WP:DR and here. And the issue was more with his attitude, not the article. I have put requests for comment on the decision to split the article on the talk pages of the WikiProjects the article belongs to though. Thank you for your help. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For now, I want to see his response to your concerns here first. And yes, this is a step in WP:DR, but we stick more to conduct issues and try to avoid content issues. (At the moment, I'm thinking both are linked quite a bit in this dispute, and if the content issues were resolved, it'd be less of a problem...but that isn't my final view.) Mediation deals more exclusively with content disputes, and sometimes, ideally, the manner of conduct of the parties changes during those proceedings, and the matter becomes resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I'm asking for help regarding his conduct. We've enough no-nonsense Admins in the Video games WikiProject to handle any edit disputes. I agree that the bulk of his friction should go away once the article edits are said and done but I've seen him go off half-cocked on other things before. He's... passionate, I just wish he'd extend that energy into working with everyone else instead of against. Thanks again for the help. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Romaioi

User:Romaioi was identified as a potential sock puppet of Generalmesse, as required User:noclador informed of this and explained the checkuser process on his talk page. The checkuser proved to be negative, although all the other sock puppet suspects proved to be correct. Unfortunately User:Romaioi has taken this extremely personally and in his defence, launched a series of personal attacks against User:noclador. As a result after explaining the checkuser process User:noclador has chosen to disengage with this editor, see [47]. I have attempted to smooth things over but User:Romaioi has seen fit to publish further personal attacks on his talk page. Discussion over the sock puppet accusation have been moved to an archive page User talk:Romaioi/Archive 1. I have urged him to withdraw the personal attacks but he is unrepentant. I can only see this escalating, would someone be able to intervene please. Justin talk 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking through it first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So... incorrectly accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet, withdrawing from the ongoing discussion of the accusation, then refusing to apologize for making the accusation, all that isn't uncivil, but having a certain amount of justifiable resentment over a false accusation and besmirching of one's character, that's uncivil? Interesting ethical stance.

User:noclador should go hat in hand to User:Romaioi and offer profound and sincere apologies. If things continue afterwards, then there might be a case for incivility, but until then... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for the user to return to editing prior to going any further with this - and I don't think that tone is helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that I came here with the aim of calming things before it escalated, that was not helpful. Justin talk 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

UNDINDENT Apologies for not having replied sooner - I do not log on every day. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) has echoed my sentiments. This issue does not have much to do with Justin. I appreciate what he was trying to do. However, to claim a series of personal attacks by me towards User:noclador is incorrect. All I am guilty of is calling User:noclador a liar. Beyond that, the language in my initial defense was emotive in tone (and I had good reason beyond being accused in the manner in which I was). On the other hand User:noclador delivered several personal attacks on me, and also abused my sincerity. The referring to me as a fanatic, simply for my exercising my right, in accordance with the rules, to present a thorough defense and the continued deletion of my edits represents a large degree of prejudice on my accuser’s part (I know, this statement will be seen by some as a personal attack – but that’s just a deduced conclusion with no personal motive). Now, as I have just learn from Justin's link above:[48], he has acussed me of being a bully in a one sided passage that I see as another manipulation of my words. The reason? I do not know. I can only speculate that he may have preconceived ideas concerning my character. He did state that he firmly believed me to be Generalmesse, (as per his statement on Jume 30: you have massively reinforced the suspicion that you are in fact a sock of User:Generalmesse). Regardless, the personal attacks and insults towards me were stronger than anything I dished out in my defense.

So in regard to Justin's position, I appreciate what he has tried to do. I respect him as a result. The last thing I am trying to do is attack him and I am sorry that he feels that way. However, I do feel, respectfully, that there is a slight double standard in my being sanctioned when it seems plainly obvious that the injustice was done to me in several regards yet, the purveyor of it has received no sanction.

The summary on my user page is not intended to escalate the situation. It’s intention to to be an example of the ethical issue which Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) has illustrated with the definitive purpose leaving it there. (I did leave fine print saying that I would delete any further discussion.) Beyond that I have not continued this. I was trying to be sincere and thought it was fair to summarise given all the circumstances. I have even removed names and highlighted my own mistakes (as any reasonable person should in the case of the latter). I do not think I have been unreasonable. But I certainly think that my accuser was. Given the circumstances I believe I should be allowed some grace on the matter.

Moreover, the summary at User talk:Romaioi and my reams of dialogue following, I believe, show evidence that I understand and appreciate the purpose of the investigation. I am all for that sort of thing. Though, had my accuser been more thorough in his investigation, as per my summary etc, I cannot see how it could have been logically concluded that I was a sock puppet in the first place.

I do not think its unreasonable to leave the summary in place. If I remove it, all the negative remarks concerning me, that are elsewhere, will still remain without answer. How is that fair?

Romaioi (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. Unrepentent? I have been apologising to all others involved repeatedly.Romaioi (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[49] Diff here shows your response to my request to remove the personal attack on your talk page. Noting the reference to abuse of authority I would highlight again that neither of us are administrators, we're just normal editors. There was no abuse of authority, I can understand you might have been upset at being caught up in this but furthering the dispute with a personal attack is not the way to go. Justin talk 08:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much adressed this already. Don't want to rehash it agian. You're claim of "personal attacks" by myself, while not addressing the more severe WQA-style offences against me is not justified, in my opinion. I'll address that issue (again) in my response to Ncmvocalist's suggestion below. Ncmvocalist, sorry for the delay, I just logged in for the first time since Wednesday. I will reply to you below either later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Romaioi (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There were a few things you said both here, and on your talk page. Can you provide diffs of those "negative comments" that you think aren't going to be removed or modified? We can certainly look into it here, if it's appropriate. If it is, then I think it is best you remove your summary. If it isn't, then we probably can archive the relevant comments, and then we'd need to ask you to archive your summary. I therefore think that we can resolve this dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My second response (and hopefully one of the last on this)

Ok there are a few things I would like and probably a few things I need to re-stress to support why. I apologise for that but I see no other way – there are important ethical issues that should be addressed here. Let’s not forget that I did not continue this beyond my summary. This is taking up time I do not want to spend. I feel it important to defend my reputation and unwarranted that I have been put through all this almost from the point that I started contributing – it has not been very encouraging.

Unfortunately, most of the negative comments are on the sockuppetry pages and as they are part of a broader dialoge, I cannot practically see how they can be deleted. Also, if these comments are deleted then it removes evidence of my accuser’s behaviour. Most of his claims of vandalism on my part have been undone by other users, so I am satisfied there. But there are couple things:

• The edit summary at [50] is a completely incorrect statement and is misleading. I was doing no such thing. I explained my verified contributions during my sockpuppetry defense. Noclodor’s statement was based on his firm belief that I was Generalmesse. I would like it deleted.

• The content at [51] is sensationalist. I believe it should be expunged. It is a second example of misrepresentative evidence and will lead readers to believe an inaccurate portrayal of the circumstances. Portions of statements have been pulled together from disparite locations to say something completely different to anything I was actually saying (or the context I was presenting). The passage at that link is analogous to the very first piece of evidence presented against me at this link, which stated:

Romaioi say: "It is a topic that requires addressing because of the long legacy of English texts to have a largely dismissive, non-factual, non-"NPOV" towards Italian soldiers.", "It’s objective was to point out that Italian soldiers of the era were not cowards, as depicted in too many English texts.", "I am have recently made contributions on Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus etc is because they are topics are not covered very well in English texts - which my language (and what is covered is usually in disparaging/dismissive tones and not based on the facts)." "As a scientist,...", "My skeptisim comes from the tendency of authors of English texts (particularly the older ones) not have done their homework regarding the Itatalian contributions and other minor powers, literally. Further, they tend to be almost always grossly and unfairly dismissive of Italian involvement." It is 1:1 what Generalmesse is saying and the claim with the scientist... oh dear, yesterday he wanted to be a published author,... --noclador (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This “evidence” did not reflect what I was saying at all. This is misprepresentative, manufactured passage. I found it manipulative and baseless. It has a couple of incorrect assertions were also thrown into the mix. The 1:1 comment is also interesting because no equivalent comment of Generalmesse's was ever presented to demonstrate this claim. I am yet to find such a 1:1 passage by User: Generalmesse. The snipe about me wanting to be a published author was also interesting because I never ever made such a statement. (But I later clarified that I actually was one, which led to another snide remark.) I found it all to be rather sensationalist, the kind of misinformation that you find in tabloids.

There was further “evidence” provided, just below the above “evidence” at this link, to claim that I was being deceptive in my use of IP’s. Yet on the very same page in question I declared what I was doing – yet this was selectively ignored in the evidence presented to ‘nail’ me. (I addressed this in my defence).

Also presented as “evidence” against me at this link was a list of a series the pages I had supposedly edited. Interestingly, as I demonstrated in my “fanatical” defense, I hadn’t edited/touched most of them.

This all indicated to me a deliberate attempt to deceive. It was at this point, and for all this that I claimed that Noclador was lying. At the time, I found all this “evidence” to be highly deceptive and, in light of the left field nature of the accusations, the lack of consideration of verifiable citations that I presented with my edits, and the fact that I was not directed to the correct evidence page, to be indicative of malicious intent. So yes, I found it to be a “character assassination,” a “tar and feather show” and a “witch hunt”.

As a side note, if a series of incorrect assertions are made on no verifiable basis, and some relevant information is conveniently left out, is this not logically deduced to be a lie? That is what I deduced.

Let me ask you all this. You are on the receiving end of an accusation such as sock puppetry (in this case). You were directed to an evidence page that made no reference to you. Then you found that the evidence being stacked up against you elsewhere was factually incorrect. On top of all that you then had to cop insults, personal attacks and snide comments along the way. What would you be thinking?

Let me recap some examples of the kind of personal attacks I have been the recipient of here:

- Implying that I am a fanatic at (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove) – because I defended myself. What I did was present a through breakdown, as per my right within the scope of the rules.

- Sarcastic assertion at [52] that I am User: Brunodam and have moved from Italy to Australia.

- Accusation of being a bully at [[53]] – much more of a personal attack than me claiming him to have lied.

- Snide comments about me wanting to be a publish author (see quote above, from this link - a comment I never made).

- Snide comments about me actually being a publish author – made later at [54].

- Deletion of my edits and accusations of vandalism and “not having good faith” against me ([55], [56]) – only to be undone by other users, who demonstrated the appropriate reason.

- Implied me to be fascist - see evidence and my defense at this link. Also see archives at my talk page.

No one has ever been able to say that I did anything more that claim that Noclador was lying and did not have a clue (and then summarize events and point out that I receieved no apology). Yet at [57], he says “and so on” to imply that I said so much more (something he has not verified). (I will address the legal action thing below).

Pertaining to my reference to lawyers at this link (I never said legal action). I feel this needs addressing. I explained elsewhere that I had a flu and that state of mind was not entirely composed and, as a result, some of my defense was more emotive than usual. Being new (and naïve) to Wikipedia, I thought that the only way to prove I was not a sock would require me to disclose my identity. Further, to give you some background, where I live there have been incidences of people/families being tracked down to their homes from IP addresses and being physically attacked, all over online disagreements. I know of 2 such cases. So given the disingenuous nature of the evidence being accrued against me and the talk of IP’s etc I had genuine concern, at the time, that an attack on my family was becoming a real possibility. The fact that I was being incorrectly associated with fascists by my accuser, both on the evidence page and on my talk page, compounded my concerns of the possibility of an attack.

The above exemplified what has been said and done to me. What I said was he was lying. Anyone else notice the disparity? The claim of lying is called a REPEATED personal attack – and that’s all that keeps getting thrown back at me. Nothing was ever acknowledged in regards to the insults thrown at me. Does anyone else not see this as a double standard? (Please note that I am not attacking anyone with this statement - just highlighting the disparity.) To me it means my accuser has carte blanche approval to do as he pleases.

This WQA really should not be about me.

I am sorry to those who do not agree, but I see this all, particularly the disparate weight of what was done to me, a “new” user, versus my calling someone a liar, as a rather sensational double standard. Persistent claims that only refer to me as having made personal attacks are incorrect and give the wrong impression of the circumstances. I am not trying to escalate the situation. I do not need to calm down. I am very calm. My summary was designed to highlight this ethical issue.

Hopefully, after all that I have demonstrated here, it will be clear that the content at [58] should be deleted. Removal of this would benefit noclador more than me because there would be no record of his behaviour.

Alternatively (preferrably?): I would like a statement inserted there ([59]) by an administrator stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. The statement should also declare that Nocaldor’s assertions should be ignored. There should probably be a reference to this WPQ page.

I was tempted to make a comment to that effect there and provide a link to this page (at least for the sake of User:Sticky Parkin having direct access to relevant information so as to enable an informed decision), but am willing for this WPQ process to sort itself out first.

• I would like to see behavioral rules enforced for those making sockpuppetry accusations or any other accusations. I would also like to see it stressed ( on the sockpuppetry page), that accusers are to be polite, courteous, respectful (whatever you want to call it), are prohibited from manipulating and misrepresenting evidence, and must not make personal attacks. There should be repercussions for such uncivil behaviour.

• If he has behaved in this manner once, he can do it again. Noclador should be observed. Based on assessment of the circumstances, I do not believe this incident to be isolated. I may be the first person making the point as far as he is concerned. At the very least, it has been demonstrated that his research was not sufficiently thorough.

Further, at [60] he has made an edit, deleting a citation from another user (which albeit may have been included incorrectly), and not supported his modified statement with a verifiable citation. Nor is there and edit summary to support it. This is, coincidently, the same type of editing that he used as evidence in his sockpuppetry investigations.

• I would like to keep the following on my user page:

On 25 June 2008, an accusation was made that User: Romaioi, a relatively new user, was a sock puppet. Defense was presented by User: Romaioi in accordance with the rules outlined to him. On 2 July 2008, it was categorically shown (at link1 & link2) that User: Romaioi was not a sock puppet. Further, this is clear evidence that all assumptions made about User: Romaioi have been wrong. It is hoped that whoever wishes to raise such accusations against anyone in future will be more thorough in their examination of the evidence before stepping over that line. No acknowledgement of his error has been made by the accuser.

Surely that cannot be considered a personal attack. A possible alternative is that I archive what is currently there.

• Finally, I would like a statement inserted by someone with administrative authority here indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it. Alternatively, simply state that the WPQ action, pertaining to me, is unwarranted.

Because I feel this page will further serve to drag my name through the mud, otherwise.

And lets not forget how its started: from a wrongful accusation and bad manners directed at me.

Romaioi (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a whole lot of text to read, but just skimming to the bottom, one thing I can say is that I think your brief statement is pretty good. I'd drop the last sentence (honestly, not even for civility issues -- it just makes you look bitter and petty, and I think you come across much better with just the rest).

I am not an admin (not that it means that much in making pronouncements like you request anyway; there are 1500+ admins so they disagree quite often! :D ) but if you were to replace the rant on your User Talk page with the statement you suggest, I absolutely agree that no action is necessary. Not even 100% sure we would have taken action anyway (WP:UP#NOT is not particularly enforced these days), so no worries there. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:TheKhakinator

The user posted personal attacks against me and foul (right word here?) language on the talk page about the World Youth Day 2008. cf. [61]: bitch, cumdumpster. Answering to his own comments he stated that cumdumpster don't constitute a personal attack because "It merely references the anal rape which is often associated with Catholicism today." Please note that I removed his posts from the talk page because I'm not willing to leave such scandalous insults openly. --Saint-Louis (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Gave notice. "Cumdumpster" is a personal attack and there is no way that it can be interpreted as anything less than that. Let me know if the reverts or personal attacks continue. seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, so now Saint-Louis is destroying talk pages and project pages everywhere. I posted in response to his unfounded allegations and somehow this has been completely removed from this page. Possibly an edit conflict - see how I'm assuming good faith? He should try sticking to WP:NEUTRALITY in the first place. In any case, he's basically read things the wrong way and is now editing with no regard for WP:ASSUME. It's sad that this kind of conduct goes by unchecked on Wikipedia. There were absolutely no personal attacks in that message, perhaps if he read the comments I made (including the response to clarify) he might have realised this. Users such as Saint-Louis are dragging the whole project down when they try and push their own agenda. TheKhakinator (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Khakinator, there is no context in which calling someone a cumdumpster on Wikipedia is not a personal attack. Please don't try to pretend otherwise.

As far as your allegations that Sant-Louis is "destroying talk pages and project pages", do you have any diffs you could provide of the alleged behavior? Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rezistenta

A registered user reverted vandalism by an AnonIP, but misunderstood the sources, and inserted incorrect information about the Romani population in Romania, something this Rezistenta is particularly sensitive to. He responded with two reverts, and in response to a request to discuss on the talk page, insulted the other user. I suggested the insults were unwarranted, and he became further irritated. I suggested that, although his edits were correct, Rezistenta should have assumed good faith rather than resorting to insults. He responded that he has no obligation to understand other people's edits (although the other user did include clear edit summaries) and that his original statement "I think you should drink less" was not an insult. A brief look at Talk:Roma people will show numerous personal attacks from Rezistenta (and others) and numerous warnings. I'm not sure where to go from here. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Two questions: Have you notified Rezistenta of this thread? Also, do you have diffs of the conduct in question? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification done. :) But per Jaysweet, please do provide diffs. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with bad faith by User hAl

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – The proper noticeboard for "Suspected sock puppets" is WP:Suspected sock puppets

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While dealing with a problem of hAl making multiple reverts. A single use account posted a lie stating that I was a sockpuppet on HAl's talk page. hAl jumped on this as it was taking away the spotlight from himself. I tried to get the libel removed but ran into an admin who thought it was perfectly ok for hAl to drag my good name in the mud. I need to find out what is the best way to deal with this. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I was the one that made the claim that AlbinoFerret and Kilz are the same person. HAl shouldn't be punished for my claims.

The best defense against libel is the truth. AlbinoFerret, why don't you just drop this rather than forcing my hand? 75.45.104.89 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to stop defending myself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another point of clarification: I did not "post a lie stating that you are a sockpuppet." An Internet sock puppet is "an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community." I merely stated that AlbinoFerret and Kilz are the same person. To my knowledge there's no deception going on, especially because the Kilz account hasn't edited in a few months.

Really, this is all very silly. Given HAl and AlbinoFerret's recent disagreements, I thought it was prudent to let HAl know who exactly he was disagreeing with. What's the big deal? 75.45.104.89 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you came up with this idea, but it is not correct. What you did was toss kerosene on a fire. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO sockpuppets suspicions should be removed unless there is a procedure to identify sockpuppet abuse. --Saint-Louis (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint-Louis, what would be the next step? AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

this. If someone who is not involved in the conflict thinks I went to far please inform me on my talk page. --Saint-Louis (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not appreciate you doing unasked for edits on my userpage. I was not informed of this discusion and find it strange to read about this in an edit blanking my user talk page. That at least seems inappropriate and against any kind of wikiquette. I will restore the section in question and you can then discuss this appriopriatly namely by including me in the disscusion. hAl (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The claims on my user page are not so much that AlbinoFerret is sockpuppeting but that he is a reincarnation of a former sockpuppeting user that who tried several times to get my account blocked and who would now be using a different account. I find that fairly relevant to me and I am glad that someone warned me of this as it this user has a customary way of editting to try and get someone reported on the admin noticeboard. Now I know and can watch for such behaviour. On my user page this info is not really in the open and without AlbinoFerret himself discussing it here it would have been removed in a few weeks anyways as I useually clean my talk page every now and then when there is no more discussion about the subject. hAl (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And are you indeed the same person as behind user:Kilz ? A relevant question as this is what is was stated on my user page and looks extremly likely to me, especially seeing your edit style and behaviour. hAl (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is concern that AlbinoFerret is engage in disruptive sockpuppetry, the correct thing to do is file a report at WP:SSP.

AF, where is the "slander" and "libel" you are referring to? Please be careful about using these terms, BTW, as they are very strong words, and it always makes people nervous per WP:LEGAL. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to come across the accusations on the userpage, and that lead me to this board. Maybe "slander" or "libel" are the wrong words, but the accusations do appear to be uncivil, and will result in unnecessarily high tensions. I recommend the accusations be removed from the user talk page, so that it doesn't further inflame tensions.--Lester 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Jaysweet The libel is the accusation that I am a sockpuppet, it can be found here. While the words slander and libel do have specific legal meanings, I have no intention of involving any authority other than that on Wikipedia in resolving this issue. As Lester has said, perhaps I could have chosen better terms. But I do not tolerate attacks on me or my reputation. I have seen the harm it can do to people. The problem is that an anonymous editor has made statements that I am a sockpuppet. I am not, and I have done my best to follow all the guidelines on Wikipedia. HAl has chosen to leave this lie in place. HAL normally deletes everything from his talk page. The fact that he is leaving this section in place speaks for itself. I asked HAl to remove section. He has not. I have warned him that I was going to involve others in getting it removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The problem is that an anonymous editor has made statements that I am a sockpuppet." Not true. I said that AlbinoFerret and Kilz are the same person. I never said AlbinoFerret is a sockpuppet. That would be impossible because AlbinoFerret's and Kilz's edits don't overlap.

Let's move on. HAl should remove the word "sockpuppet" from his talk page as sockpuppet is a "bad word." I don't see why he should be forced to do anything in particular about my claim that AlbinoFerret and Kilz are the same person, unless it's "bad" to be either AlbinoFerret or Kilz. Or if AlbinoFerret would prefer, I'd be happy to prove that those two users accounts belong to the same person. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A lie can not be proved. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proven.

• In his user page, AlbinoFerret says, "I own 2 ferrets. One is an albino named JB." (Link.)
• A person who goes by the name SticKK / SticK is listed as the developer of the Swiftweasel project.
• Kilz created the Swiftweasel page and has edited it many times.
• Kilz mentions that he is active in the Ubuntu Forums.
• A search on the Ubuntu Forums brings up Kilz's user page.
• Kilz's user page indicates that tghc.org is his website.
• Via archive.org, we discover on tghc.org that StickK and Kilz are the same person. (It's at the bottom of the page.)
• In this Switfweasel Forum posting, SticKK says, "I have an albino ferret named JB."

So given that SticK and Kilz are the same person, that means Kilz and AlbinoFerret both own albino ferrets named JB and are both staunch critics of Office Open XML. It's unlikely that's just a lucky coincidence. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling your proof was going to be a multiple step theroy. But I found a few problems with this theroy.

• It may prove that Kilz at one time on tghc.org used the name Stick. But the developer of Swiftweasel is SticKK and not Stick. There is no proof that they are the same person or even that the Stick on the one site, is the SticKK on the other
• After looking at the Swiftweasel site it appears that it is a browser created/packaged for Ubuntu. It should not be a surprise that Ubuntu users are active in its forums. Kilz is an active member of the Ubuntu forums by his post count, he is probably a Ubuntu user.
• In the Switfweasel Forum posting, SticKK says, "I have an albino ferret named JP." He said JP, not JB.
• I expect you will try to come up with some other coincidence filled theory in an attempt to prove something that isn't. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think someone is socking, file a report at WP:SSP or else STFU.

AlbinoFerret, I don't normally do this, but I'm going to go ahead and remove the content from hAl's page. I am in no mood. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find that if you remove the content you might as wel file a report at WP:SSP with some of the above evidence. Reading this I am really furieus that you are siding with this sockpuppeteer. hAl (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not sockpuppeting, though. The edits of the 2 accounts don't overlap. He's doing nothing wrong. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• "In the Switfweasel Forum posting, SticKK says, "I have an albino ferret named JP." He said JP, not JB."

Nice try. As of last night, when I made a local copy of that web page, it said JB. (In other words, my local copy still says JB, but you changed the online version to say JP.) And you can also check out the Google Cache of the page to see that you changed it. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, so.... if you folks want to argue about the evidence over whether someone is a sockpuppet or not, try WP:SSP. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 22 July 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.

Rolex is kind of spam

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, folks... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Rolex looks like an adverticement of the rolex company. Perhaps, User:Ckatz believes that amount of the rolex clocks exceeds the amount of the rolex messages; but even in this case both meanings of the word (1.email spam; 2.Company) should be presented in Wikipedia. The way User:Ckatz keeps the discussion seems to me non-academic. Could any non-envolved user to read the history and express his/her opinion? Sincerely, dima (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a wikiquette issue here, unless you consider overwhelming consensus against your move to be a issue of etiquette? --Onorem♠Dil 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

dima, as someone who has never looked at the Rolex article before, but has gotten plenty of Rolex spam over the past decades, I can say that your attempts to edit against consensus are highly disruptive. Please stop before you're blocked again. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear SarekOfVulcan, I understand your message, I stop to edit, and I collect cites:

• Rich Kawanagh. The top ten email spam list of 2005. ITVibe news, 2006, january 02, http://itvibe.com/news/3837/
• Say good bye to viagra, rolex and other unwanted bogus emails... - http://www.spamsafemail.com/index.html
• avalanche of Viagra ads and Rolex pitches http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2005/01/19/microsoft_spam/index.html
• Recent upsurge in Rolex spam http://www.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/topics/236/Brian-McWilliams-Spam-Kings-page02.html
• VIAGRA AND ROLEX WATCHES JUNK E-MAILS! http://www.combat-diaries.co.uk/diary30/spam%20viagra,%20rolex.htm
• Informe de Retarus sobre spam en junio del 2008: "Viagra" supera a "Rolex" http://ivr.tmcnet.com/news/2008/07/03/3529512.htm

According to distributors of rolex and amount of rolex messages they send to me, I am great specialist about Rolex. If I am great specialist, then I should bring to the people my knowledge about the subject. From these "correspondents", I get the first-hand information: rolex is kind of spam, junk; it successfully competes with viagra. It is the main meaning of the term. As supporters of rolex delete the references I bring and promise to block me for attempts to edit "their" article, I qualify their behavior as misconduct and inform the society about this misconduct. dima (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so your argument is that because your spam folder is filled with advertisements for fake Rolex watches, therefore the Rolex article on Wikipedia is spam? Yeesh, I think you may be having a problem with Editorial Dysfunction. (Isn't there a pill for that?) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, my answer is "no". My argument is that I am not alone to get rolex messages. As for the pills, to block an opponent, instead of to ask for the references, is Editorial Dysfunction. dima (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so which one of those sources says that people are now using "Rolex" as a synonym for "spam"? They all say that there is a lot of spam selling fake Rolexes, but that does not support your assertion.

Also, please note that like a dozen editors have all told you that you are wrong about this issue. This leaves us with two possibilities: 1) you are wrong about this, or 2) Wikipedia is a secret conspiracy formed to oppress Domitori and to sell Rolex watches. Either way, you're not going to win this argument. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, a number of the links you provide would not even qualify as reliable sources even for your assertion that there is a lot of Rolex spam. The well.com link is a message board. The spamsafeemail.com link is a product pitch. Some of the others are highly questionable as well. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE, and then get back to me. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pwnage8 - Berating talk page editors

Stale

 – Please don't bring month-old isolated incidents to WQA --Jaysweet (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing whether a particular incident that caught my attention at random was in fact isolated or not. Please don't discourage people from making good faith alerts for the absence of knowledge that's not available to them. I get the sense I should never bring any concern I have over any aspect of the quality of Wikipedia's attention to anybody, at least on or through Wikipedia. I apologize for having raised a flag that ultimately led nowhere, but, please, consider the situation from a standpoint other than as a member of WP's elite. Unless you genuinely do want all legitimate criticism of WP to be published elsewhere on the web - if that's the case, kindly ignore my suggestion. 71.231.142.60 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Verbally attacked an editor to a talk page who had suggested the need for a neutral point of view in a particular article. The section descends into mud slinging by all parties. This detracts from Wikipedia's good(?) name, and does not help the article gain respect among the public. A new editor was seemingly driven from WP, and although he spoke rudely after a few replies, his ( or her? ) criticism was valid. That criticism will help Wikipedia raise the quality of the article to encyclopedic standards, and that's the point to all of this.

When a long standing, ostensibly respected member bites the newbies with "This isn't your kind of place. Your first comment made that very clear. Tootles. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)" I feel this is entirely inappropriate, in appalling taste. Anybody of his standing should be expected to show a minimum level of grace, especially to newcomers.

71.231.142.60 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Christianity#Problems

My initial comment didn't attack anyone. I saw the troll-like comments the anon posted, and simply said that yes, he shouldn't be editing, like he said, and pointed him to policy. Really, I acted like any editor would've in this situation. If I hadn't provided shortcuts, someone else would've. That's not where the problem escalated. Let's be realistic here.. when a new editor comes to Wikipedia to edit a controversial topic, they are most likely here to push their POVs. That's a generalisation based on what I've seen in my time with the project. That is not to say that there won't be editors interested in making articles more neutral/better, because there are people like that, but those are the ones that make sure to familiarize themselves with policy before they start editing. As Wikipedians, we need to assume good faith, but sometimes it's all too obvious what someone is here to do (vandalism-only accounts, for example). Ilkali even thought that the anon didn't raise "the issue in quite the best way". What escalated this is Andrew c's comment. For the rest of the "discussion" the anon tried covering his tracks, then he got mad, and was throwing personal attacks at me. His comment about Wikipedia is rather intriguing, and it indicates that he already was turned off by Wikipedia before he even posted. That would be a reasonable conclusion based on the nature of his first comment. So that's what happened, in short. I'm not sure why you're posting this now. It's been a month since it happened. Though I probably didn't handle this in the best way, I can learn from this so that it won't happen again. Basically, I ran into a troll who hates Wikipedia. Really, not much can be done about these people. He'll come crawling back when he sees how good the article is. I've moved it up my to-do list. One last message to all of you involved: don't whine about how bad the article is, just fix it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, why are we still talking about something that happened a month ago and then ended? I agree Pwnage was a bit WP:BITEy in that circumstance, and he acknowledge as much above ("I probably didn't handle this in the best way"). If this became an ongoing pattern, or if it had just happened an hour ago, we might have something to discuss. As it is, it's old news and not really a Wikiquette Alert. Next time, instead of this page, try here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I brought this up, I feel compelled to answer the question. We're talking about something that happened a month ago because (1) it's not exactly ancient history, (2) it's still visible to all on the talk page, and (3) it's ended, but as far as I'm able to tell, not resolved. Having read the entire exchange, I feel that as a newbie, I should never improve any Wikipedia article, as that's just simply not allowed by the in crowd or page owners. The article in question was in desperate need of help. Pwnage chased one potential volunteer away, and seeing how WP is run, I fear the same, should I try to volunteer my time for the betterment of all mankind. Finally, (4), we're discussing this because on the talk page, another member left a link pointing here and suggesting that, if anybody felt it appropriate, the exchange should be reported. I felt it appropriate, and followed said advice.

All I was hoping to achieve is to learn whether or not good faith improvements to Wikipedia articles by the general public are encouraged or discouraged. I've learned that they're discouraged, and as well that this alert system is a rubber stamp for some type of WP clique. I was hoping for a more positive end, but I've learned what I need to know, and won't bother you further. 71.231.142.60 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:On 17th July User:Pwnage8 reverted edit by me on page Avenue Road with comment "Imao- who cares?". As a test I made a further minor edit with no edit commentary (added a space)- the user immediately reverted this. I then made a further minor edit (deleted a superfluous comma) with an edit summary and flagged it minor. User did not revert this. Ning-ning (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No longer relevant (last 50 edit summaries devoid of snarkiness) Ning-ning (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. the anon really does have a hate-on for Wikipedia. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The HAL problem still exists

Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I see the section Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Dealing_with_bad_faith_by_User_hAl I started above asking for help has been locked. The reason given is that it has been referred to WP:Suspected sock puppets. But I started the section, and I dont think the problem has stopped. While it is true that some users accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Referring them to WP:SSP does not stop the problems happening on HAl's talk page. I dont want to bring that problem here. I dont want to go into the reasons that one thing or another are not true. But I would like for someone to give me advice or help on ending the discussion that is going no place on hHAl's talk page. If it cant be done here, can someone please recommend a next step for me, not the other side, to take. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You could try WP:ANI. I really don't understand hAl's refusal to try SSP and insistence on blabbing on the talk page. If he's got a problem with the alleged socking, report it. If he doesn't have a problem with it, back off. Right? I just don't understand... Anyway, try WP:ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help you understand his not filing a report a little better. In his own words. "We can´t report that one WP:SSP because you need evidence of sockpuppetingthen. We do not have that.". AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:51, 23 July 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:Adam sk

Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I don't particularly care for the tone of this posting on my talk page. I have done plenty of good work on areas all over the world, and I find it insulting to suggest that I should be editing only a certain area. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Biruitorul is, so far as I can tell, not anything remotely like an expert on Canadian history, and yet, he goes around unilaterally deleting section of articles on Canadian prime ministers without even letting people with knowledge of the topic discuss it first. I have absolutely no time for users who have a "delete first, ask questions later" approach to Wikipedia - I think it's insulting to all of the other users who put in tons of hours of time and effort only to have their work unilaterally deleted. So, quite frankly, I've seen the guy's profile - he's done a lot of good work on eastern European articles, and, more power to him: I'm all in favor of his adding to articles and improving articles in his field of expertise. But I don't approve of his unilateral deleting of entire valuable sections of articles way out of his field of competence and think he should confine himself to making creative contributions to Wikipedia and avoid destroying other people's contributions. Adam_sk (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Adam, he didn't destroy anyone's work. Your efforts still exist, and can either be restored or transfered to the Commons depending on the outcome of the discussion. Please refrain from using terms like "destroy", or from suggesting that other editors do not have the necessary expertise to question your edits. Your comments at Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie King were extremely inappropriate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 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:Tony1

Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I noticed Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments on the Australia talk page (Comments by Tony1 [62] [63] [64]), AussieLegend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments [65] [66] and comments from myself [67] [68]. I feel that only an Admin can sort this out since I feel that if I comment any further that it would inflame the issue more then it is now. Bidgee (talk) 14:06, 26 July 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.

Godwin's law at Talk:History of Hinduism

A some people might know, there was a recent edit war between User:Dbachmann and User:Thirusivaperur at History of Hinduism. Dbachmann became blocked for 24 h for breaking wp:3RR, whereas Thirusivaperur became blocked for "48 hours for ..[his] harassment of Dbachmann, in addition to .. general disruption and edit-warring." and also WP:DTTR. By the time another editor had started a section "I am concerned" on User talk:Dbachmann I was looking through the disputed revisions and found myself concerned about something else. I specified my concerns on the talk page of the article. After another editor was of the opinion that my concerns were unjustified I then got this reply from Thirusivaperur:

"True Trips. But User:Zara1709 is appearently from germany, a country with significant nationalism and holocaust history. These guys usually blame all others to be nationalists."

Dbachmann removed this wp:personal attack and informed Thirusivaperur AGAIN on his talkpage about our guidelines on this. However, on the discussion page, Thirusivaperur has refused to apologize and his other behaviour is not encouraging, either. Pending the question whether Thirusivaperur's proposed revision is acceptable, his behaviour hardly is. I would appreciate it if a few other editors could look at this issue, and, if necessary, help to apply Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Consensus accordingly. Zara1709 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We generally don't force people to apologize :) You mention "his other behavior is not encouraging, either". Do you have diffs of problematic/uncivil behavior, other than the personal attack against Zara1709 for which he has already been warned? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Warren at Talk:Windows XP

To be quite honest I was tempted to let this slide but User:Warren's language and aggressive attitude is making it hard to continue rational discussion at Talk:Windows XP, which is why I've chosen to list this.

Some time ago editors agreed that certain images should remain in Windows XP after User:Warren had deleted the images. Despite my request for explanation of his reasoning[69] Warren never responded. Instead, on 23 July 2008, he again removed the images, ignoring the (albeit limited) consensus leaving an edit summary that contained a profanity.[70] After some discussion, in which he demonstrated aggressive behaviour in the very first line of one of his posts[71] and threated to "write me up" at Wikipedia:Copyright problems if I continued insisting we abide by consensus I made what I believed was a reasonable request to tone things down.(see last paragraph).

After my request was made he responded with a post, the first part of which was completely irrelevant to the issue, attacking my editing experience and insinuating that he had far more experience.[72] And, of course, the language used was aggressive. For example "And yet, you tell me that I don't understand Wikipedia's non-free image policy? You have some damned nerve. You want me to be civil towards you? Start by not questioning my judgement on something you have absolutely no experience with! That sort of shit pisses me off."

For the record, I have sought guidance on the use of the disputed imageas at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#"Overuse" of non-free images - need some guidance but this is not the issue here. My concern is that this user's agressive attitude and refusal to tone the language down is making this issue hard to discuss. While I believe that this user has misinterpreted policy and that we should follow consensus, I have not reverted his edits to the consensus version for now to avoid aggravating this person. I have no desire to get into an edit war but I would like to resolve the issue as soon as possible and I can't see that happening while the agressive attitude remains unchecked. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI AussieLegend, although usually it is not permitted to refactor another user's comments, I replaced one of your diffs above (the one where Warren says "fuck" in the edit summary while removing the gallery) because it was clear you had accidentally copy-and-pasted the wrong diff. If this bothers you, feel free to revert me :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was actually fixing it so there was an edit conflict when I tried to save. I hoped nobody had noticed so quickly. You were obviously too fast for me. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Sourced WP:NPOV Archaeological Conclusions from the Bible

I'd like to avoid an edit war about this, so I've posted this alert. One user, Blanchardb, who has already been warned about "willy nilly" deletions before by admin Shirahadasha, is repeatedly deleting sourced WP:NPOV archaeological conclusions based upon a WP:CONSENSUS discussion from the Bible article. See here for details. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I rest my case. -- Blanchardb  -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ecrasez, I am sooooo sick of your red-text bolded version of the NPOV guidelines, quoted out of context and often not relevant to the discussion at hand. Do you have diffs of the problematic behavior? I am not talking about a link to a section, I want to see specific diffs. Those section are a bit long to read through, and they all are spammed with your red-text out-of-context quote from WP:NPOV -- if I see the latter one more time, my head is going to explode. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

131.191.80.124

Resolved

 – User advised. 09:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I tried to make Wikipedia a better place by reverting a personal attack [73] and I get chewed out by some loser [74] who just HAS to defend his right to the death to be a jerk on someone else's talk page.

You can do whatever you want with this... I am DONE with Wikipedia. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 08:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at this. The IP's comments were indeed rather out of line, and I left him/her a template on his/her page. But I don't see any need to further fan the flames. Rainbow, I suggest that this is just part of the rough that sometimes comes with the smooth. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now he has sent me a threatening email via my website which is linked in my profile. To where should I forward this email, headers intact? RainbowOfLight ^Talk 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is out of line. Don't reply to the email. (But don't delete it, either.) If nobody else comes by, I'm happy to follow up tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Best to send it to a member of WP:ARBCOM. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have placed myself on Wikibreak because I've seen a lot of stupidity and rudeness around here lately (people getting irate because I revert their vandalism) and I need a timeout. I will be here to respond to this issue, though. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 09:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about the harassing email. As angry as I was with RainbowOfLight last night, no one deserves that. Just believe me when I say that I didn't send the email - I don't even know her email address! The timing is unfortunate, I admit, but honestly - I've never threatened anyone, and certainly not her.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.124 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 July 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:86.158.239.106 / User:86.158.177.226 Attacks on other editors

The above user is presently labeling any editor that undoes his unhelpful edits anti-islamic, islamophobic, anti-pakistan, pro-india. His comments can be located here, here, here, here, here and here. There are several others but I do not wish to overload the page with his viewpoints. Assistance with this as it is unacceptable to be falsely labeled by anon editors. Knowledgeum (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry nobody got back to you on this sooner. Is this still ongoing? I don't see any contribs from either of those IP addresses in the past three days, but I don't know if maybe he or she has moved on to another IP. Since it's a broad range of IP addresses, it is tough to stop this kind of abuse, but if it's ongoing we'll see what we can do... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sofar there have been none of the same edits on the main article that sparked this, however the protection on the article expires this evening so its possable that as soon as its unprotected anon users will make the same edits, get reverted and continue thier abuse. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If I am around I will keep an eye, but I may not be around. If the behavior resumes and you can't find anybody else, here is what I recommend:

1. Continue to revert any unconstructive changes to articles.
2. If the IP makes a personal attack such as those above on your talk page, feel free to remove the comment (see WP:DRC).
3. If the IP makes a personal attack such as those above on anyone's talk page, try your best to explain to him/her about personal attacks and WP:NPOV.
4. If your explanation is not effective, issue warnings of escalating urgency, making sure you use the phrase "final warning" in the 3rd or 4th.
5. After the final warning, if the behavior continues report to WP:ANI.

The problem here is that since it's an IP address, and apparently a user that can access a very wide range, long-term blocks or sanctions are not really feasible. You can try to reason with him/her, and if that fails we can try short blocks. Hopefully the user just gets bored first, though, y'know?

Best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:91.122.87.1

Stuck

 – Per Jaysweet below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm not sure where to report this, but this anonymous IP who has no edit history randomly showed up and started reverting my changes in two different articles, twice without explanation. I'm pretty sure this is just a sockpuppet of User:Colchicum since the anonymous ip is continuing his revert warring. Krawndawg (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Colchicum says on his userpage that he is from St.Petersburg, and the anonymous IP is also from that region. Krawndawg (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's something. Please reprimand Mr(s?). Krawndawg for the personal attack. This accusation of sockpuppetry and edit-warring is extremely frivolous. St. Petersburg is not a small village, it is the second largest Russian city with slightly less than 5 million inhabitants. Moreover, I was born and grew up in Saint Petersburg (well, Leningrad, to be precise), but I don't reside there. Furthermore, Krawndawg's blatant chauvinistic edits were reverted by three different registered users (me, User:Biophys and User:AlexiusHoratius). A convincing case of sockpuppetry, eh? And who is edit-warring here? I have only made two fully explained reverts: [75], [76]. I am a long-standing user, who has never violated a rule here. Krawndawg (talk · contribs) has recently made dozens of reverts (having marked most of them as minor edits, by the way, which is very disruptive), including three reverts of that very edit in the article Russia, and has already got a record of blocks for edit-warring, albeit probably still not impressive enough to get the message across that edit-warring is not acceptable. He is obviously trying to game the system to promote his POV. Colchicum (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're only making yourself sound more suspicious. That anonymous IP is obviously another user since his first ever edit was a revert, making use of the edit summary box. Furthermore, it was a revert identical to yours which preceded it by only a few minutes. There may be 4 million people living in St.Petersburg, but there certainly aren't 4 million with internet access who can speak English, who additionally edit on English wikipedia with your same point of view on a specific article at the exact same time. Quite a coincidence I must say. Krawndawg (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about your suspicions and can't help you here. Neither do other Wikipedians AFAIK. But if you persist you will be blocked. Edit-warring is not acceptable. "My" point of view was immediately supported by Biophys, 91.122.xx.xx and AlexiusHoratius (or rather it was me who supported Biophys' viewpoint). Let's face the reality, this point of view is far more popular than you want it to be. And I assure you that a lot of people in Russia speak English, are aware of the existence of English Wikipedia and are naturally interested in what is written about their country in the article Russia. Where are you from, by the way? Colchicum (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And yes, (s)he is certainly not new to Wikipedia. According to you, 91.122.94.39 (talk · contribs) should probably be the same person (from the same ip range, interested in the same articles at the same time. Apologies are in order, Krawndawg. But the modest intellectual level of your accusations satisfies me best. Colchicum (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously come here to personally attack me and beg for apologies? You haven't proven or dis-proven anything and my suspicions are only greater now that you're trying so hard. I'm almost temped to report that IP to the sockpuppet board to get this figured out, since it is obviously a sockpuppet of someone. Lets just hope it doesn't interfere in anymore of my editing so I don't have to do that. Krawndawg (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Colchicum (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets should be reported to WP:Suspected sock puppets. If you would like folks to look at edit-warring, personal attacks, or other behavioral issues, please provide diffs of the behavior in question. At this point, all I see in this thread is a bunch of random sniping. WQA is not an no-holds-barred arena for you to criticize each other. The above conversation is totally unproductive. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 29 July 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:S. Dean Jameson

Stuck

 – Filing party (Ottava Rima) does not agree with third party input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After politely asking for User:Blechnic (here) to redact his personal attack ("The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately."), User:S. Dean Jameson entered into an incivil and rude discourse against my person. First, he tried to rationalize the personal attack here by claiming that it is "true", even though the comments are directed at a person's ability to read, which is a clear violation WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA which states that you can only comment on actions, not on people.

Then, S. Dean Jameson insists on the "factual" nature of the comments, here. However, it is obvious that if someone is a complete idiot, WP:CIVIL requires that this cannot be used in conversation, as such are used in attacking other individuals, which is not acceptable. Then, the user tries to bend the NPA policy around here to justify making an attack upon others, which is clearly contradictory to the letter and spirit of NPA.

Then the user tries to claim that I am being incivil by asking for the personal attack to be redacted. You can find instances of that here, here, here, etc. That last one claims that not only does attacking attributes of an individual not constitute as NPA, but that such an idea would be "non-existent" all together, even though the quote above clearly has a person and claims an aspect of their nature.

Something needs to be done about this user. They insist on the right to belittle others because they believe it is "true", and this is dangerous to the community as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• This needs to stop. This user has been called on his/her accusations of "personal attacks." I have at no time been uncivil toward him/her, and would request that this user be reminded that making such accusations in the face of much evidence to the contrary is itself uncivil. This has to stop now. S. Dean Jameson 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update - S. Dean Jameson now calls me a liar here and claims that "You are NOT allowed to bring up personal attributes of individuals" is wrong, even though NPA reads: "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• You're making things up AGAIN. I never said you were a liar, I said you were making things up. You are. WP:NPA doesn't say what you think it says. S. Dean Jameson 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note - User S. Dean Jameson is a brand new user (2 months) and probably doesn't understand the proper decorum. This does not need to go to blocks, or any such things. But there does need to be a clear statement for the user to understand that you do not have the right to bring up people's personal attributes in a discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused - you bring up what you believe to b a personal attack by User:Blechnic, which he refutes. SDJ defends Blechnic's position, but makes no personal attack himself, yet you've brought him and not Blechnic, who is meant to have made the personal attack, to this board. What's going on? Fritzpoll (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

S Dean Jameson's actions are argumentative, inflamatory, contributory to the original incivil action: he claims that the personal attack is factual, then resorted to claiming that I was rule breaking, then claiming that I am a liar who doesn't understand the policies. These are personal attacks upon my person, and acts of incivility. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I must point out, Fritzpoll was previously involved (here). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've been here long enough to recognize frivolous, time-wasting accusations of incivility when I see it. That's what this is. Nothing more, nothing less. No one agreed with you about your accusations against Blechnic. I tried to explain to you why. Now you're accusing me of incivility. I must say, you have the problem here, not me. This is my last post to you. Any further communication by you with regards to this matter will be summarily ignored, as is my right. Good bye. S. Dean Jameson 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This all seems to have blown way out of control. Just leave each other alone, and go and have a nice cup of tea - both of you are continually escalating your comments in response to each other, when clearly you just don't agree. Let it drop, and move on. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The only person who escalated this was OR. S/he has made baseless accusations against (now) two different editors. As for me, I've already indicated that I will be ignoring any further communications from OR along this line, so I guess I'll have to decline that cup o' tea! ;) S. Dean Jameson 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the collapsed discussion from ANI from yesterday where OR said that I had violated WP:CIVIL because I said that another editor, who had just told a bald-faced lie, had told a "bald-faced lie". I suppose this makes me an involved party, so I will not attempt to mediate. However, I would like to point out that saying someone has done something wrong is uncivil regardless of the veracity of the assertion, then Ottava Rima is now in violation of WP:CIVIL for accusing myself and SDJ of incivility. Oh crap! I just did it again! By saying that OR was being incivil for accusing me of incivility, I have myself been incivil! Noooooooooo....... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If I concur with you, Jay, does that make me in violation of section 1.a.2.0.2z of code 29-D? ;) S. Dean Jameson 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don’t see anything in the diffs provided by Ottava Rima that looks like a personal attack to me. Apparently, Ottava Rima is interpreting WP:NPA in the narrowest sense imaginable. In my opinion, this matter should be dropped and closed. —Travis^talk 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Travis, please point out where I said that the user actually made a personal attack against me. Since there is no claim to that, but a claim to S Dean Jameson acting incivil and tenditious, your comments should be struck appropriately. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have misunderstood my comment. In no way did I say that you had been attacked and I stand by my opinion. —Travis^talk 02:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima is attempting to game the system by bringing this frivolous and obviously baseless accusation of incivility. May I remind User:Ottava Rima that making such a patently false accusation is itself a gross breach of incivility and as such a form of personal attack. In this instance, given the concurrent thread at AN/I, it is exceedingly difficult to conclude that the user has acted in good faith. This should be closed and the editor warned against further WP:NPA and WP:POINT violations. Eusebeus (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Eusebus, please show where in WP:CIVIL that accusing someone of lying is appropriate. It is clear by this that he does the above. Thus, your claim that I am making "patently false accusations" is patently false. Please strike appropriately. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• You've been hurling accusations hither and yon with no supporting evidence for the better part of two days now. Yuo need to stop or be stopped. You can not be allowed to continue to make claims that aren't true. S. Dean Jameson 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:S. Dean Jameson is now Wikipedia:Canvassing here. Also, the user is criticizing those who supported my intervention and my asking of people to tone down the personal attacks on AN/I here. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing for what? WQA is an informal venue. No binding decisions will be made here. In fact, I suggest this thread be closed, and if you feel you need to move to the next step of dispute resolution, then so be it. –xeno (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to look into the diffs Rima provides. This "evidence" of "incivility" would be good for a chuckle if s/he weren't so serious about it. And the only reason I posted to Keep's page is because it's getting supremely annoying dealing with these accusations. As Xeno said, you can't canvass for a discussion like this. And even if you could, why would I? No one here has agreed with Rima so far. I just want Rima to either stop making these accusations or be stopped from making them. S. Dean Jameson 02:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing for what? Well, he goes to another user's page, lists a series of users, and asks for help. What is the help? I don't know. I am merely pointing it out. I filed this report because Jameson was acting difficult and continues to follow after me and bothering other users. As you can see from my contribution logs, I tried to moved on. He did not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I find that the claims made here are meritless, so I'm of the opinion that it be dismissed. As the filing party has so far not agreed at all with the similar opinions expressed here, I'm closing this as stuck. Per xeno, if any party feels the need to move to the next step of dispute resolution, then so be it - we can't do anything about it here. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:47, 31 July 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.

Wikiquette of a particular user

Stuck

User:Randomran directed me here. I believe this to itself be a provocation. SharkD (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with SharkD. He has initiated several RFCs on articles I have worked on, especially recently. In some of those RFCs about article content, SharkD mentioned behavioral issues to some degree. And while I believe them to be based on misconceptions and misinterpretations of my actions, maybe even failures to WP:assume good faith, this right here is the appropriate forum for behavioral issues. So if we want to talk about behavioral issues, we can start with this "provocation" that SharkD thinks I've engaged in. I don't think I've done anything wrong, although I should qualify that. SharkD and I had an edit war or two towards the cusp of 2007/2008. We probably both mishandled it, and that's ancient history as far as I'm concerned. Starting in March/April, I became much more active around wikipedia, and 90+% of my edits have probably taken place since then. Since Spring of 2008, my understanding of policy has been stronger, and even my worst disputes have at least been civil. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the premise... Perhaps one or both of you could provide diffs of the behavioral issues or "provocation"? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Jaysweet - one of both of you need to provide diffs so uninvolved users can take a look. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Randomran has demonstrated consistent demeaning behavior. He has made consistently bold edits and when confronted on them he denigrates the persons doing so. He cites WP:BOLD in an insolent manner. Whenever he is criticized for his edits he inserts the topic of "other edits" or previous confrontations. He has started personal attacks against me in the past, and continues to do so whenever we are in confrontation. Since Randomran has suggested I bring the issue here, I have done so.

Here are the diffs:

1. Being confronted for bold edits: [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85]
2. Being insolent when citing WP:BOLD: [86][87][88]
3. Inserting the topic of "other edits": [89][90][91]
4. Personal attacks Randomran has started in the past: [92][93][94][95][96][97]

SharkD (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• So, I read the provided diffs. To be honest, it's hard to lay fault at the feet of a particular editor. In this case, I think it is helpful to remember that our communication is via text and is capable of being misinterpreted. It appears that you disagree about details in different articles, specifically on interpretation of varying genres. I can tell that both of you intend to ameliorate the articles on which you work, are passionate, and are not intentionally trying to cause problems with one another. Would it be possible that you both take a step back, not continue to search for blame, and give each other the benefit of a clean slate? Let's not make this an issue and instead move forward without prejudice to one another. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher, I'd like to be cooperative, but I don't see any fault. I haven't "demeaned" or "denigrated" anybody. These are disagreements over content that just happen to involve the same parties, and SharkD has interpreted this as a behavioral problem on my part.

• Re: Personal attacks: I can't do anything about comments I made in December 2007 re: Artillery Duel, and I probably failed to assume good faith. But I have made literally thousands of edits since then, probably 99% of my edits, and I have been quite WP:CIVIL.
• Re: being insolent when citing WP:BOLD: I don't understand what makes SharkD assume that I was being insolent. I was trying to offer a legitimate response to SharkD's assertion that my "conduct" and "practices" were "questionable". At an RFC on Sandbox (video games), SharkD stated that "The purposes of this effort is to direct attention toward what I believe are questionable practices of a user. WP:DR says that, "Turn to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for disputes about user conduct" (emphasis added), and that is what I'm doing. First of all, Randomran didn't actually merge the information as he claims..." Besides suggesting that I was somehow lying or being misleading, SharkD incorrectly stated that I deleted an article without an AFD. This is after administrators had already told him this was a merge and not a deletion -- a discussion that started and ended without it even coming to my attention. SharkD raised two issues in the RFC: my behavior and the content of the edit. So I explained the content with logic and research, and I explained my behavior by explaining my good faith reason for the revision and backing it with policy: WP:BOLD. I might not have said please and thank you, but I see that as being cooperative, not insolent.
• Re: "Being Confronted for Bold Edits": I'm not sure what the value is of bringing up my first few AFDs from November/December 2007 -- literally my first edits on Wikipedia, when I did not fully grasp policy and guidelines. It's ancient history, and I would be inclined to say that I did nothing wrong anyway. The whole point of an AFD is that one person thinks an article shouldn't be here, but we consult the rest of the community. Aside from those AFDs, I see a few discussions involving SharkD, but no confrontation. That's just a part of how we build WP:CONSENSUS. People edit an article to improve it, and silence implies consent. Revert what you disagree with. If people can't agree on a revision, discuss and find a new consensus. You'll have to ask SharkD why he thought he was "confronting" me, rather than discussing the article. Okay, I've made an edit you disagree with. Does that make me a bad person in need of confrontation?

I'm trying to be as cooperative as possible here, and I'm not trying to be evasive. But I still don't see any fault on my part, and see this RFC as without merit. Myself and others have tried to make it clear that I had not been abusive in my process[98] [99] or behavior,[100] and that these were merely content disagreements over good faith revisions. The fact that SharkD ignored those explanations and continued pressing this as a behavioral issue suggests that this RFC is itself a failure to assume that I'm trying to improve Wikipedia in good faith. Let's chalk everything up until now down to a failure to WP:AGF, and move on. Randomran (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to give an example of the problem I'm encountering... I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to this. Really, I'd like to get back to editing and constructive discussion. But how do you see me moving a conversation like that forward, without some kind of help or intervening event? Randomran (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Randomran here. How is he supposed to respond when told to stop interacting with fellow Wikipedians? And--as the specious "case" brought against me above shows--focusing on minor offenses at the expense of working toward solutions is not a productive way to edit this project. This is pretty much a straightforward content dispute, per my reading of the diffs, in which one party (SharkD) is focusing on perceived slights instead of on improving the project. S. Dean Jameson 13:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Reply Well, my reading of the situation was that the actions taken by both seemed relatively minor and that these issues had been blown out of proportion by perceived wrongs. My suggestion was that they both take a step back, assume good faith on the other's part, and in the future, make a conscious effort to work together -- ignoring who was at fault in the first place. I've been in similar situations and it has worked to my benefit. You both are reasonably civil with one another (believe me, I've seen far worse) and I don't see the situation warranting any "formal" sanctions (and I would be unable to give them, I am not an administrator). So, my hope is that the two of you can continue to seek out avenues of resolution, attempt cooperation, and avoid this becoming a more serious issue. Also, as far as content disputes between two parties are concerned, a good starting place is WP:30 where a third opinion can be procured. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Another note For example, here the two of you reach consensus, together. You both are civil and find an agreement. This is the sort of thing I would like to see continue. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I've been trying to do. I'll keep trying. Randomran (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. And if you have a content dispute, just toss it up to WP:3O and go from there. You guys do generally treat one another with respect, so let's close this issue and get back to editing. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Another issue I would like to raise is the fact that I have already sought other means of conflict resolution but keep getting directed here or to WP:DR[101][102]. How am I supposed to resolve an issue if I keep getting led around to different places? Also, I have engaged in several civil disputes with Randomran in the past, but find it difficult to reach a conclusion or consensus due to his not backing up statements with research[103][104][105][106][107][108]. SharkD (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that you bring behavioral problems here, if there are any. Otherwise content disagreements should always start at the article discussion page. If after good faith efforts to resolve the dispute there is no resolution, you get a third opinion, or consult the wikiproject. If that doesn't work, there's RFCs and RFMs.
And for the record, I always back up my claims with research. Ancient disagreements from December 2007 aside (I don't understand why SharkD insists on dwelling on literally my first 100 edits in Wikipedia, which were at worst incomplete research rather than WP:OR), in every one of those disagreements I kept turning back to the research I found, and in many cases kept finding more research.[109] Randomran (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well the issue is mainly content-based, here. Concerning Wikiquette, aside from a few select instances, you both are reasonably civil to one another. My concern is that we not blow this out of proportion. You have content disputes with one another, and the route to take is via the talk page, WP:3O, and WP:RFC (first steps). SharkdD, sometimes consensus is very difficult and takes a long time to reach -- that's OK. Keep discussing and performing research. What's important is that you continue to work together and eventually reach that consensus. I've seen you do this in the past, and I hope that you will continue to work in this manner in the future. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're distorting things a bit. The research you do provide isn't necessarily on the topic that's being discussed. SharkD (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not dwelling on your last 100 edits. Only one of the links in the paragraph you're responding to dates back to December 2007. SharkD (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, SharkD. Take it to the talk page, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. This is no longer the appropriate forum. S. Dean Jameson 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'd like to engage in civil disputes with Randomran, his tendancy to distort the matters of discussion and lead discussions to other topics is a bit distressful and leaves me hesitant to participate further in discussions. SharkD (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• You've presented no evidence that he's "distorting" anything. And even if he were, that's a content dispute. Please take it to the above-linked places. S. Dean Jameson 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• SharkD, this is a content dispute. He may present opposing viewpoints, and you may interpret these as distortions. However, as Wikipedians we are called to rise above these personality conflicts and stay focused on the issue at hand: achieving consensus. Because someone disagrees with our feeling or presentation of fact does not mean that s/he is at fault for anything. Again, it may take some time for you to reach consensus, but if you continue to present evidence I am confident that you and Randomran will be able to come to an agreement. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely just want to get back to editing. But if he thinks I have a "tendency to distort" matters, maybe this is the only venue to really address it. Either it's true and I need someone to show me why I "tend" to be acting inappropriately and how to correct it, or it's false and it's a failure to WP:AGF and a WP:ATTACK. I'd like the accusations of "distortion" to stop altogether. Randomran (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree. If SharkD keeps accusing Randomran of "tending to distort", that will verge on incivility in itself. S. Dean Jameson 18:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if he distorts matters that pertain to the subject of the article, then this is a matter of content dispute and does not belong here. However, Randomran is distorting matters pertaining to the discussion and the editing process in general. This can make content disputes frustrating. There's a danger when readers take claims at face value without checking to confirm their veracity, quickly leading to discussions straying from a successful conclusion and central points, thereby undermining the whole 3O process. This is an issue in the latest dispute, as well as disputes in the past, and will inevitably be an issue in future disputes. Better to cut the head off now than let the problem grow and become a bigger issue later.

Since noone seems to have actually checked the diffs I provided (which I would think would be a duty of everyone involved in mediation), I will provide a case-by-case breakdown of discussions which I believe to have been distorted:

1. Beginning with the discussion found here, Randomran says, "And for the record, I always back up my claims with research." and, later, "...which were at worst incomplete research..." How does "incomplete research" equate to "always backing up claims", and how does it constitute a valid counter-claim to my own?
2. In this discussion Randomran says, "...you're right that only a few of the sources from the previous sandbox article actually supported the statements, and those are the kinds of unsourced statements that I left out of the merge." He says this on authority of having checked whether the sources are valid both when he was editing the article, as well as when responding to the comment. These sources were later proved valid, rendering his statement false.
3. There are a couple of issues regarding this discussion. The first thing is that Randomran says, in response to my criticisms regarding the validity of the renaming of the article, that, "The article and category were recently renamed based on reliable research and consensus." User:Ham Pastrami then points out that the rename discussion hardly constitutes a consensus. In one of the ancilliary discussions discussing the renaming, Randomran says, "There were zero references describing economic simulations and their gameplay, but far more references describing business simulations." Upon examination of the article itself, however, I find that, despite Randomran's claim, the articles do in fact cite "economic simulation" several times. Later in the discussion, he says, "...the references that describe the actual game mechanics in more detail refer to these as 'business simulations'". He claims there are several references (note the use of plural), yet can only muster a single reference when asked. He also claims that, "...when this article was called 'economic simulation', nearly any game with an economy was included in the list: city-building games, RTSs, wargames... even RPGs." However, when looking through the history of economic simulation I could find no RPGs, RTSs, wargames or city-building games other than The Settlers, which places heavy emphasis on ecomomics. The list persisted from February 2006 to April 2008 and didn't contain many questionable titles.
4. In the old discussion of Space combat and trading simulator Randomran makes a number of ridiculous statements. He says, "I think the research you've found establishes that there IS a genre here. However, the research is VERY inconsistent on what it's called." If you look at the long list of links there you'll see that I listed 23 sources that call the games "space combat and trade simulator" with minor variations in word order, tense and puctuation. When I state the number of articles that call these games "simulations", he says "Only 3 out of 33 call it a simulation" without bothering to actually doing the word count himself. SharkD (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply ShardD, these are not Wikiquette -- or even civility-- issues. From what I can tell and even based on your analysis, Randomran has done nothing wrong. We are not here to evaluate, compare, or test Randomran's comments. This is not a trial. He was merely having a discussion on a point with which he does not agree. This is commonplace on Wikipedia. If you want someone to mediate a content issue, then WP:3O is the correct venue. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's not really an etiquette issue. However, I was referred here. People don't want to deal with it elsewhere. The template at the top of WP:RFC says, "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." The editor who participated in the RfC said this is not the case and I should go here. SharkD (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you agree, then this should be closed, and you should go to WP:3O. This is not the place for content disputes. And you really should stop accusing him of "distortion." Your diffs don't support that accusation, and such baseless accusations could land you here, if you're not careful. S. Dean Jameson 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case the diffs from SharkD don't completely show that this is a non-issue, I'd like to respond to each issue to ensure that there is no misunderstanding about my behavior. There is no behavioral problem.

1. When I said my research was "at worst incomplete", I was talking about those ancient AFDs[110] from literally my first 1% of edits on wikipedia. In those AFDs, I didn't engage in OR. SharkD found research that I didn't find on my watch. Assume good faith. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I left *unsourced statements* out. This is after a third party checked those statements and agreed with me: the research didn't actually support the statements. So I did check the sources, and I was totally reasonable in my justification for leaving out unsourced statements. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I stand by all of those edits. The research supported the move. And SharkD should assume good faith rather than immediately assuming I'm being misleading: here is an example of an RTS that was misnamed business simulation because of the vagueness of the old article. And if need be, there are more examples. I wish he'd have asked me for clarification on that point, because I'm more than happy to oblige. I don't understand why SharkD had to turn it into an attack on my person. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Once again, SharkD resorts to literally my first 100 edits on wikipedia. Don't WP:BITE newcomers for an honest mistake. And it was a small mistake: I didn't sufficiently check for resources, and I misused the "overcategorization" policy.[111]. And even if I had recommended that article for AFD *after* my 3000 edits with the exact same rationale, this still wouldn't be a problem if SharkD just assumed a little bit of good faith, and engaged me about my honest mistake. To add to my frustration, 3000+ edits later SharkD now agrees with me that the name of the article focuses too narrowly on "simulation", and yet he continues to push the idea that I was being deliberately misleading in bad faith. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I want to be cooperative and address any problems with my conduct, but I just don't see any. I'd like SharkD to stop pushing the idea that my conduct is bad. Maybe an apology is too much to ask, but I'd at least like SharkD to stop accusing me of distortion for anything I've done in the past, and to start assuming good faith. And I'd like that before we close this RFC once and for all. Randomran (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. If you say you "always do XXX" when in fact you mean "almost always do XXX" or "always do XXX, except when YYY", then this is a distortion and you are using it to artificially augment your position.

• I can always back up my assertions with research. Even in that old AFD, I didn't engage in WP:OR. There's no distortion. Stop accusing me of that. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think positing a truth without providing references is OR. SharkD (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Firstly, the contributer partially reverts his claim ("I agree the Freelancer interview refers to a sandbox."), though he has not returned since I clarified the text of the other reference. Just because User:AndyJones says something doesn't mean it's true.

• And if you notice a past revision of the page, that statement was included. Once again, I included the sourced statements, and left out the unsourced ones. The issue is that you're accusing me of trying to circumvent the AFD policy, of making false claims on purpose, being insolent, being sneaky and now "distortions". I'd like you to stop. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry if you don't feel your statements were distortions. But I feel they were, and User:Ham Pastrami pointed out at least one of them.
2. I don't feel I was WP:BITE-ing. I was just concerned when a user was sending a string of articles to AfD unnecessarily, and was informing people of it. This can be disruptive, especially from a new user. SharkD (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• You weren't biting then, but you are now to some extent. You're trying to use the honest mistake of a new user to illustrate a non-existent pattern of non-existent abuse. Accusing me of abuse is false. It's just slightly more silly that you had to bring in my first few edits to try to prove that I'm a bad guy *now*, after tons of editing experience. Randomran (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, some might *still* put you in the new user group. You've only been active for 8 months, and I don't think it's unreasonable not to have to know the precise date and time that you became "elevated" in status. In fact, I believe that to be an example of silly and immature behavior. SharkD (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this alert about my conduct turned out to be a non-issue, but there has to be some closure here. In other RFCs, SharkD has stated there is a problem with my conduct and that these aren't mere disagreements over content. He has been told that if there's a problem with my conduct, this is the place for it. I can handle disagreements over content. But there has to be some closure about the accusations of "distortion", that I tried to circumvent the AFD policy, or anything else of the like. Before we go back to discussing article content, I want to know that SharkD will assume good faith and stop WP:ATTACKs and accusations. Randomran (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my earlier statements, I don't think this is an issue of civility. I don't think Randomran is trying to be mean, he is just passionate about the subject. SharkD (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So are you retracting the comment that I've been "demeaning" and "denigrating" other users, and engaging in "personal attacks"? Randomran (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still think you were demeaning in your treatment of editors. I don't think you were trying to be mean, and therefore not a violation of WP:ASG. You were just trying to do what in your mind you thought was "right". SharkD (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well I'm not sure how I've treated editors in a demeaning way, and I still don't see how I've been distorting or deliberately making false claims. All you can show is a series of editing discussions where I grounded my statements in research and logic, and you had a different interpretation. You say there's a problem with my conduct and my behavior, but you haven't shown it. If anything, you've only showed several recent instances where you've failed to assume good faith and mischaracterized my actions. I don't even care if you apologize. I just want you to stop accusing me of misconduct, starting now. Randomran (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)