Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive76

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


User:Wuhwuzdat

Stuck
 – User:Wuhwuzdat requested close, implying that attempts to resolve this dispute have halted. Seems to be outside the scope of WQA to do any more than it has. --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Wuhwuzdat first posted an improper CSD tag (G1) on the article Jamesin. I then removed the notice and nominated the article for PROD instead. I then went to User:Wuhwuzdat'a talk page where it says "IF YOU ARE HERE TO TELL ME THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH ONE OF MY CSD'S DO NOT FEEL FREE TO POST HERE", which I ignored and posted a friendly notification about improper CSD nominations, supplying a link to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion instead. This user has now removed my notice (which, yes, I understand they have the right to do, however, I posted the notice as a help to them). And just a few seconds ago User:Wuhwuzdat re-CSD'd the article Jamesin... again. I feel that this user is quite a bit BITEY.  IShadowed  ✰  17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct quote (copied and pasted directly from my talk page) is If you are here to tell me you changed or declined a speedy delete tag that you disagreed with, feel free to NOT leave me a note. I respect your opinion, experience, and judgment on this matter.. The misquote above is quite different in tone, and I would STRONGLY suggest that the user above refrain from such loose paraphrasing when quoting other users. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I have notified the user of this WQA. --Taelus (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Ishadowed followed this by issuing an entirely inappropriate warning template to my talk page. Perhaps it would be best if he respected the judgement of other editors, in the matter of totally inappropriate pages and their CSD tagging. WuhWuzDat
User:Wuhwuzdat, Yes, I am not afraid to acknowledge that I accidentally posted an incorrect warning on your talk pager, and I do apologize for that. However, marking a perfectly coherent article as CSD criteria G1 for patent nonsense and gibberish is not correct, nor is writing "Dear new page patroller get a clue" as you did on User talk:Wuhwuzdat. Thank you  IShadowed  ✰  18:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
When the articles subject is based on defining a non-word, the article is based on gibberish, and I will tag it as such. As for "Get a clue", your incorrect warning clearly indicated to me, that in this case, you needed one. The comment I included with the talkback template on your page only barely scratched the surface of the confusion, outrage, and raised blood pressure that templating caused here. Please check the content of any template, before using it. The continual (3x? 4x?) edit conflicts on my talk page, caused by your lack of previewing and proofreading your edits, did nothing to help the situation. WuhWuzDat 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see also WP:Don't template the regulars. WuhWuzDat 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not policy. See also, WP:Do template the regulars. As well, users really aren't permitted to set rules beyond Wikipedia standard on their talkpages. Perhaps your caveat of CSD infallibility should instead link to WP:Why was my page deleted?- but it certainly shouldn't preclude the possibility of being called out on mistakes. --King Öomie 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Those essays are not policy either. My talk page contains no "caveat of CSD infallibility", only a notice that, if you happen to disagree with one of my taggings,, I don't necessarily need to hear about it. If you actually read the rules on my talk page, you will see that I am only enforcing the talk page guidelines, and good talk page formatting etiquette. This came about after quite a few editors spliced comments on new subjects into discussions on unrelated topics (causing much refactoring to move them to new headings), and many unsigned comments, resulting in having to search through the history to find out who said what, and topics that the archiving bot would refuse to archive. My talk page WILL remain in a logical, chronological order, and it will remain in bot-archivable form, with all post signed by their contributors. Is it too much to ask visitors to my talk page to not leave the place a shambles when they leave? WuhWuzDat 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility#Dispute resolution states that the first step to take when in disagreement with a user is to take the matter to their talk page, the comment at the top of your talk page could therefore be said to be hindering dispute resolution, furthermore the comment seems to show that you are unwillingly to receive constructive criticism, and improve from it. Please forgive me if I am wrong in this interpretation.
You seem to be saying above that the main reason for the comment at the top of your page is to prevent people messing up the formatting of your page, may I suggest that if that is the case then you could remove the comment and replace it with a short tutorial on how to use user talk pages? Kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 19:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Re your first comment: More WP:OR on your part.
Re your second comment: It works well as is (It works, Don't fix it!), with one recent exception of an admin impersonating a newbie, and deliberately violating good talk page etiquette and my posted page rules to make a point. Gee there's a bear trap, what happens if I put my foot in it?. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wuhwuzdat, I hold my opinion that you tagged incorrectly. Also, there are less bitey ways of dealing with users than saying Get a clue. In this situation, I never felt outrage, raised blood pressure or confusion and I am sorry if I caused you these however I still believe that your tagging, although in good faith, was incorrect.  IShadowed  ✰  18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat, I think you need to look at G1 again: Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. Note that it doesn't say that G1 applies to pages attempting to define a non-existent word, therefore IShadowed's original comment to you was completely justified. At this point you should have either let the prod go ahead or contest it, what you should not have done is tried to replace the prod with a SD template. IShadowed then made a mistake by templating you, although it is not against policy to template users, it could be construed as a lack of respect or civility, however, I beg that you take note of the fact that IShadowed has apologised for the template.
However, I digress, the issue here is not really the definition G1 or whether you were justified in removing the prod. The issue is your conduct in response to IShadowed comments, when IShadowed first contacted you the correct response would have been to thank him/her for his/her edit, take another look at G1, and move on. although by policy you were allowed to remove the section from your talk page, it really shows that you refuse to take the information on board.
IShadowed then made a mistake by templating you, IShadowed in future you should always leave a polite and personal message, templates are often construed as a slight to experienced users. Wuhwuzdat, despite this your response to the template was uncalled for, derogatory comments never solve any issue, what you should have done is listened to IShadowed's comment with an open mind and thought about whether maybe he/she had a point. Even if you still disagreed with IShadowed you should have explained your reasoning for this to them in a polite and civil way, not by making personal attacks.
Kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fact: I never removed the PROD. I don't believe that anyone above has claimed that I did either. It may help in the future to check facts like this before including them in your debate. Your reasoning as to my removal of the original comment was also blatant Original Research. Only one person (myself) knows why I removed that comment, and NONE of you are him. WuhWuzDat 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I apologise sincerely, as I am not an administrator I cannot view deleted articles, I based that "fact" on what IShadowed said above: "And just a few seconds ago User:Wuhwuzdat re-CSD'd the article Jamesin... again", sorry if I was incorrect, however, it doesn't really matter, as I said previously the issue here is not over the "definition G1 or whether you were justified in removing the prod. The issue is your conduct in response to IShadowed comments" (PS, I would regard SD-tagging an article with a prod as good as replacing the prod).
In that case, could you please explain why you removed the comment? Kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
As you seem to enjoy your own conjecture and theories as to why people do what they do, I will leave you to theorize on your own. Enjoy the Land of OR. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
So be it, if you refuse to attempt to resolve the situation then there is nothing that can be done, I don't enjoy making up theories as to why people do things, what I enjoy is seeing issues where people are upset being resolved so that all parties walk away feeling that matters have been amended as best they can, in this case you are showing no will to resolve the issue, which means that things will only get worse if the disscussion continues. And so I will leave it as it stands. I wish you the best, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the text of the deleted article was this:

Jamesin - an adjective describing an individual who is unusually kind and thoughtful. This slang term was derived in the early 21st century as a testament to the overwhelming kindness of the late James Johnson

I think this could be A1. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the subject of the article is quite clearly the word itself. If anything, I'd say G3. --King Öomie 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That text certainly does not meet the standards at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. If the editor so frequently receives complaints or messages attempting to educate him (or her) on this point that s/he feels the need for a blanket disclaimer, then I think that's a sign that the editor needs to figure out what CSD G1 (e.g.) is supposed to cover. "Silly boy blue ba doop a doop fly me to the moon" is a CSD G1 candidate; sentences that are both intelligible and grammatically correct never qualify under G1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Wuhwuzdat seems to have received eight or ten essentially identical messages about incorrect CSD tags just from the CSD Helper script in the last six months or so (e.g., [1][2][3][4]), as well as other non-template/non-script messages. This failure rate seems excessive to me, but I don't actually know how it compares to the average CSD patroller. If you tagged enough articles, then even a 1% failure rate would produce many messages. I can understand not wanting to be bothered with routine messages, but he might want to find a more gracious solution. Wikipedia won't keep good editors if minor irritations (like an unwanted notice) turn into personalized disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page "rules"

Stuck
 – User:Wuhwuzdat requested close, implying that attempts to resolve this dispute have halted. Seems to be outside the scope of WQA to do any more than it has. --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In a somewhat unrelated note to the main filing here, I think that it is advisable that User:Wuhwuzdat should revise the rules they have set on their own talk page, specifically if they are working in CSD and other areas that will have alot of contact with new users. Being unable to question a CSD tag without being told they are "violating rules" is a good way to drive away new contributors, as several other users have pointed out in different venues. Whilst I respect your choice to remove notices from your talk page at will, I would recommend that you at least point the users in the direction of a few policies by replying on their talk page when you do so, or direct them to another user for help. You could even simply tell them to use {{helpme}} in your edit summary when removing comments, anything which would provide help for new users and avoid biting them with accusations of "violating talk page rules". --Taelus (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do us all a favor, and actually READ THE RULES, before suggesting that I change them. There is nothing there that would prevent anyone from "questioning a CSD tag".
I am now leaving this conversation, as this discussion seems to be taking place among a group of people, many of whom post comments or conjecture, without knowing FACTS, and most of whom seem to believe in the utter fallacy of a "perfect place" where nobodys feeling ever get hurt. I'm quite sorry to inform you of the fact that sort of place only exists on the "Barney Show", with its insipid purple host and theme song. This is REALITY people! WuhWuzDat 07:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but, you are expecting a new user to get everything completely correct, otherwise you will simply ignore them and delete their comment. This is not really realistic. Additionally, whilst there is no perfect place in the world, why should that stop us from aiming towards it in the long-term as a desirable goal? --Taelus (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Example diff, fortunately another user contacted the person in question. My point is that users such as that create an article on their first day, get a speedy tag, come ask you for help, and you remove their post for "violating rules". This is not going to encourage the user to seek discussions in future with anyone, and will discourage them from editing. --Taelus (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
See my mention above of "An admin impersonating a newbie". WuhWuzDat 15:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Some further examples are: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
Some of these are extremely worrying SpitfireTally-ho! 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Example 1, user was blocked for spamming. Example 2, vandalism only account, BLOCKED. Example 3, COI editor. Example 4, user on rant, my only previous connection to this editor was voting "delete, per nom" at an AfD for an article he created. Example 5, POV edit warrior, blocked 3 times for various incivilities, was previously told that he was unwelcome at my talk page. Example 6, the only edit of a blocked sockpuppet, complaining about an article deleted as vandalism. <sarcasm>Gee, what an amazing bunch of charming, intelligent, polite people come to my page!</sarcasm> WuhWuzDat 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
...And the whole thing about blanking, then moving the User talk page[12], presumably to obscure the history? —Sladen (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
More WP:OR, this page seems to thrive on it. WuhWuzDat 07:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:OR only applies to articles. Users doing their own research into a dispute is sort of required, as otherwise how can we ever gain diffs, or an understanding of the situation? Just saying... --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The skills needed to trawl through and clean up all the new edits and pages are probably rather a lot different from those needed to talk to a new editor. Perhaps we should have a way of directing people to a new editor help line as well as the patroller? It would also give patrollers a way of passing on what they might see sometimes as a waste of time. I guess the help line for new editors would also have to cope with all the 'BUT THE EARTH IS FLAT, TRUTH' but they might be better at doing that. Dmcq (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's the most intelligent comment anyone has posted on this topic yet. WuhWuzDat 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WWD, even beyond the original complaint, you've been rather uncivil just in this thread. I'm seeing a common thread with you only explaining yourself with harsh, condescending language. --King Öomie 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What does WWD stand for please? Sorry I see - User:Wuhwuzdat Dmcq (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (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 Nmate

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

User:Nmate is not assuming good faith [13], accuse me to third parties of wikistalking [14], and reverted sourced info without any explanation [15]. He threatened me with ban [16] and ArbComm [17].

I´m interested in Central European history for many years, as can be seen here [18], so we meet in some articles, and he acted with uncivility, reverted anything by me. He stalked me, as can be seen [19] (for explanation, I´m member of WikiProject Micronations and this is his only edit in article) He was banned many times [20] for disruptive editing and personal attacks. As can be seen in his talk page User_talk:Nmate, he have problems with others users for his disruptive editing. I try to settle problems on his talk page, but my post was deleted.

For his disruptive behavior, probably the best example is here [21] and compare his statement with his edits [22] and [23]. --Yopie (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


Yopie is a real expert on assuming good faith. Yes, what he is doing is wikihounding. He is following me and Hobartimus to the articles which he never edited before [24], [25], [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] and reverting. Plus he is calling content dispute vandalism [31] [32] and posting false vandalism warnings on Hobartimus' talk page as well as on mine which are personal attacks of course.[33] [34] --Nmate (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for finding interesting edit of your friend Hobartimus [35]. For explanation - Slovak Uprising is about uprising in 1848, redirect is to Slovak National Uprising in 1944. This can be called "deletion of article without AfD", or "vandalism".
  • For his recent incivility [36] Citation: "Dear Yopie,Regardless your sources, none of Hungarian wants to accept your proposed changes". Clear nationalistic POV, no comment needed. --Yopie (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
No, what I did wasn't uncivil. I just told Yopie that no consensus about his proposed changes because they are highly disputed by Hungarian editors. However, the above comment is a personal attack by Yopie.--Nmate (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


As I have encountered Nmate several times, I do second Yopie's complaint. Nmate calls legitimate edit review and/or occasional reversions 'hounding' repeatedly, although the policy accounts for such actions and describes only activities with apparent aim to harass the user as inappropriate.
Moreover, he frequently engages in edit warring without providing any explanation at all (as epitomised here [37]).
His edits are blatantly nationalistic in nature, he openly subscribes to fringe theories [38] and edits and aims to edit articles accordingly [39], even though the information is well-sourced he resorts to repeated blanking [40]. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And of course you are the best person to decide whose edits are blatantly nationalistic in nature. [41] --Nmate (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yopie's following, hounding (formerly known as wikistalking) of other editors can be well documented. On request I can provide several examples of highly problematic edits including sudden appearance in topics he never edited before immediately reverting others as his first edit. Other problems include, false description of good faith edits as vandalism, abuse of an automated edit tool twinkle among others ([43]). But the biggest problem is following others around into articles which never before interested Yopie. In this way this thread is a good opportunity to state that this practice will need to stop sooner or later one way or another.
There is reason to suspect that Yopie's reason here is to continue his following around and causing distress. And I present as evidence the above post by Yopie in the Revision as of 17:18, 19 November 2009 in this post Yopie writes
"Nmate accused two innocent users about sockpupeting User talk:Oficeri and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Modrajedobra#Are_you_MarkBA_.3F and stalked these users.".
In reality one of the mentioned users, Modrajedobra is blocked indefinitely for not other, than sockpuppeting [44]. Presenting such obviously false information in an attempt to defame a fellow editor, really reveals a lot. The information is openly available and incredibly easy to check, for any obvious and easily verifiable falsehoods. I suggest first we verify all information first, else we could be mislead in a way like this. Hobartimus (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, to that sockpuppetry issue, the number stays, as I have been accused by him as well (although, to be fair, Baxter9 was the main accuser) [45] [46].
To the hounding, please read the corresponding policy, check Nmate's edit and/or block history and consider, if checking his edits isn't more than merited. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I have never been stalked Oficeri. He almost exclusively edited only

one article which is on my watchlist. And that was why I accused Oficeri of sockpuppetry because he was always editing just the same article. However, this case is already very outdated.--Nmate (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (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:HP1740-B

Stale

User is persistently uncivil towards me, but also in completely unrelated edit summaries and talk page discussions. He has been warned about this in the past (e.g. here[47], but behaviour is, after a relatively quiet period, again moving in the wrong direction. This is a very impolite edit summary. And this is rather blatant PA against me. Fram (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This admin constantly watches my edits. Supposably because of my edits as, "the number of errors in it is much higher than with most other editors but really because this 'admin' is (arguably) overinvolved in this article where he developed a personal grudge against(great wikiquette there right?) me (he, naturally denies this, but his edits - or rather reverts- speak for themselves) and made threats (as an admin) towards me. He has been warned for similar practices by fellow admins before (seen here). The supposed 'blatant PA' is actually an adapted form of his earlier remark on my supposed intelectual capacities. A skilled, objective, reader would have long since gotten that particular message. This 'wikiquette alert' report is just the latest of his attempts to obstruct me in editing wikipedia. This is a very sad excuse for an admin, and if that's breaking 'wikiquette' then I regret that, but it's the truth.HP1740-B (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"an adapted form of his earlier remark on my supposed intelectual capacities"? Could you provide a diff for that remark? I don't recall having discussed your capacities. Fram (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
A link for the admin threats I made against you would be useful as well, so people can compare it to the Jack Merridew situation. Fram (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I already did, had you read my comment (more carefully) you would have known this: "the number of errors in it is much higher than with most other editors". This will be my last comment here; I've said what I wanted to say and I for one am not going to fuel your sad attempts at provoking conflict with me any further and suggest you get your 'kicks' from something else. Real admins can check my links (and yours, which support my case as much as my own) and can make up their mind. HP1740-B (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
A remark on the number of errors in your edits is not a remark on your intellectual capacities. I note that no diff is given for the admin threats. Fram (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, HP1740, it looks to me like you don't deny making personal attacks against Fram, however, you seem to think that they are excused due to Fram's bad conduct as an administrator and due to personal attacks that you believe that you have received from him/her.
Now, I'm not saying that Fram is a bad administrator, or that they have made PAs, but you should realise, HP1740, that even if Fram has made personal attacks against you, that does not under any circumstances excuse you to return them, anyone making personal attacks is breaking policy, regardless of the circumstances. Even personal attacks against vandals are against policy. If you have a problem with Fram's conduct, you can bring it up in a civil manner at an appropriate venue, what you cannot continue to do is continue to make such personal attacks against Fram. Under no circumstances are personal attacks justified.
You have also brought up some issues that you have with Frams conduct here. Although you are correct that if Fram did make threats to you or comment disparagingly on your intellect those would be personal attacks (and would be dealt with accordingly). However, what you have failed to do is provide diffs showing that Fram has indeed done what you have accused them of. If you cannot provide such diffs then the accusation of Fram becomes a further personal attack from you (From WP:NPA:"Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.").
Please either provide evidence that Fram has been abusive in a polite and civil manner and let it be dealt with by a third party, or stop making such accusations without evidence, specifically, stop following Fram around going on about what a terrible administrator Fram is.
King regards SpitfireTally-ho! 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing he didn't do is "following Fram around": I have watched his edits for some time now, and corrected or reverted them where I felt that it was necessary, and in the interactions that followed on those talk pages and on his talk page, he made these remarks. He has, as far as I remember, not followed me to any unrelated pages. I agree with the rest of your statements. Fram (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Struck, my error. My apologises, HP1740-B. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe (but he may correct me) that the "threats" he talks about are the same post he mentions here: "Comments like the one on my talk page recently are belittling and menacing, and if you have something to say to me; you can do so directly, instead of hiding behind 'anonymous' notices on talk pages and lecturing me on supposed wikipedia policy, while you can't even hold on to the actual and moral rules of this project yourself." This was in reply to this post I made on his talk page. Whether this post was "belittling" is debatable (I don't believe it was), but I can't see how it can possibly be considered "menacing". These kinds of replies and discussions make it very hard to have a normal talk page discussion with HP-1740B. Fram (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ObsessiveMathsFreak pattern of incivility

Stale
 – Subject advised.
  • Calling the AfD nominator of Elementary proof a "horse's ass": [48]
  • Calling User:Arthur Rubin a fool: [49]
  • A general and uncivil telling-off of every member of WP:WPM: [50]. Specifically, these line "So, to be frank, you are all appalling custodians of the mathematics articles... and you have disgraced yourselves yet again by voting for [the essay's] deletion."

Could someone uninvolved please look into this. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please notify the subject in line with the instructions at the top of the page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Timeliness note: First listed diff was three weeks ago; other two are current. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I've come across ObsessiveMathsFreak before and I think his assumed name is a good description. However the edits don't strike me as being particularly personal but more as a colourful description of a perception about content. It is rather iffy on the civility issue but I've never felt actually insulted, I can see they're trying to communicate on the talk pages and improve things. Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Dmcq, it hardly helps the issue to refer to users involved as "freaks" SpitfireTally-ho! 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I was just using it in the way I assumed it was meant, like a real football enthusiast will know who in their team scored each goal for the last twenty years.. Dmcq (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see, my mistake, apologises, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
AfDs and MfDs include Elementary Proof (closed as Keep on 1 Nov, nominated by Leon) and WP:Mathematosis (nominated 16 Nov by Dmcq) , and I assiduously looked for any pattern of incivility indeed. Dmcq is correct here. Collect (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I had hoped that at least someone would be willing to have a chat with ObsessiveMathsFreak and encourage him to be a little more civil. But apparently I don't really understand what civility is, because it is a stretch of the imagination to see how this kind of behavior passes. However, I accept the above judgement. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Civility says "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict". ObsessiveMathsFreak can be over the top but have you felt personally insulted or that ObsessiveMathsFreak has caused stress and conflict? Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Initially I found his post very upsetting, yes. But I am often very sensitive about things like this. My goal in bringing this here wasn't to get the user blocked or anything, but just to see if there was someone around who could have a gentle discussion about this with him, since he does seem to be at least on the edge of incivility in many of his recent interactions with other users which doesn't lead to a better editing environment in my opinion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I've put a notice on ObsessiveMaths Freak's talk page, you should have done done that by the way, saying that to them. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left him a, hopefully friendly, note about the issue in response to Sławomir Biały's request that someone send him a message. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently my comments have come off as uncivil. This was not my intent. The intent of my comments was to remonstrate against the views and opinions held by the custodians of the Wikipedia mathematics articles, and it must be said, to reproach those that hold them. While I do try to be as diplomatic as I can about this, when subtlety fails I must needs be more direct about things. Inevitably, this may ruffle a few feathers; but I do not apologise for this as some feathers at times need ruffling.

My honest opinion, long germinated, is that the mathematics article on Wikipedia are in a dreadful state, and furthermore a major factor in this state of affairs has been the attitude and practices of the custodians of these articles. The mathematics articles here are not helpful to the majority of people they are meant to serve, and worse they have become increasingly unhelpful as time has gone by. Almost all my attempts to change this have been met with the same kind of template wielding, passive-aggressive responses typified by this latest complaint. While I have honestly tried to persuade the custodians that their pages are in need of reform, my feeling is increasingly that I am dealing with a closed shop more interested in maintaining the status quo than providing high quality articles.

The Mathematosis article may have been an essay. It may even have been impertinent. But it gave a name to a major source of the problems with mathematics on Wikipedia, and in so doing took a step, however crude, in the right direction. By electing to remove it, the mathematics custodians have chosen to ignore and reject legitimate criticism of their administration, and in so doing have further isolated themselves from constructive feedback and ultimately, the reform that is so sorely needed on these pages.

Again I will mention that on the List of trigonometric identities page, havercosines and infinite sums are mentioned before the sum of sines formulae. This is typical of the state of most maths article. When I found the exponential function article, a supposedly top priority article, in an truly deplorable state I had to fight an uphill struggle simply to get it into a merely mediocre one. It is virtually impossible, given the current regime, to give the mathematics article here the attention and overhaul they earnestly require.

I remind everyone here that Wikipedia is one of the most influential sites in the world, and is probably the first place people will turn to when looking for mathematical information. The state of mathematics article on this site now has a significant impact on how mathematics is perceived and practised worldwide, and as such the debate surrounding them is too urgent to be concerned with formal procedures and supposedly hurt feelings. The decisions that are made by the mathematics articles custodians are of a serious and important nature, and there is little place for geniality or ceremony when such weighty matters are at stake. Difficult facts and decisions require stern debate.

Without real reform, these articles are going to continue their inevitable decline until the pages become, for all intents and purposes, useless. But before this can happen, reform is needed among the mathematics article custodians. My regrettable opinion is that this change is unlikely to come from within, and cannot be initiated from without. I would hope that at least some editors might take this opportunity to give a long hard look at the mathematics articles and determine whether they are fit for their intended purpose, or more to the point, what that intended purpose actually is and what it should be. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You obviously feel very strongly about presenting the more elementary maths article in a comprehensible way. Guess what: so do most of the mathematicians you are attacking. It's a good faith agreement about which way is best to explain things. By making bad faith assumptions and throwing around posts such as "I wipe my arse with the Mathematics manual of style!! Are you seriously suggesting that a rambling tirade[...]" (found on Talk:Exponential function) you destroy the bridges that we are all supposed to build to make cooperative editing work. If, as you believe, you are right and the others are wrong, then you will eventually convince them. Unless you spend more time on attacking your "opponents" than on explaining your position and your reasons for it. Nobody wants to learn from a bully. Hans Adler 12:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

Stuck
 – Filing party was unreceptive to feedback given. Users who edit the article are encouraged to avoid edit-warring.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Jayjg and User:bus stop are or were edit warring on Judaism. Since this article was only recently unprotected, I reverted to the last undisputed version and informed both editors to refrain from making any further changes to the article without reaching clear consensus first in this and this edit, as well as on the talkpage in this edit. User:Jayjg has removed my comment from his talkpage and has posted an absurd reply on my talkpage in this edit. Previously, he has threatened User:Bus stop with "I'll bring you to admin action" in the edit summary of this edit. I feel User:Jayjg is trying to intimidate User:Bus stop and even me, with the likely goal of enforcing his opinion (be it now or at another occasion). I would like some other editor to back me up against this aggressive editor. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Err, not exactly. In reality, Debresser has been edit-warring on the page for over a month now [51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65], even referring to the edits of others as "vandalism" [66][67] As a result of all the edit-warring, the article had to be protected. In contrast, I haven't edited the article for many months, until I made three edits today. Debresser used my edits as a pretext to revert to his own preferred version, (he generally calls his preferred version the "consensus" version), and slapped a faux warning on my Talk: page, intimating that he was taking some sort of disinterested administrative action, rather than simply edit-warring back his preferred version, as he has been doing for weeks. Debresser has continued to revert the article since his faux "warning" on my Talk: page:[68] He's also failed to mention his "history" with me; I had to take him to AN/I when he bizarrely insisted that a blog was a reliable source, and then ignored the consensus on WP:RS/N that it wasn't: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Blogs used as references. All of this activity by Debresser is, to put it mildly, disruptive. It would be better if he focused on collaborative editing rather than User talk: page and Wiqiquette board game playing. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
None of this is relevant to the present case. In fact, I wasn't even sure until now, that this was the same person who insisted on that wp:ani discussion a month ago. Ironically, it was his arrogant style of editing that first made me consider the possibility. Anyway, I am not a party to this conflict, all previous conflicts have been resolved with my full participation, and I just seek to keep things quit here. Debresser (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, right. You have a two-week long dispute with me a month ago, get slapped down by both RS/N and AN/I, edit-war for a month on the Judaism article, then revert my first edit there in a year, pretend that it is me who is edit-warring and you who is "not a party to this conflict", and bring me to this board. How ironic that you would bring me to the "Wikiquette" board, when one of the hallmarks of incivility is "deliberately asserting false information". Please stop doing so. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Jayjg is trying to drag me with sarcasm into a conflict with him, here as well as on Talk:Judaism#defining_terms.3B_removing_ambiguity_from_terminology. I refuse to do so, and urge him to continue constructive discussion and editing only afterwards. Somebody please back me up here. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Um, when you reverted my first edits to an article in months, without any "constructive discussion", and reverted any others who restored them, it was you who dragged yourself into a conflict with me. And when you posted a faux edit-warring note on my Talk: page, and made this bogus Wikiquette alert posting, you heightened the conflict. Please stop edit-warring, and playing Talk: page and Wiki-board games. Instead I urge you to start editing constructively. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not a party to this conflict, so your urgings are out of place. Please stop waking sleeping dogs and address the situation at hand. No need to turn against me for trying to keep you and User:Bus stop from edit-warring. Debresser (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The Judaism article has been protected, but I would still like some editor to explain to User:Jayjg that he failed to recognize a serious attempt to avoid an edit war. His preconcieved notions about me blinded him from acting with good faith. Debresser (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually if anyone has failed to act in good faith here, it's you. You claim that you are not a party to the dispute, yet the diffs demonstrate that you are. You have moved from forum to forum trying to find an audience sympathetic to your position. When you raised the matter at ANI (after failing to attract any support here) you willfully failed to inform Jayjg despite you being obliged to do so.
If your intention was to resolve an edit conflict between two parties you have not succeeded. Rather it seems you have made things worse. Perhaps in future you should think before you interfere. Crafty (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that User:Jayjg stop trying to pick a fight with Debresser when it is clear Debresser is not attempting to start a conflict. First, it reflects badly given his history of baseless accusations, and second, it always takes two to edit war. But I took a look at the evidence Debresser brought up, and:

So, Wikiquette has not been breached. You will have to find more than that to prove that Jayjg has actually been harassing you. Shii (tock) 02:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I never accused him of harassing me. I accuse him of the same thing you have convicted him of: trying to pick a fight with the same editor who urges him to stop an edit-war. That is all, but it is bad enough in itself. Debresser (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I looked at the page history of Judaism and saw very few edits of any kind by Jayjg, but numerous reverts by Debresser. Debresser, if you're previously been reverting at a page, then it's more difficult for you to convince others that you are an "uninvolved party". Opinions can differ as to what is a "consensus version". Reverting once to what you consider to be a "consensus version" may be OK, though it may be better to discuss this on the talk page first. However, if such an edit is reverted, then re-reverting can be considered editwarring and may lead to protection of the article or blocking of the editor. Debresser, I looked at what Jayjg said and I saw nothing "absurd" about his reply on your talkpage. The only sarcasm I saw was "Yeah, right." Did that make you feel bad, Debresser? Editors should try to avoid saying things that make others feel bad. For example, Debresser, I suggest avoiding the use of phrases such as "aggressive editor". I urge all parties in the dispute to put on the article talk page prominent statements of clear, concise arguments about article content as described here: User:Coppertwig#The "What, Where, Why" method of content discussion in order to make it easier for others to get involved in the content discussion. The goal is to spend time and space discussing content, rather than arguing about who said what when, who reverted the most etc. (Declaration: I associate with Jayjg, I found this discussion by following links from Jayjg's talk page, and I have not had time to familiarize myself with the underlying content issues, though I might have if I had found clear concise content arguments on the part of the talk page I looked at.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you notice that his post on my talkpage was a mocking repeat of my post to him, which he had removed? If that is not absurd and insulting, then what is? Debresser (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not meant to be absurd and insulting, though. You're edit warring as much, if not more, than he is, so your advice to him applies equally to you. I don't think for him to turn your words back at you is disrespectful in this context. Shii (tock) 02:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How can I be edit warring if I am not even involved in the conflict? Debresser (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If you have made edits to article space, then you are involved, even if you didn't start the edit war. Shii (tock) 03:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. There are very limited circumstances where you can make certain edits to the article space yet be considered uninvolved - as Shii's comment implies, that's definitely not the case here. Debresser, you'd made a number of edits to the article already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, contrary to your claims, I have no interest in the present conflict, have not stated my opinion about it, and have not reverted to any of the two preferred versions, but to a previous consensus version instead. Which proves all those claims to be wrong. Anyway, the fact remains that I was acting to stop an edit-war and have received zero back-up. WP:WQA is definitely not showing its best side today, gentlemen. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Deb, could you please kindly provide a link to the discussion which produced the consensus? SpitfireTally-ho! 16:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes please — the existence of the edit-war would seem to indicate that 'consensus' is putting it a bit strongly!   pablohablo. 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Debresser, you've been given feedback by many uninvolved users, including Crafty, Coppertwig, Shii, and myself, and you've unreceptive to that feedback. WQA is not able to do anything further. You are of course welcome to escalate to the next step in dispute resolution, but it is likely that you will be given the same feedback. Unless you make greater attempts to recognise the issues with your approach and voluntarily remedy them, this is not likely to have a positive outcome, so it is best that you do so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2009 (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.

Inflamatory Comments

Resolved
 – Claim dismissed as frivolous. Filing IP warned to avoid edit-warring, and encouraged to seek consensus by discussing the changes he wishes to make (when they are disputed). Filing party has since filed an article RfC.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nifboy is making inflammatory edit summaries:

Those are not inflammatory edit summaries. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
To give a bit of background on this dispute:
I was actually thinking of opening a thread here myself, hoping to get a neutral third opinion. Nifboy (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Continue as you have been doing Nifboy, just be civil and WP:RBI - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, what do you mean by RBI?? I hope you meant WP:BRD, or something similar. 174.xx isn't a vandal, and implying that he/she is one is only going to make the situation worse. I agree Nifboy has done nothing at all wrong, and 174.xx needs to gain consensus before making big changes to that guideline. But they seem to be editing in good faith, and suggesting that they be reverted, blocked and ignored isn't going to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps good faith edit warring. When it gets to that point there is no point in trying to talk to the editor. If you look at the edit summaries you can see that the editor is mad because their template is not being used. Therefore edit warring in an "I am right" way. RBI. Eventually they'll come around. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, it's like having my own personal pair of consciouses. Nifboy (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I'm probably misreading your tone here. I'm not trying to be your conscience, nor do I see how my comments could be interpreted that way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
By "conscience" I mean something akin to a Shoulder angel. That's just how the conversation played out in my head. Nifboy (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Funny; that's what I thought when reading it at first too, but I'm confident that it was an unintended effect too. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I am not the best person to listen to but I would not waste my time until the editor tries to talk instead of argue. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That's kind of the problem: He argues, but he does it fervently and not quite coherently. After repeated attempts on Talk:Touhou Project#Page Layout, I still can't discern his argument beyond 4twenty42o's interpretation of "I'm mad that my table isn't being used". Nifboy (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see this edit. He blatantly, willingly, and knowingly discriminates with intent to be unconstructive.174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. Anon, when you post edit diffs, why force editors to click the link to read what is said? Post the sentence:
    "The sociological repercussions of registering vs. editing as an IP are by now well known to all parties; a kind of "namism", if you will."
    Unfortunately, posting this way is common.
  2. While this edit diff is an unnecessary personal comment, I don't think it rises to the personal attack level. The edit diffs at the beginning (After I was forced to click them) do not appear to be personal attacks either.
  3. As an anon editor with few supporters to back you up, you will get little relief here, especially for something that is so borderline.
  4. Writing: "He blatantly, willingly, and knowingly discriminates with intent to be unconstructive" does not help your case, silently let the copy and pasted edit difference speak for itself. As much as you want it too, making sweeping generalizations like this does not strengthen the edit difference.
    Anon, to assure that the debate you are having with nifboy does not become personal and expands, I strongly suggest you keep the conversation strictly on the talk page of the article.
    Delete all conversations between the two of you on your talk page (which is allowed). In the future, if nifboy posts on your talk page, remove the comment and politely tell nifboy in your edit summary to discuss it on the article talk page. Ikip (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You do understand this is the same has racism?174.3.111.148 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • This is patent nonsense. The anon IP is in the wrong, this WQA filing is frivolous, and the editor should be taken to AN/I & blocked if s/he keeps this up. Eusebeus (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is becoming sillier the more it drags out; comparing Nifboy's comments to "racism" is only one step removed from Godwin's Law]. I've seen no comments or edits from Nifboy of any significant concern. 174.x needs to drop his complaints about Nifboy, and focus on making a better, more understandable case for his edits, on the policy and article talk pages. If he cannot convince others, he needs to accept that and move on. We're to the point now where further edit warring or disruption should be met with a block; you need to be able to accept multiple, unanimous neutral parties telling you you're wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't see the discrimination.174.3.111.148 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I see no discrimination here. I see no racism here. I I haven't the foggiest what your or Nifboy's nationality is. I haven't any impression of what race person is discriminating against what race person. I don't see that colour of skin has come into this at all. I see no basis for any such allegation. I believe that Nifboy has acted appropriatly. I don't believe this complaint has any good basis. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying he is being racist. I am saying he is discriminating. Racism is a form of discrimination.174.3.111.148 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any discrimination here either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please PLEASE explain to me why he continues to edit guidelines where he's been continually rebuked? I'm at my wit's end, and utterly incapable of calmly continuing to revert him and explain why. Nifboy (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Until he decides to discuss the changes he wants to make so that there is a consensus for them, he's simply edit-warring. Count each edit he makes to the page as a reversion, and then escalate per normal 3RR procedure, reverting where appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
He's begun discussing the matter and has opened an article RfC. I hope all involved (and other uninvolved) editors will participate and come to a consensus on the matter (even if it's a repeat). It will certainly help clarify the matter for future actions and dispute resolution. Should there continue to be problems, please use ANI or the next step in dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2009 (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:Advocate4you

Advocate4you has been harassing me for quite some time now. I've tried to ignore him however his harassment has continued so I feel it necessary to bring this here. It began with these edit I made after his edits: [71] & [72]. He seemed to take offense to this and posted a comment on my talk page about "stocking" him and this discussion insued: User talk:Wizard191#Wizard a Stocker?; as you can see I just stopped replying to him as I realized he wasn't listen to my replies but just trying to incite me. Things quite down until he posts a comment at Talk:Speeds and feeds#SFM for Brass is too Slow; a discussion ensues where he again tries to incite something and I again just stop replying. I then add a {{huh}} template to one of his edits and correct some bad capitalization and then a slow edit war ensues [73]. Because of my edits he begins a new discussion at my talk page (User talk:Wizard191#Wizard Continues to be a Stocker) trying to start something but I don't reply, as I know he's just trying to get a rise out of me. We then talk out the edits at here, but again he won't listen to a word I'm saying so I have to get a third opinion involved so that he'll at least follow WP:MOS; the third opinion rules in favor of his POV of the template and I'm cool with that. He then harasses me again [74] and I tell him to cut it out or I'll report him here. Obviously he continued so I'm here now. Any help is appreciated. Wizard191 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To Advocate4you: On reviewing these interactions, it is clear to me that Wizard191 is making good-faith efforts to keep the articles accurate, not stalking you. (Note that the word is "stalking", not "stocking".) Please try to be less combative in your interactions. To Wizard191: I don't believe that Advocate4you is deliberately trying to provoke you, I believe that he has issues with being overly suspicious, and they are coming into play here. Please try to assume good faith to the maximum possible degree in your interactions. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You saw one side per what he is presenting and without hearing from me you already have an opinion. I disagree. How can it be clear when it appears that you are assuming that he gave you all the info? I see it differently. Even his story is distorted. This started long before this. It stated with this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surface_feet_per_minute More the once Wizard has been wrong about his edits where I am concerned. And to defend my referenced edits, I have to continue to go back-and-forth with him many times and in the end, he is wrong most of the time. Other editors are turned off by his abrasive editing style per his talk page. And it is very trying. It is he that engages me and not the other way around. And there has been another assumption here. I am not a “he,” I am a “she.” If Wizard continues to engage me, and he is wrong like he usually is, I will continue to defend my edits. And I am not suspicious, I just don't repond well to him coming off as a jerk. If he has a problem with me, I think it would be a good idea if you stopped engaging with me and my edits. Advocate4you (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I never assume that a person who complains at WQA gives all the relevant information -- I looked over the articles in question, and both of your talk pages and contribs, before forming an opinion. I apologize for the "he" -- I really wish the English language would provide us with gender-neutral pronouns. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's always the singular "They". Though that sounds forced if you have to use it 4-5 times in a row. Then again, Wikipedia is predominantly male, so it was a good bet, and not something A4U really has any place being irked about. I'm sure there's a {{UB-Female}} userbox out there if it's really a sticking point. --King Öomie 18:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, {{User:UBX/female}} actually, but thats kinda beside the point SpitfireTally-ho! 18:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I’m not irked about the gender pronoun - it was only a clarification.Advocate4you (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
However, addrssing the other comment. You began your opinion with, "On reviewing these interactions..." and it implies that you are referring to what Wizard191 stated above and not with the difficulty in my first edit struggle with him here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surface_feet_per_minute , of which after a lot of back and forth he was wrong. and talk about combative, he was he that was combative in the face of a reference. And then on my next edits, it is Wizard191 that continues to appear on my heels. "Combative?" Are you suggesting that I let him have his way and delete my referenced edits? He is the one that continues to go back and forth against a referenced edit. I think to be fair you need to re-read all the material and honestly tell me that you don't think Wizard191 is the one who is combative. It is he that his harrasing me, engaging me, not the other way around, and making my editing on Wiki a bad experience. Advocate4you (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that talk page has problems. But frankly, Wizard is completely correct on that page. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate, not instruct. Theory, not practice, if you will. The more illustrative formula should be used, NOT necessarily the simpler one. Especially when the simpler one relies on standards and terminology used by a particular company (regardless of how 'industry leading' they are). --King Öomie 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note for clarification, I remember having that conversation, although I did not remember that I had it with this user as it occurred 8 months ago. Had I remembered it I would have included it in my original explanation. Wizard191 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Likeminas

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Content dispute.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The user came to my talk page and accused me of "adding false informations" and of "tendentious editing" in article[75] Chilean people. The user removed the sourced informations I added to that article. I told him the informations are sourced, it comes from the book As Américas e a Civilização– Processo de formação e causas do desenvolvimento desigual dos povos americanos by Darcy Ribeiro and I even wrote a part of the book on the page of that article. This user did not even read the book or the talk page and accused me of adding "false informations"

He did not use the talk page until then. When he realized the informations are sourced, he changed his argument that I was adding "false informations" to the argument that the informations are "personal opinions" of the anthropologist Ribeiro. It's clear that this user is trying to find any argument to remove or hide informations from that article because he doesn't like them.

Likeminas is uncivil, because he started an edit-warring before using the talk page, removed sourced informations, accused me of faking informations and falsely warned me that I can be blocked for adding sourced informations to an article (when he is the one with a behaviour that leads to a block). I told him that if he thinks a source is not reliable, he may use the area of Wikipedia dedicated ask opinions of other users about it; but he is not able to decide if it is reliable or not by himself. Opinoso (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't address the content dispute here as it's not the appropriate place to do so. But in references to this user's claims of incivility, I find them ludicrous to say the least. A quick look at his talk page, and articles such as Brazil where he's involved in another feud explain why.
I try to assume with faith with Opinoso but his history of POV pushing in articles related to the ethnography of Chile makes that endeavor somewhat difficult. The "informations" he wants to add are polemic and contradictory at best, that's why I suggested he uses the talk page but so far has not done so. Likeminas (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute. Likeminas is leaving uncivil messages on my talk, edit-warring and removing sourced informations. Opinoso (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not see any of the comments as uncivil and any accusations of edit-warring should be taken to the edit-warring noticeboard. Opinoso must obtain consensus for the material they wish to add. It is a content dispute. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The information was added weeks ago. The consensus should come from Likeminas asking people if he's able to remove it, and not remove it and later find a concensus. The information is sourced, and I don't need to ask permission to add sourced informations. But Likeminas does need to ask permission to remove it, what he didn't do, since here erased it before using the talk page. He said the source is POV and it is the personal opinion of the writer. So any source is POV, because any source show the opinion of the writer about the subject. Somebody please protect that article. Opinoso (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This report escaped the realm of civility issues from the very beginning. Hopefully we're able to work something out, in a civil and mature way when Opinoso gets back from today's block.Likeminas (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, wikiquette alerts is not the place to come if seeking guidance on content disputes. Please take the issue to a more appropriate noticeboard. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, a more appropriate venue for resolving content disputes is either Wikipedia formal mediation (or informal) or article RfC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2009 (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.

Solid: reverts by user:Logger9

Stuck
 – Content DR; user conduct community discussion or RfC/U. Taken to ANI.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Some months ago, this article was expanded by more than a factor of ten by User:Logger9. Parts of his insertions are clearly off topic. I deleted them in an admittedly too cursory way a few days ago; he restored them completely. Today, I went much more carefully through the text, deleting several paragraphs, condensing others, and transferring technicalities from the lead to the appropriate section. I gave explicit justification for every single edit. Yet Logger9 reverted my work at once.

This is part of a larger conlict. See the ongoing discussion at Talk:Liquid. Liquid is currently blocked because of similar reverts.

I would like to ask an admin to severely admonish Logger9 to go to the talk page instead of blanket reverting my edits. -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Logger9 of this WQA filing. Additionally, this is not the venue to call for "admonishment", and nor will that approach help the dispute resolution process in these early stages. WQA is a first-step venue to gather the suggestions and views of other parties, and attempt to resolve the conflict dispute. If you feel this is already past this point and does require admin involvement, you may want to file this at ANI. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I am an involved party as I have been in several discussions with both users. However, I would think that as logger has not made any edits since Marie's (and my) comments to his talk page, there is no need for this WQA. Talk:Liquid is also being moderated quite well by three uninvolved users. NW (Talk) 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out simply that Paula Pilcher or Maria Poise (or whatever name she chooses to be this month) had never even seen this article (nor any of the others she has tried to contribute to) until I tried to make something out of it. Her pattern on Wikipedia is to follow me wherever I go, trash my work (which is largely acceptable to everyone until she shows up), using a blanket deletion mode, then try to make make something completely different out of the article while creating an edit war -- which attracts massive attention. And when I try to make sure that my work is included, I automatically become the bad guy.
Now she has changed her editorial style in Solids -- thinking that if she takes the trouble to describe in detail each one of her deletions that they will all stand as a whole. The most interesting part is that none of the other educated editors seems to have any trouble with these sections except for her. Her most recent action was to remove the primary figure from the very top of the article, leaving a most conspicuous blank space where before we had a very informative and helpful figure. This figure was placed there by a member of the core of active science editors. As I said, she knows no bounds, and is relentlessly obsessive in her editorial behavior. Futhermore, she vows openly to continue with these editorial antics.
When questioned, she states simply that : "You are very bold in inserting, so you have to accept that I am very bold in deleting."
We don't have to accept anything. Her behavior clearly violates Wikipedia protocol.
Regarding the blanket deletions of my work, she claims that "I haven't done yet" and referes to the article on Solids.
And when queried by Wikipedia editor Woudloper regarding a more specific discusion of my work, she states simply that "I refuse to answer the above battery of questions."
She insults me continuously on all sorts of personal levels. Her attacks are continuously obssessive, aggressive, and highly destructive. None of her actions have been appropriate in this context. Just look at what she has published about me personally on Paula Pilcher user page. And somehow, still, she manages to gain the sympathy of those around her.
She knows no limits, and her technical experise is questionable at best. At one point, she was insisting in putting pictures of peanut butter on a page about the glass transition. I put up with the peanut butter for awhile (as did other polite editors) trying not to hurt her feelings, as she seems to be quite volatile. Her rude behavior has been dismised by others as being due the fact that she knows English only as a second language. What does that have to do with anything ? A personal insult in exactly that-- and it has no place in the educational arena -- anywhere.
I have never, ever, rejected ANY of her work. And yet her classical motif is to simply blanket delete ALL of my work. She follows the blanket deletions up by bringing in a hoard of sympathetic administrators -- none of whom would ever be able to read the theoretical contributions without a sufficient background in the subject matter. Then she dismisses my work in its entirety as "scientific blunder" (amongst a text full of other insulting adjectives) and continues with the identical pattern of her "Anti-logger crusade" on the next page that I try to contribute to. I taught envrionemtal science recently. And to to be quite frank, she behaves as a parasite in the classical sense of the word.
In the case of Liquids, any and all current editing could have all been done without an edit war or any adnministrative intervention. All she have to do is come contribute. My work could easily be included -- and edited-- below all the other material on a section for Theory of the Liquid State. If you wish to dismiss it because it is not accessible to an eight grader (or to Paula Pilcher, for that matter) then you had better go ahead and lay waste to the majority of your articles in science -- many of which I cannot even understand.
I am here to contribute on that level. And I have been happy to include readable introductory sections on all of the some 15 articles that I have been a major contributor on Wikipedia. My record stands for itself. I am giving you folks the best that I've got. What I can't understand is why she resents that so much. It's like I have this red target painted on my forehead. I really wish that she would contribute what she has to offer, and move on to something else besides what I am working on. It is something like being stalked -- literally.
I believe strongly in the concept of scientific education. In fact, I have dedicate my adult life to it. (See my educational website on my domain @ www.wavewsignal.com). I have found Wikipedia to be an incredible resource on my classroom. Beginning this year, I have tried my hardest to make my most quality contributions on your webite. Please don't let Paula Pilcher/Marie Poise destroy that.
-- logger9 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That's clearly explained on my user page User:Marie Poise: I have given up the account Paula Pilcher months ago, setting the password to something I cannot remember. My new account Marie Poise is a fresh start, trying to focus more on my field of professional expertise, which unfortunately is also Logger9's preferred area of activity. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had a thorough look at the Talk:Liquid and the recent editor history of Liquid, and agree with the assessment of some there: that the problem lies in Logger9's approach to Wikipedia. He appears to want articles to reflect his personal synthesis of primary research papers, rejecting existing secondary sources, and to trust his expertise and experience in doing that - which is just plain wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary sources.
There could be a conflict of interest too. I'm not at all keen on the way he appears to be using Wikipedia as an annexe of his personal website: for instance, this page at the abovementioned wavesignal.com citing all the articles he has edited here as "online publications". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I too have concerns about the editing conduct of logger9 on the materials science pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
If there is problematic editing occurring, the best way to resolve it is through content dispute resolution - article RFC or mediation. Following that up with either a user conduct RfC or other form of community discussion (eg; ANI) on problematic user conduct would then work towards the other issues. I don't think we can do much else here at WQA for issues that are quite as complex as what appears to be asserted here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2009 (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:CarolineWH

Stuck
 – Filing party has escalated to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This recently created single-topic account, has been going around the articles relating to religion and abortion insisting that the word “mother” when used to describe a pregnant woman (in such established terms as “health of the mother”, “life of the mother”, “rights of the mother”) breaches NPOV and must be changed to “pregnant woman” wherever it is found. A number of editors, including myself, have taken issue with this. This editor’s response has been to personalize the issue, to spam Talkpage:Abortion, where the issue does not arise (despite others asking her not to); and lately to imply that the word “mother” is as offensive as the word “nigger” (euphemized as “Mark Fuhrman”), comparing those who fail to agree with this assessment to members of the Ku Klux Klan, and then (most chillingly) responds to objections that she sees no reason why anybody should take offense at this. So how does one deal constructively with an editor who either genuinely sees nothing wrong with comparing her fellow editors to Klansmen or disingenuously hopes to get away with it? --Paularblaster (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps also have mentioned: she's expressed a preference for me not to raise issues on her talkpage, so I've put a notice in the talkpage where most of the offensive material is, but could somebody else perhaps notify the editor directly on my behalf? --Paularblaster (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This alert is a bit off on a few things. Fundamentally, it's trying to solve a content dispute by making it personal, which does not seem to be productive. Moreover, many of the claims it makes are simply false. Finally, Paul's hands are not particularly clean, as he has been less than entirely civil on a few occasions.
In an effort to clear the air, I'm going to address the various claims here:
  1. This account is recent, but I freely acknowledge on my user page that I edited from a particular IP. I've created an account so that my edits are not confused with those of anyone else here, which I believe is the recommended practice.
  2. It is indeed the case that a number of editors strongly oppose the editorial path I am suggesting. In specific, that number is 2. Others have weighed in on either side, and it remains to be seen what the consensus will be. Unfortunately, this alert can only serve to derail the process.
  3. Whenever something is taken out of context, the only cure is to see the whole context. I strongly recommend that you read the whole of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Abortion. I trust that you'll see for yourself that I never claimed "mother" was a pejorative, just that it was inaccurate and biased when applied to women who have no intention of becoming mothers at this time. This was not my personal opinion or original research, but a restatement of a reliable medical source.
  4. Finally, the whole "spam" thing makes no sense. There's been an ongoing effort to centralize discussion of this issue and it's taken some time to find the right place. I've gone along with the suggestions of other editors and moved it to the project page.
I'm not sure what else to say here, but if you have any questions, you're welcome to ask me here or on my talk page. Thank you for your time. CarolineWH (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
1. - As all of the edits made as a previously banned IP were to the same material, that doesn't stop you from being an SPA.
2. The count is 5 to 2 against your position.
4. - You keep trying to shout people down by yelling NPOV! without contributing to the discussion. - Schrandit (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the previous ban turned out to be in error and was overturned. It was not for my behavior, but simply because I was mistaken for someone else. As for the count, that's something we can disagree about on that page, not here. Finally, in no way am I shouting. This is a civility alert, and yet I have been civil. CarolineWH (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The user fails to acquiesce to a fairly clear-cut consensus regarding the matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion and has attempted to discount my opinion based on my religion.- Schrandit (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
If that were true, I would agree. As it happens, it's not. Sorry. CarolineWH (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That kind of unashamed bigotry is unacceptable. This pattern of editing needs to stop. --King Öomie 19:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
What kind do you mean? CarolineWH (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Schrandit's comment taken at face value. I now realize I can't find that diff. Can you provide it, Schrandit? Other than that, I see no real issue with that talk page at this time (beyond a content dispute, which is not a civility issue). --King Öomie 19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. CarolineWH (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
point # 16 - Schrandit (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the majority of this situation is a content dispute. RfC would be a more suitable venue for this, as all that WQA can do is informally advise. --Taelus (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems to be quite a complex scenario, however what I gather from having read the diffs provided (and this thread as it expanded during my look-in) is that concensus is not to change the term from mother to pregnant woman, and a large variety of sources have been provided to show that "mother" is a highly common term used in such contexts by the media, academic institutions and more. My suggestion would be that User:CarolineWH accepts the current concensus, or files an RfC on the matter, as currently the situation seems to be a circle of the same points being risen again and again. Simply stating "NPOV" each and every time won't do anything if there is no concensus as to whether the term is POV or not. Thus, summary: User:CarolineWH should disengage and accept concensus, or file an RfC in order to gain concensus from a wider group of editors. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Additionally, regarding the entire "mother" as a potentially offensive term, I do not think this is significant as the term is used by a majority of mainstream groups. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide such as it is not a clear cut case, and Wikipedia is not censored. There are many minorities who would find specific terms potentially offensive, however it is impossible to cater to everyone, and I am sure there are just as many who would find the censoring of the use of the term "mother" just as offensive. --Taelus (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
While I would agree with your comments on the content, the question that really needs addressing here is how does one deal constructively with an editor who either genuinely sees nothing wrong with comparing her fellow editors to Klansmen or disingenuously hopes to get away with it? --Paularblaster (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Try sticking to the content.
Imagine if you had compared me to Hitler by saying that I had two eyes, just like Hitler. Would that be the same as comparing me to Hitler in a more general way? The one commonality between conservative religion pro-life adovocates and Klansmen is that both groups can be expected not to see why certain terms they commonly use might be seen as biased or even offensive. This is specifically the connection I drew. Any offense was your own doing, and I'm sorry that you chose to take it personally. CarolineWH (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but do you have anything to say about etiquette? CarolineWH (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Kingoomieiii, looks like a content dispute, the link provided to show that the issue was "personal" is this one although in the last part of the edit Caroline mentioned that if she "become pregnant and decide to get an abortion, [..] characterizing [her] as [a mother] would be deeply manipulative and offensive; [she'd] report you for WP:CIVIL in a heartbeat. No matter how finely we analyze this, we find no basis for violating WP:NPOV.", Caroline should realize that content in the article space that she finds offensive (or could in a hypothetical situation) is completely different from a violation of WP:NPA, particularly if that content is the result of consensus.
What could be a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:Wikiquette is if she had been referred to personally by someone as something that she personally found offensive, she then asked them not to do so in future, but they continued nonetheless. What is not a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:Wikiquette is if that same thing is done in the article space. Just because you find a certain reference in an article offensive, doesn't make it a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:Wikiquette, remember that it is not specifically referring to you, but is the term that is most widely accepted.
That said, I again remind you that this is a content dispute, and should not really be discussed at WQA, kind regards SpitfireTally-ho! 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. For what it's worth, I was just making a point using myself as an example. CarolineWH (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You gave the impression that you found the content personally offensive, and argued that it should be removed on the grounds of WP:NPA, Paul, apparently taking this as an accusation against him of a violation of WP:NPA brought the issue here. If you hadn't tried to argue that the content should be removed because it was offensive (see WP:CENSORED) then the entire issue would still be regarded as a content dispute, as it should be regarded now. No one made any violations of wikipedia's etiquette policies, and according to your previous comment no one meant to accuse anyone of any such violations. As such the issue should remain as a content dispute. My advice is that everyone tries to keep calm and make sure that personal comments, even those not intended, are avoided, regards SpitfireTally-ho! 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I hoped that I was quite clear that the reason I was one of the people who changed the term is that I feel it is a violation of WP:NPOV. In an effort to explain how it fails to be neutral, I used myself as an example, but I don't think I invoked WP:NPA here except as a hypothetical. In other words, I did not claim to take offense, but that the term would be offensive. Nobody's actually called me a "mother", since I'm not one. In fact, I'm not even pregnant. CarolineWH (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've opined on the underlying issue at the Wikiproject talk page, but in reference to this issue, its highly inappropriate to compare other editors to Klansmen. While I understand what you were trying to say, you need to find a better analogy and avoid highly offensive comparisons like that in the future. Shell babelfish 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I do see your point, so I'm wondering if you can help me. Can you think of a better analogy that captures the tendency for groups of like-minded people to share terminology which outsiders find offensive? CarolineWH (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Rephrasing mother to woman when an original document says mother strikes me as having nothing at all to do with neutral point of view. I think the appropriate guideline you want is WP:Words to avoid. Find grounds under that and get consensus, otherwise far from satisfying WP:NPOV this strikes me as censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Potentially troubling quote

  • Since this is getting quite muddled and confusing (or at least, it is for me if no one else), separating this into a subsection. In response to User:Paularblaster, I dug around in the diffs and talk pages and found what I think is potentially the wikiquette issue here:

"As it turns out, the three people who have thus far argued here for the use of "mother" by claiming it is neutral are themselves religious conservatives who would call themselves pro-life. They are therefore from the partisan group that is notable for abusing this term. While I AGF, of course, this would suffice to explain why they don't recognize how controversial this usage is, as it is likely commonplace among their fellow churchgoers and activists. It is in some ways akin to Klansmen who see nothing improper with Mr. Fuhrman's vocabulary. CarolineWH (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)"

(Extracted from this lengthy diff: [76], penultimate point that was numbered in the list.)

This is indeed slightly troubling, whilst User:CarolineWH claims to assume good faith, dismissing opponents as partisans is troubling, and the comparation of the situation to Klansmen is a poor choice of wording, although possibly not intended as a strong personal attack. --Taelus (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, THAT'S not alright.
  • Where did you get this information that the users are pro-life?
  • Why does it immediately cheapen their position? Sorry, but the validity of the Pro-Choice movement isn't as clear-cut as that for evolution- you can't discount their position as 'fringe'.
  • What leads you to believe that they're activists?
  • What in the world made you think that this edit might be okay? --King Öomie 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The three who have been most vocal are, by their own admission, pro-life partisans. I am, by my own, a pro-choice one, though it's not a major issue for me. Two of them are fairly conservative Catholics, while the last is a Mormon. None of these are reasons to dismiss their argument, and in fact, I do not do so on this basis. Rather, after first explaining with all those numbered points just why they are mistaken, I tossed this out to help them understand that perhaps their intuitions about what is offensive may not be accurate. CarolineWH (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
We are not partisans. My pro-life inclinations no more prejudice my conclusions than do any one elses inclinations. You came on here as a pro-choice SPA, are you even open to conceding to consensus on this issue? - Schrandit (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You're mistaken about the nature of partisanship. To be a partisan is simply to adhere to a particular cause or faction. We are both partisans in this, and that's fine. What's not fine is when communication breaks down and people are accused of personal attacks when none exist. As for SPA's, I think it's pretty obviously not the case, so I'm going to firmly ask you not to call me that again. Thanks. CarolineWH (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at your edit history I think it is very fair to call you an SPA. - Schrandit (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Schrandit, it is inaccurate and I take personal offense. I asked you not to call me that, and you did it anyway. To what do I owe this discourtesy? CarolineWH (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be discourteous and I meant no offense by it but at this juncture your edit history aligns with an SPA and it would be dishonest of me to say that it does not. - Schrandit (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As for the other users in the discussion, I do not know but it says that I am pro-life on my user page. I am but I don't think this undermines my ability to appreciate a logical argument or my commitment to present an encyclopedia that is as near to the truth as we can configure it. - Schrandit (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem here is that that point precludes the possibility of the writer actually being incorrect. People who don't share your viewpoint aren't doomed to never understand it- that way of thinking in itself is derived from pure hubris. "No one could share my knowledge and disagree with me- I must know something they don't". It's not so clear-cut with ethical issues. The pro-choice standpoint of using the word "mother" is only partly manipulative. To many, it's simply accurate. It's not fair to say that they don't "see the controversy". By definition, if very few people contest a point, then it isn't a controversy, is it? --King Öomie 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it is not the case that very few people contest this point; there is a genuine controversy. I would add that I am sure that Schrandit can see past his own biases and at least understand, if not agree, with the opposition. However, to do so, he would first need to be made aware of that bias, which is what I tried to do. CarolineWH (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"...Their intuitions about what is offensive may not be accurate."

There it is again. We're talking about a subjective issue. The most progressive viewpoint isn't automatically 'correct'. --King Öomie 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
We're talking a matter of neutrality. A controversial term is objectively less appropriate than the proper, uncontroversial term. Again, this is a content debate, not a civility one. I welcome you to join the content discussion, but why is this here? CarolineWH (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
But, as soon as you censor one term in favour of another, it becomes contriversial because some will find it offensive that they are not allowed to use the term "mother". It isn't as simple a choice as you are laying out. --Taelus (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow. We avoid terms because they're controversial. They do not become controversial merely because we avoid them. Consider this edit. CarolineWH (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, see Streissand effect. --King Öomie 21:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's an interesting link. I don't think it happens to apply here, based on the order of events, though. For example, recent actions on Wikipedia could not have caused an Australian doctor to write an article some time ago. CarolineWH (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
When the community agrees that it is not a matter of neutrality and you attempt to obstruct editing and undermine editors’ credibility it escalates to here. - Schrandit (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You do not speak for the community. CarolineWH (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that I do. But after ample discussion, the community opposes the idea that mother should be censored. - Schrandit (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Once again, you attempt to speak for the community. I find this terribly unconvincing. Likewise, following WP:NPOV by avoiding biased terminolgy is by no means censorship. CarolineWH (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not. - Schrandit (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(undent) The concensus is indeed to continue using the term "mother" in the way it is currently. If you still dispute this, I suggest you make a Request for Comment (RfC) for it, as this would be the next step in the dispute resolution process. It is not within the scope of WQA to resolve content disputes and we can only advise. --Taelus (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose CarolineWH agree not to compare editors to Klansman in the future, Schrandit agree to stop accusing her of being a socket puppet, both agree to continue the discussion or agree to disagree on the article talk page, Taelus refrain from making assertions here about the article consensus, and we close this Wikiquette alert. Gerardw (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to my part in that. I've also added a clarification to the original comparison in an effort to avoid further insult and am actively looking for a better alternative. CarolineWH (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The more troubling quotation is this one:
"Klansmen are people too, and would tell you that they are good Christians to boot. I'm sorry you dislike my analogy, but I suspect that this just shows that you understood it."
Any assumption of good faith becomes hard. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, Caroline has agreed to avoid such comments in future. What more do you want to achieve via this WQA? Either take the issue to WP:AN/I if you want punishment meted out or settle with what Gerardw has proposed, regards SpitfireTally-ho! 08:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd missed that. It's the beginning of a start that she says she won't do it again, but simply expunging the remark and apologizing for it would be a better one. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not quite sure why I must stop making assertions about concensus? This was brought to WQA, and using the diffs and evidence provided by both parties I have given my suggestions. However, if I am not helping the process, I will step out at this point. My apologies. --Taelus (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I was unclear -- your effort towards developing consensus are definitely valuable and can help the community make the article better. The emphasis was on here -- it's my opinion such consensus building works much better on the article talk page. I see WP:CIV as independent of the article content.Gerardw (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (unindenting)
The editor has revised the remark to this extent. Struggling to take this seriously as evidence of good faith. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Please see my comment above. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
As I say, I try to stick to content, but I'd somewhere picked up the notion that this sort of stalking was a matter of very serious concern to the community. Do you mean that I'm wrong about that, or that this is so serious that this is not the forum for it and it should go to WP:AN/I? --Paularblaster (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Not helpful in achieving voluntary Wikiquette and not the right forum. determining whether there is a pattern here seems like [wp:wikihounding] to me. Gerardw (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. We've resolved the issue you brought here, Caroline has said she won't make the insults she made to you again. But following this you've immediately gone and dragged up something new. If you really want to press the issue about WP:OUTING take it to a more appropriate noticeboard, I personally think we've done all we can here, and if that's not enough then the issue should be taken elsewhere where they can do more.
The diff provided seems to me to be a one-off none malicious example of harassment, Wikipedia:Harassment#Consequences of harassment states: "Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith", as this seems to be an isolated incident of OUTING (if it's even that) I suggest that the matter is dropped, however if you wish to pursue it please take it to a more appropriate noticeboard. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Your comments do rather make me wonder how I am to see whether there's a pattern of harassment without looking at the user's history. If I look, I'm hounding her; if I don't, I won't know whether this is an isolated incident. Personally, my blood ran rather cold to read how this editor tried to find out another's place of work through deceit. You're right that this is more serious than wikiquette. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that, from my perspective, this sure does look like hounding. While I'm sure that's not your intention, maybe this is a good time for you to back off. CarolineWH (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CarolineWH (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolineWH. -- Paularblaster (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2009 (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:Datheisen

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Forum-shopping and canvassing is not permitted - see Wikipedia:Ani#Wiki_stalking_.26_harassment.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user try to wrongly accusing me as vandal, stalking, personal Attack to me.

  • Datheisen : This is the only warning you will receive'. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit [86]
>> Wrongly accuse me, and he said "i did a personal attack to him" Check link[87]. I said to him "Can you keep neutral manner please? shall you? Use article talk page before reverting." Was it Really personal Attack to him?
  • Datheisen : "Oh, and you leave me little choice than to report you for disruption and harassment. Cheers~"[88]
>> Bullying
>> He delete my warning message and said "comedic rubbish".
  • Datheisen : I'm really sorry that an actually important discussion over puppets and tagteaming was interrupted by this gigantic time sink dropped on my head.[90]
>> Bullying
His patern is simple
  1. Stalking me
  2. Reverting my edits
  3. Wrongly accuse me as "vanadalism"
  4. Bullying - certainly not good faith editor
WP:uncivil, WP:tenditious, WP:Disruptive. Can you give warning to him? This user try to stalking me and harassment all my edits. How can protect me from his harassment? --660gd4qo (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This was also raised at WP:ANI. 660gd4qo should deal with this in that forum and no reraise in other forums. Dmcq (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2009 (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:Drsmoo

Stuck
 – (Proposer still believes there is an incivility problem, I have suggested reliable sources noticeboard for immediate poroblem and content resolution process for content dispute. Dmcq (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I’ll list the various warnings over the last six months regarding the main article Drsmoo edits, which is Gilad Atzmon. The civility issue is Drsmoo's antipathy towards Atzmon and those who try to make the article more NPOV.

The last incident made me less confidant than ever that there is a resolution to this incivility problem. Advice welcome. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The circular logic of of the above editor showing her numerous ignored complaints against me and attacks against me throughout the site to justify a new attack is evident. One can look right at the mediation, which CarolmooreDC threatened to leave throughout its duration, (while simultaneously insulting the mediator both on his talk page and elsewhere), before she finally left the mediation, to see that it is her who has ignored substantial issues. If she has an example of a substantial issue that I "ignored" I hope she posts it here.
An example of uncivil behavior would be Carolmooredc straight up deleting several paragraphs from the Gilad Atzmon page today, which were in dispute in mediations and on noticeboards she had initiated. Or asking for help from other editors on noticeboards only to completely remove their edits, ignore their intent, and replace it with her own statements. The Gilad Atzmon talk page has become almost entirely a collection of CarolmooreDC attacking me, citing "violations" while not a single admin has agreed with her. For the past few months, she has been going to noticeboard to noticeboard to mediation to noticeboard attacking me, and then before they can come to a decision, she starts another discussion on another noticeboard, hoping to finally find an editor or admin who agrees with her. The same being done in the mediation mentioned here. She threatened during the duration to leave the mediation if it did not go her way, all the while attacking me. At the same time she has been citing me for nonexistant violations everywhere she possibly can, and all have been ignored, and now compiling a list of her own inaccurate accusations. It just goes on and on and on.
Additionally, and unfortunately, the above poster is very comfortable in twisting the truth in order to slander me. For example, she posts a diff that seems to suggest I was warned of a "topic ban" This is false, she'd rather you not see that very quickly the editor modified his statement, saying I had not been confrontational. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drsmoo&diff=282849170&oldid=282834816 the diff she cites was part of the generic message included as a result of CarolmooreDCs complaining, and no action was taken against me whatsoever. Of course Carolmooredc, in typical Uncivil fashion, would rather hide that, in the hope of getting me banned. Similarly the false claim that I didn't provide diffs during mediation is blatantly untrue, as you can see. Though she even claimed that inside the mediation, sometimes when the diffs were literally directly above her post. Additionally, Carolmooredc continues to pretend that the article was locked because of my edits, despite the fact that it was my version of the page that the article was locked with, and no admin action has ever been taken on my edits, despite CarolmooreDC claiming they were NPOV for almost a year straight. Despite CarolmooreDC's persistent hounding and desperate distortions of the truth to attempt to get me banned so she can impose her POV on the Gilad Atzmon page, I have not had any issues with admins t all, aside from a single accidental 3rr violation.
Her initial statement too is blatantly false. In fact, during the mediation, I proposed that I would stop editing the article, if she instead posted her proposed changes on the article talk page for the rest of the editors to discuss (rather than hoping for admins on noticeboards to impose her changes) she refused. She has no good faith in the editors of the article, and has been cited by an admin for editing with an "appalling lack of good faith. Is every person with whom you disagree going to be tarred with the false accusations of your choice? " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=321135528&oldid=321135468 This is exactly what she has been doing for the past year. Not a single editor or admin has agreed with her proposals for the article, or with her attacks against me, but she is desperately going from one noticeboard to another, trying to get her POVs forced on the article. Drsmoo (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

<Backdent>As usual Drsmoo makes a lot of accusations without backing them up.

Please provide an example of something I haven't backed up. Drsmoo (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe there has been a misunderstanding on the part of the filer about civility. Wikiquette only deals with civility between wikipedia editors. Drsmoo's attitude to the subject of an article may break neutral point of view for all I know but I haven't seen any real civility problems against wikipedia editors. This is a content dispute and if the filer wants to assert Drsmoo is showing bad faith or not following content policies they should follow that path on the WP:dispute resolution process. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The incivility issue towards me is more complicated than the more easily listed warnings from admins, which perhaps belong back in edit warring, though that just lead to an ineffective mediation last time. The bigger problem of (current) incivility happens because, rather than edit warring and because no other editors bother to opine on specific issues lately on the talk page, I bring them to various relevant boards and Drsmoo immediately follows me and engages either in attacks making false or highly exaggerated claims without any proof or provides diffs that are only marginally relevant to whatever he is attacking me about, which queers the whole discussion and people tend not to respond. This even happened in mediation, as diffs above indicate. I could provide a bunch of diffs on that, but not sure if that would be relevant here. Also, if I change the specifics of the complaint, or if it seems it should be moved elsewhere, should I archive the thread or let someone here do it, as not to clutter things up? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The forum to ask about reliable sources is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you can't easily find a particular forum like that the Wikipedia:Help desk can help point you in the right direction. This is not an incivility problem as far as I can see. Please stop alleging incivility until you can show something according to WP:CIVILITY. Forum shopping with allegations like this are not considered good practice in Wikipedia. Please try and assume good faith and confine your arguments to the subject rather than another editor. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for trying to get the complaint right, per your original critique. But have struck relevant section. I have to hurry off computer til tomorrow. Meanwhile maybe you can leave a message as to whether I should delete whole complaint until/if I decide to provide relevant diffs to deal with the problem I'm having because I refuse to edit war and instead seek others' opinions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No it'll just get archived away. If you still think there has been incivility but are going away for now then I'll mark it as stuck to say there was no good resolution. Dmcq (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2009 (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.

Claims of conspiracy and political attack by User:Binarygal against other editors

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

Binarygal (talk · contribs) has made repeated allegations against other editors (in RfC discussions) on their motivations for removal of external links on Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library. When editors reply to these allegations, a consistent response from Binarygal has been to declare that she/he is a victim of attack. I would like some advice on how to handle these allegations and if they are considered to be disruptive editing, particularly considering the long term consistent history on this talk page and that recent edits appear to be in order to avoid reaching a consensus in RfC discussions. Examples below:

Note, an alert was raised over six months ago (about the same talk page and the same issues) without positive conclusion where Binarygal refused to acknowledge that their editing behaviour was not acceptable: WQA Binarygal.—Ash (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling here is that Binarygal is making a big deal of the inclusion of external links to give 'balance' between the 'official' websites and the 'community' websites (which is not why we have external links), and appears unable to discuss this objectively and calmly. In each of the 2 cases where she has objected to the removal of external links, the only apparent case for including them was that they are 'open' community sites. In my view it makes no difference whether a website is official or from the 'community'. What matters with regard to inclusion as an external link is whether the site in question is of sufficient quality and has a sufficient depth of content on the subject in question to be suitably linked from an encyclopedia article. In these cases, I don't believe that's the case. The wiki currently under discussion has very minimal content on ITIL and in many areas less than is already contained within the WP article. I could also find no evidence that it is seen as an authoritative source. Binarygal's questioning of my motives for expressing this opinion is at the very least a failure to assume good faith, and the constant accusations (without any evidence as far as I can see) of a conspiracy against the open community are getting tiresome. If Binarygal has such evidence to present, she is welcome to present it. In my view Binarygal is entitled to express an opinion on whether these sites should be included, but with regard to the accusations it's a case of "put up or shut up".--Michig (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like this should be handled by WP:ANI to handle failure to assume good faith as talk has already been tried. Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The other alternative of course is to ignore the problem. Do you feel Wikipedia is being disrupted or that you personally have been attacked or that people have been driven away? I'm not keen on ignoring problems but sometimes it is the best way of proceeding. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Allegations about the motivations of other editors might sometimes fall under WP:DNFTT, however Binarygal is actively disrupting RfCs. The nature of the comments would put off new contributors expressing an opinion in the RfC as it would seem like a slanging match was going on; who would want such allegations made against themselves if they were seen to comment against Binarygal's viewpoint? Consequently I believe these to be disruptive edits as the RfC consensus process is being hijacked by one editor. I hope that Binarygal will take the opportunity to recognize this fact through the WQA process rather than applying the ANI process.—Ash (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
So you don't feel personally attacked and I don't see much evidence of much real trouble otherwise. I think Binarygal is doing herself(?) more harm than good by not arguing the point on straightforward grounds. Just because something was previously removed that obviously should have removed doesn't mean anything about motives of the people who removed it. The current discussion is about something for which a better case can be made but going around accusing people of various motives is not the way to do it. Such accusations say nothing about the content and do not contribute to keeping it. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I did say anything about my feelings about being personally attacked. These particular accusations of motivation relate to membership of professional institutions. One reason I changed my account name was due to potential outing due to Binarygal's harassing accusations of secret agendas over the past two years. I have no interest in my edits on Wikipedia being related to my professional credentials and such accusations put other editors on the defensive about their professional experience and association with ITIL. Other contributors who may wish to express their opinions in an RfC about the ITIL page are likely to have similar reservations if their professional experience is ITIL related.—Ash (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you a diff to where a potential outing seemed to be threatened? Dmcq (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Accusations of motivation are a challenge to editors to explain their life outside Wikipedia, this is why it is not accepted behaviour. In this example it is implied that I must be an affiliated professional. In the diffs quoted above, stating that there must be political or commercial motivation calls into question my membership of associations (i.e. political) and the nature of my business/employment. You will note that my change of name was several months ago due to similar declarations about motivation from Binarygal.—Ash (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you please stop going on about a previous username. If you don't want to out yourself then don't give out personal information or anything about a previous username. Don't confirm or deny anything about your life outside of Wikipedia. Next consider whether Binarygal couldn't have outed you long before now and done whatever it is you fear long before now. Are you alleging Binarygal was attempting outing? Dmcq (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is drifting off the original issue. Repeatedly claiming political or commercial motivations against other editors in two RfCs is not civil behaviour. As this behaviour is identical to the reasons a previous WQA was raised over six months ago, I am surprised that the conclusion now seems to be that it should be swept under the carpet and an approach of DNFTT may the right tack when such behaviour is disrupting active attempts at consensus. I'm not sure why I seem to be defending myself here; examine the diffs and read through the talk page in question.—Ash (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please stop quoting DNFTT, that is an allegation of vandalism which is not justified here. I have pointed out that WP:WQA was of no use before. Wikiquette has no enforcement powers, it is just to talk to people. I see little point in your coming here again and have advised you either to WP:just drop it or follow some other part of WP:dispute resolution like WP:ANI. Personally I think just drop it is the right course. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your advice. As I feel I have had my fingers burnt raising this WQA, I am not inclined to pursue the matter on ANI. I guess for the time being the RFCs in question will continue to be disrupted.—Ash (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is a problem here, and I guess that Dmcq is hitting similar frustrations to me.
What am I supposed to do? I am only interested in content, not in the admin of Wikipedia or its meta-world. I see a serious problem with the content of that article: the drift to exclude the reality it is supposed to reflect and document. I have argued for it rationally. I have explained the political background and the commercial interests that are rife in that arena. I have tried to protect the article and make sure it has at least SOME balance, and make sure that open is not ignored/censored/whatever.
But again, again, and again, the SAME people return and seek to remove the references to the reality. Please follow the FULL history of the editing on the talk page.
Please look at it carefully.
Is that normal? And have I done anything that anyone who is concerned with the content would not have done? I haven't. I have constantly tried to explain the reality, and have not abused anyone.
Have I been abused? YES I have. Just look a few para's up from the bottom. I am basically being called a troll. And then there are all sorts of other dark suggestions (and yes, I stopped editing other pages when I became so sickened about what was happening to this particular page).
Is that ok to do that? To abuse me? Why is he (Ash) not being discussed here? I have done nothing like that at all. Nothing. Nor have I 'outed' him or anyone else in any way, as Dmcq mentions. I have just been trying to protect an article from being made totally one sided and from being edited such that it implies the open movement doesn't even exist, when in reality it does exist. Look at how they got rid of the link to the main open community (especially when consensus is mentioned).
To be honest I also feel like I am the subject of bullying. I feel that someone who is obviously totally determined to getting rid of refs to the open movement, who has been battering at the two links (yes, just two links) for a year, and who obviously knows the meta-mechanics of Wikipedia better than I do, will not let go until the references are completely gone, regardless of right, wrong or reality.
It is horrible. I am just a contributor who spotted something that is clearly wrong and stood up and said so. But I feel I am being swept aside for daring to resist and spell out the reality of the ITIL arena. I feel that my efforts to the protect the article are futile because every device possible will be used, and there is no limit on the effort that will be applied. I do not feel that this is normal behaviour.
I have been abused as a 'troll', my behaviour has been questioned, and now I am being accused here. I really do feel bullied, and feel that someone should do something to stop it, investigate why it is happening, and above all protect the article.
At the very least, could Dmcq or someone keep a close eye on this? Thanks. BinaryGal (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The link to the open community was removed quite rightly as far as I can see and explicitly in line with Wikipedia guidelines on such things, no good grounds had been established for its exclusion from the general category of WP:ELNO#10. As to the current dispute; talking about conspiracy and the previous deletion etc etc is all just noise. It blocks out any message and annoys other editors. It makes editors more likely to reject what you say just because you aren't saying something useful rather than because of anything about the actual subject. Keep to the subject and not the people. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot has useful advice. You need to say why the external is worth keeping. You're on better grounds with itlibrary.org than the previous link so Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is a place you could ask for guidance. Dmcq (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette claim is not supported by evidence. This is a content dispute. And the filer's user's to keep any eye on list on his user page is itself of dubious civility. Gerardw (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment about my user page seems tangential, the user sub-page is part of my useful links and makes no unsubstantiated claim about other editors. Could you explain your criticism of my user page, and why a detailed examination of the content of my user-space is relevant to this WQA about disruption of RfCs? This appears to be a fishing expedition rather than an examination of the article talk page in question. With editing history of 12,000+ contributions I am sure there is plenty of further random ammunition you can pick out to fire at me if this is how WQAs are conducted.—Ash (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If this is addressed at me, I don't even know what it means, and I care even less. Please stop harrassing me, yet again.
I wasn't asking for an eye to be kept on a user page, but on the ITIL article.
Also, the note made on my comment page also totally misrepresents me. By 'protect' I meant protect the article from abuse: articles are protected every time a bogus edit is revered!
Why are my words being picked up and twisted from their intended meaning? All I have ever asked is for the article to be protected in that the politics are understood, and thus that the ITIL open movement is not censored out by deleting the last remaining reference to part of it. The determination to block it totally, over about two years, is shocking.
The irony is that years ago I once argued like this for Wikipedia on a forum, when anti-open interests were beating down upon it because it was outside the commercial/political framework. What a state of affairs when I am now having the same issue on Wikipedia itself. It's disturbing. BinaryGal (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it was not. I refer to the opening statement of this WQA, "a consistent response from Binarygal has been to declare that she/he is a victim of attack".—Ash (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that is because I am being harrassed, and I am sick of it. Stop making allegations against me and stop abusing me (eg: 'troll', which is on record). Just leave me alone. All I am doing is attempting to keep an article objective and politically balanced, yet this is spilling over to this.
Can someone help me to stop this? It is appalling. BinaryGal (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have to reply, as you have several times misquoted me on the same single incident, using it to inflame your argument. I referred to the essay m:What is a troll? as preferred guidance to another editor. From that, you are inferring that this means you are a Troll, but this has a specific meaning as defined in that essay for certain types of editing behaviour and how best to manage such situations. If you wish to quote me again, please use a diff for accuracy and read the essay before assuming you know what "troll" means in this context.—Ash (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Binarygal, please stop alleging harassment and concentrate on content, doing that too often on the talk page could be counted as being disruptive. And Ash please try to not reply to things every time. If you both always reply to each other then any misunderstanding will just flare up and never stop. You've got to occasionally ignore things. You both should know if you're familiar with IT what happens if an automated email response always replies without checking how often the email has gone round the loop. Dmcq (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that advice, however when a direct personal allegation of harassment is made, wouldn't it be foolish not to take it seriously?—Ash (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is it serious? What harm do you believe might come to you? If you really really feel you must how about trying to reply to something like that only one in two times? The cycle needs to be broken whenever it looks like starting up. Do you want to edit articles or to argue? Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that seems to be your consistent advice so I'll assume WP:HA#NOT is inappropriate in this case and no other editor or administrator will take these claims of harassment against me or other contributors seriously.—Ash (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It has been taken seriously. But it came here before and this sort of thing with advice is as much as can be done here. If you want actual action as I said before you'd need to raise a WP:ANI. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The dispute between Ash and Binarygal has included uncomplimentary remarks on both sides. I suggest that both Ash and Binarygal try to avoid commenting on each others' motivations. But Binarygal's constant effort to have links included seems like it is over the top and has the potential of wasting the time of other editors. (A campaign of link insertion, by a single editor on one article, which continues for six months is outlandish). Another place to get feedback on questionable links is WP:EL/N, the External Links Noticeboard. One way to resolve ridiculous linking fights is to make efforts to raise the level of the article and include more well-cited material. This way, URLs can be used as references for specific facts included in the article, rather than as plain external links. Maybe the people working on this article might consider submitting it for WP:Peer review, and eventually getting it to WP:Good article status. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You have mis-read the history here. The links to the ITIL open movement sites have always been there. But they have gradually been stripped away to render the article non-reflective of the real world. I have resisted this to the point where there is now only the single link to outside the political/commercial bubble. That is entirely different to a link-insertion scenario.
In the process I have encountered what you can see for yourself on the talk page and elsewhere, including allegations and outright abuse. I have actually felt sick about it on a number of occasions, and have only stayed because it is just so wrong. BinaryGal (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I've seen those links removed but they needed a justification. Presence for a time is only a weak justification. As I said before and EdJohnston has reiterated WP:EL/N is where you should go for advice if there is conflict about an external link. If you could find some actual real material for the article which referenced the link that would be much better. Just because it is part of some open movement and Wikipedia is open isno justification for its inclusion. Your feelings about it are I'm afraid irrelevant. WP:EL describes what types of external links are okay. It may be that it will be deleted anyway but you should try and make a reasonable case for the external link and talk about it rather than talk about yourself and harassment. Dmcq (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (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.

Bad language in a bad edit from an anon

Resolved
 – ignore one time behavior from anonymous ip. Gerardw (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Any suggestions what to do about this? I couldn't find a template in WP:UTM that fit. Maybe npa, but I see it less as a personal attack and more as mindless vulgarity. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

there's a Template:Uw-wrongsummary, but it might be more appropriate to direct their attention to Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding_incivility (or just to ignore it, unless it becomes chronic) Sssoul (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
IPs I ignore unless there is a pattern by them. In this case though there may be some genuine information, perhaps Snake in a box should have an may mean to metal gear though I'm not sure of that. My meaning for it would be as an origami figure but that wouldn't be notable either. There's few enough IPs that contribute usefully I tend to try an welcome them whatever they're like. Welcome and thanks with a polite note? Dmcq (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If you see an edit with an extremely offensive edit summary, you can report it at WP:ANI and ask for it to be oversighted. A check shows that this is a Russian IP address that hasn't made any other edits, so blocking would not be useful unless the abuse continues. Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks all. It sounds like ignoring is a reasonable enough option. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2009 (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.

Can someone please take a look at my discussion with User:TheFarix?

Resolved
 – agreed to let it go this time Gerardw (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can someone please take a look at my discussion with User:TheFarix, which starts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advancer Tina and continues at User talk:TheFarix? We disagreed about two issues in the AfD discussion, and during our discussion of the second issue, he posted comments that I found rude. Though I don't think he meant to be rude the first time, he has continued to post the same comment again and again even after I said that I found it rude. I've also asked him for more explanation several times, but he doesn't seem willing to explain further. Calathan (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not see TheFarix's comment as especially rude, but if you did, it would have been reasonable to say so once and then drop it. Your behavior here strikes me as hounding TheFarix, and I suggest that you declare victory and walk away. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if you think I should just drop the issue, I will. Calathan (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2009 (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.

Tryptofish on Talk:Crucifixion

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – referrred to AN/I Gerardw (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Found on Talk:Crucifixion by User:Tryptofish...

I am raising the issue of you being a massive fucking sperglord Tryptosperg. Anime is NOT FUCKING RELEVANT to the real world at all, and you have a serious mental issue. Seek help.

This [[91]] seems totally out of line. Just when I was patrolling recent changes, I'm not involved. Hope you can help out. Mononomic (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To explain, the original post came from an IP or SPA (see further up the talk page for explanantion). I canned it because, even if Tryptofish is prepared to stand there and be insulted, the post also insults people with Aspergers syndrome and people who experience mental ill health, and I could see no reason why it should be allowed to stand. I disagree with the Fish reverting my deletion, but I'm not about to get into a revert war to remove it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I see. But no block or notice for User:96.236.183.248 because of this? Mononomic (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, and I got distracted trying to work out which one of the disruptive editors posted it. You'll note I removed it rather than reverting. Admin Black Kite has now canned it [92]. That should be the end of the story.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. Mononomic (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Now you've found him, I've slapped him a suitable warning. User talk:96.236.183.248 Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you all for your concern for me. I appreciate it! Please see WP:ANI, where I already started a more extensive thread on the issue. This is more than a matter of just one or two editors showing bad etiquette. There is probably little to accomplish by having this thread here also. I sure hope that administrators will get seriously involved in due time. In the mean time, I would like to ask thoughtful editors to become substantively involved in the actual talk page, because the best antidote for hate speech is civil rebuttal. And by the way, emotionally, I'm just fine. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2009 (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.

Bad faith comment and repeated references that, "this editor has been blocked before"

Resolved
 – The comment was retracted Off2riorob, please do not "unresolve" this thread again. Chillum 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Jusdafax is repeatedly showing a lack of good faith and has repeatedly referred to the fact that other editors have been been blocked before , here is a link to the latest comments where he again show no good faith and again commenting without any reason that I have been blocked before. I have asked the editor Justafax to strike the comment, as yet he hasn't. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the comment Off2riorob objected to was removed prior to this notice being posted, at his request. Jusdafax 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not resolved, there are numerous occasions that this position has been taken, and I would like to discuss this issue further. I will bring some diffs. Off2riorob (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If the comment was removed then what is left to resolve? Are you seeking some sort of action? Because we only block for preventative reasons. Chillum 05:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The section was closed and archived, I was unaware a non-admin had the power to undo that. Jusdafax 05:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a place that admins monitor nor is a block likely to occur as a result of posting here. This is a place for third party, mostly non-admin editors to help peaceably and cooperatively calm disputes before they escalate. The top of this page outlines this and suggests what further options may be available to you. Gerardw (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2009 (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:Londonfifo (possibly a.k.a. 128.123.36.211)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – 3O, WP:AN/EW or WP:ANI.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I had placed the request below in Londonfifo's talk page, where I found an allegation that the user engaged in edit warring shortly after joining the project earlier this year.

The user continues to behave discourteously, including edit warring on the San Jose State University article.

Per policy, I am reporting your personal attacks via the San Jose State University talk page here.

Please refrain from editing until you review and agree to adhere to Wikipedia policies, which are summarized and linked above. Specifically:

  1. Refrain from edit warring, as on the San Jose State University article. You do not own the article. If a disagreement arises, you (we) should attempt to reach consensus on the article's talk page before continuing to edit the article.
  2. Save your edits only when you complete a major revision. Examples such as your 45 (!) consecutive saves to the San Jose State University article--even over the course of three days--obfuscate the revision history and unnecessarily expend Wikipedia's resources by archiving unneeded revision information.
  3. Remember to log in before making edits, to avoid the appearance of sock puppetry. Your contributions strongly correlate with those made by an anonymous user at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.
  4. Avoid conflicts of interests. You have shown no candor regarding your identity and motives for editing the San Jose State University article, and conflicts of interests may likely exist if you are affiliated with it and/or New Mexico State University.
  5. Refrain from making personal attacks such as those against me on the San Jose State University talk page.

Further etiquette violations will be reported at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, which may result in you being blocked from editing, for which you were previously warned (above) in May.

- Johnlogic (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

- Johnlogic (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is for peaceably resolving conflicts, see the top of the page. WP:ANI is the place where people go to about blocking. Also it only deals with WP:Civility problems, personal animosity and offensive behaviour between people rather than heated arguments about a subject. Have you looked at WP:Dispute resolution? I haven't looked at precisely what's happening but it looks like it's mainly the two of you at the moment so a WP:Third opinion might be able to solve some problem for instance? Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2009 (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.

Schrandit.

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

User:Schrandit violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. When he did it here, he was asked by a third party to apologize for it, and also by me. This is part of a pattern of other rude actions by him including an insulting edit comment.

Please note that I have some history with Schrandit, including an RfC/CU of uncertain validity launched by him against me. Now that it's not going well, his hostility and rudeness has been ramped up.

I simply want him to stop with the insults and be less tendentious. CarolineWH (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Are you referring to the edit summaries? Calling edits "childish" and "tiring" instances of "gross incivility" seems over the top, especially on a topic of such sensitivity and one in which both editors are espousing completely opposed POVs. Can you provide, perhaps, additional diffs that substantiate your claims? If this is the substance of your complaint, may I suggest a polite request to the editor that he find a more neutral way to characterise your edits and, if that doesn't work, to request additional input then? I see little evidence of a need to air this at WQA based on the above. May I also remind you that it is critical that you post a notice on the editor's talk page to alert them of a WQA filing. Eusebeus (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
My oversight: I'll drop the notice right now. The harsh edit comments are part of it, but please click on that first link and look at the second change, where he says "Caroline, I wasn't asking you, don't try to speak for others." Also look at the response made by Nick. CarolineWH (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: I participated in the prior WQA [[93]] and make no claims as to neutrality in this section.
In a dispute/friction that has developed over time, it's always seemed to me it's the burden of filing party to clearly demonstrate the other party has been sufficiently uncivil to merit intervention by others. I generally just don't think we can help much here at WQA in the situation of gradually and continuing escalating tension where both parties aren't entirely right and aren't entirely wrong unless all parties are amenable to voluntarily de-escalating the situation. I would therefore recommend to Caroline she voluntarily withdraw this WQA. I concurrently fully support both her good faith and right to continue the process. (In other words, it'd be really uncool to use this diff to slam her in some other forum.) Gerardw (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I respect Gerard's judgement, so I will follow his advice on this matter.
I am voluntarily withdrawing this WQA. My apologies for having taken up your time. CarolineWH (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2009 (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:76.31.237.122

Resolved
 – IP blocked and hopefully IP will not cause more problems. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Content that is considered advertising was entered by this user at Sprecher Brewery. The edits were reverted and user warned at his/her talk page. User left uncivil edit summaries at the article and today on my talk page. Postoak (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comcast IP, with numerous extremely rude edit summaries. I left a message on the talk page; the next step, if this continues, will be a visit to ANI followed by a block. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll put a note on the IP's page about this discussion and point them at WP:CIVILITY and WP:SPAM. If they continue I think a request on WP:ANI for some action would be in order. Dmcq (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Repeated personal attack recently. I will report to WP:ANI. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Postoak, my apologies--the comments on your talk are ridiculous. "Some action would be in order" is an understatement, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2009 (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:Drsmoo (revised per comments)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_ban_two_users_from_article_Gilad_Atzmon Gerardw (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since my previous list of admins’ complaints about Drsmoo was considered inappropriate by User:Dcmq because it did not clearly show Drsmoo’s incivility towards me, I’ll focus instead on that, hoping someone can convince him to stop this behavior.

Regarding the Politics section of Israeli Defense Force member turned musician/political commentator Gilad Atzmon's article (which after an OTRS complaint was protected for 5 months):

Since there is insufficient discussion on the Atzmon talk page and I do not want to engage in edit wars with Drsmoo, I have had to go to various notice boards for opinions on specific WP:BLP (especially Wikipedia:Blp#Criticism_and_praise), WP:RS and 3rr/edit war issues regarding Drsmoo’s edits. Drsmoo follows me to every page and usually emphasizes exaggerated or untrue accusations that sabotage my efforts, rendering his behavior Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. The two most annoying are personal attacks accusing me of trying to protect an antisemite and repeated claims I’m ignoring some alleged consensus of other editors which I consider Wikipedia:Incivility#Identifying_incivility 2C: deliberately asserting false information. In any case, another distraction from reasoned discussions. Just a few of many sample diffs:

  • Oct 22.: Response to same BLP thread: the above editor has managed to turn an article about a little known bigot into a several page defense of his anti-semitism.
  • October 25 on 3rr/Edit warring board: Drsmoo alleged Others have been chiming in consistently, particularly after you asked them too on noticeboards, you just keep reverting their edits. (Note: As the relevant section in talk page shows the only editor from edit boards who made substantive edits never answered my critiques. The other one just agreed the section should be shorter. And so I made corrective changes - based also in part on a past consensus edit.)
  • November 11 Informal Mediation was agree to after my 3rr/edit warring complaint. Drsmoo writes: Carolmooredc's goal is to remove all of Atzmon's antisemitic quotes, regardless of the fact that they are notable (she has no problem using completely non notable sources however). After the above I advised Drsmoo: Please read Wikipedia:Civil#Identifying_incivility #2C which reads "(c) lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information; Constant false and unsupported accusations are not appreciated on wikipedia."
  • Nov 16 Informal Mediation Drsmoo makes false allegations about my editing behavior being against all other editors and the Informal Mediator writes This was going so well until you started to attack Carol, Drsmoo.
  • Nov 16 Informal Mediation: This diff shows my complaint If he keeps attacking me instead of dealing with issues I'm just supposed to ignore it? and Informal Mediator’s warnings to both of us.
  • Nov 20 Informal Mediation: After I question if we need a more experienced mediator (or formal mediation) Drsmoo writes: Carolmooredc will request new mediators until she finds someone who she believes will force her edits on the page.
  • Nov 23 On BLP/noticeboard Drsmoo alleges once again: To begin with, the last time this article was brought here, Carolmooredc completely reverted the significant changes of the two editors who attempted to help, replacing them with her own edits. (Again see Note on October 25 entry above.)

This whole situation has wasted an incredible amount of time I could have spent on the many other articles I edit. I hope I can get some help. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, it was two editors from the noticeboard who you reverted after asking for their help, Hipocrite and Slimvirgin. You deleted both of their edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642088&oldid=321461856 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=321642476&oldid=321642088 and replaced them with the Politics Draft, which you claimed was a collaboration, and it originally was, but which one can see if they check the diffs, was almost entirely composed by you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Politics_draft&action=history.
Then in the midst of discussion, you completely removed the entirety of the disputed section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=327261185&oldid=327251414, (most of which was identical to the politics draft you replaced the section with) which was of course quickly reverted as an act of vandalism. You have have filled nearly the entirety of the article talk page with nonstop attacks on me. Both directly and indirectly (sometimes in the same paragraph) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=284327096&oldid=284319020 "Unfortunately, your claiming he IS an antisemite, based on reading a lot of out of context statements, is exactly the effect that some editors have been working to create in this article for months. We let the WP:RS share that opinion, we don't opine that way ourselves. I've complained about POV for those editors who constantly have made that claim, which is what Drsmoo is mad about. And the reason it is so poorly written is certain editors insist the most negative sounding comments be included." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=282975023&oldid=282872166 "I also left a couple in to make Drsmoo and others who might come along and want to see some outrageous stuff happy."http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=285482150&oldid=285408395 "I think the bottom line remains that Drsmoo for a year has insisted on putting the most negative material on here in the most negative light" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=319272224&oldid=317139827 "Might be needed again because once against Drsmoo insists on taking out of context sentences from Atzmon's writings and sticking them in there." (CarolmooreDC was subsequently advised by that admin that she was editing with an "appalling lack of good faith" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=321125492&oldid=320996245) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=328804721&oldid=328689529 For some reason, CarolmooreDC decided to refer to me as "Drsmoo show"
It hasn't just been on the talk page, CarolmooreDC has been attacking me on various editors pages and on multiple noticeboards. On her own talk page, she has attempted to work with other editors to revise the article as a team, rather than discussing it with everyone on the Gilad Atzmon discussion page, while simultaneously insulting editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=279500434&oldid=279498060 "Also, what to do about Rance? He's been rather sneaky about getting his own writings in there without his name being mentioned (going to fix that now) but not as bad as THF and Drsmoo"
Three of the most recent attacks on noticeboards/in the mediation talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=327563945&oldid=327537164 "Drsmoo is so absurdly opposed to admitting that a number of reliable sources mention that Atzmon is accused of antisemtism for criticisms of Zionism (6 in the article), it is absurd. I think it's a game to get me to focus on the accusations and not on Drsmoo's hatred of Atzmon" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=322357933 "The real issue is your specific edits against policy, like twisting these quotes. You like to throw up a smoke screen of accusations rather than deal with issues."http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Master_of_Puppets&diff=321955412&oldid=321953580 "He only makes vague accusations, which he can't back up with diffs" For over a year, rather than CarolmooreDC working with editors on the article, it's been nonstop topics about me on noticeboards, one after the other after the other Drsmoo (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at the evidence my feeling is still that this is an edit war over content. I shall assume raising this issue in multiple forums was asking for help about resolving the dispute. I am sorry it has continued so long without some peaceable resolution and I'm viewing raising it here as asking for help for a way out. I do not believe talk here would resolve any problems as you have both been involved in moderatorship and other forums about resolving the problems. My feeling at the moment is that the best way to fix all this with the least rancour on both sides would be to be refer it to WP:ANI with the recommendation you both be banned from editing that article for some months and let other people have a go at it instead. Dmcq (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Your recommendation we both be banned is one reason editors might be reluctant to bring problems here, especially if there is a long history that would take a lot of reading to understand. Or maybe I should have just come here the first time he attacked me and then I wouldn't have gotten involved in so much back and forth?? If that's the proper use of this forum, please tell me. And perhaps I should only have mentioned the first issue of his personal attacks, and not brought in the more sticky editing issue which he replied at length to, but I will not seek to counter with a more accurate rendition.
Are there other editors who comment on Wikialerts? Comments welcome.
Anyway, as it happens another more reasonable editor who is very familiar with all the details of the issue and worked on the compromise draft last spring has now agreed to become more involved. Maybe that will resolve the issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
We don't actually block people here; this a mediation forum where we try to get folks to come to mutual agreement. Based on past history and noted that the current and past WQA consist mostly of both of you going back and forth, I don't think we will be able to help you here. What works best is raising the issue(s) and allowing time for the process to work; each party responding immediately to the other makes it less likely that I, and perhaps other editors, will want to get involved. As DMCQ indicated, if blocking is necessary a referral to AN/I would be the next step, not that I recommend that. Gerardw (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with your suggestion DMCQ. I can't see anything wrong with letting the rest of the Wikipedia community take over work on the article and decide what makes it most accurate. Drsmoo (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Continuing with her disruptive edits, CarolmooreDC restored her edits which no editors have agreed with, and singlehandedly decided to abort the mediation that she felt was not going her way. This was after repeatedly insulting the mediator both on his talk page and elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation&diff=326654780&oldid=326540754 "he really is not very experienced" "doesn't understand the issues or how to address them" I hope something can be done about these increasingly caustic disruptions. Drsmoo (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I would support Dmcq's suggestion that both editors be banned from the article, either temporarily or permanently. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that people do not have to stay in mediation (Informal like that one was, or formal), especially when there are so many personal attacks. The mediator did not mind my comments writing in his last missive on November 23: "Carol (oh, and in reply to your above statement, no personal offence taken, so do be honest)."
Anyway, before any banning from the article I did want to get on the record (See Diff) that my proposed changes actually solved serious WP:OR, WP:POV problems and thus made these changes which Drsmoo of course immediately reverted. And Talk Page editors have agreed on making the section shorter, which I did, and on ending cherry picking of quotations our of context of WP:RS, which I did. I don't know who has agreed with any specific Drsmoo edits. (Noticeboard editors have been all over the place on various issues.)
And, yes, this has taught me that as soon as there is a personal attack of any type what so ever one must come to this noticeboard and NOT engage the person at all or sooner or later one will be blamed as well and banned from the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Gerardw makes excellent points and I don't actually have a problem with the two of us agreeing to a voluntary block on the article and talk page by an admin for, say two months, IF we can just delete the second two paragraphs of Gilad_Atzmon#Politics which contain the WP:OR and POV editing problems which I think violate BLP. And IF new editors put in problematic material and there are real BLP problems which other editors do not deal with, we can report them to WP:BLPN. Again, it should be noted that after the OTRS an Admin did delete all of the critical material (now back in in shorter form) as being problematic and after a now retired editor kept putting it back (See this diff and the next few following ones), he asked for the article to be protected. So it's not like I'm going rogue here asking for the article NOT to violate BLP. ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have raised this at WP:ANI#Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon. I don't know if it's the way to do things according to the dispute resolution process but I think it is the best path for both for the editors and for WIkipedia. Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think having the rest of the wikipedia community work on the article would be a far better solution. I think some people have stayed away as a result of all the conflict between us. In response to CarolemooreDC's statements:
The statement that the the material Carolmooredc disputes was deleted after an OTRS is factually wrong. The article was locked with the relevant information featured http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=284054107&oldid=284053969, immediately after the article was unlocked, CarolmooreDC resumed deleting the material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&diff=317484413&oldid=317237627 Drsmoo (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Any one who bothers to follow back several edits from your first link sees that the admin deleted material and others put it back and then others deleted it, and at the time it was locked it was back in again. And I think anyone can see in the second link that my edit summary rem two tags no longer relevant with removal of primary source material without clear sourcing, WP:Undue rambling barely related to WP:RS point is accurate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe you're referring to the allegations of antisemitism section that was removed, yes that was overly long and had become full of justifications and apologies? I was very comfortable with the article in the state it was locked in. Drsmoo (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (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:Eightball - personal attacks

Stale
 – left mesage on user talk asking user not to use term "lying" Gerardw (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Eightball has accused me outright here [94] and here [95] of lying with no foundation whatsoever. When asked to retract his accusation, he repeated it threefold, adding another accusation of misleading editors. I don't want to start a big argument on a discussion page with someone who doesn't understand what people are saying to him, and appears not to understand the subject either, but I will not accept charges of lying. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the only post I will make here. There is a list in F1 that is the official entry of list of all teams and drivers. This guy is saying that that list is not solid information, despite the fact that it is the only primary source for such information. That is a flat out lie and serves only to mislead other editors. This isn't a personal attack, it's a fact, and I won't have someone telling me not to correct them. Eightball (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Saying something incorrect is prevarication (or more simply, "being wrong"). Lying is intentionally deceiving someone and use of the term strikes me as both unnecessary and uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Eightball started the thread in question debating a part of this "solid information", which is in fact a temporary and provisional list, updated regularly and which often features anomalous information, leading to long discussions exactly like the one he himself started today. A difference of opinion regarding this list has led to accusations of deliberate lying, which is not acceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Eightball, "lying" is an extremely provocative term, and you clearly use it in a different way than other people do, so you are strongly advised not to use it at all. Just use "wrong" instead. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Don't use the word "lying" unless you mean to accuse someone of deliberately relating what they know to be untrue. You can be incorrect without lying. --King Öomie 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Viriditas multiple accusations against other editors in AfD

Work in progress; comments welcome
 – additional third party input welcome Gerardw (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas (talk · contribs) has made several serious allegations against other editors in this AfD but is not prepared to ask for an investigation. There has been a lively discussion about the article but Viriditas appears to be turning this into a personal argument. Some advice on how to respond to such accusations from this well established editor would be welcome.

Examples of allegations made:

—Ash (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
My inclination is to sympathize with Viriditas here. You can't expect a person who has put a lot of work into an article that has already survived one deletion attempt to be happy when it is hit with a new one. Why not simply stop responding and let the AFD come to completion? Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe that although Viriditas has acted at times that violates Wikiquette, I understand some of the frustration and reasoning that he maybe experiencing. That being said, he has been warned multiple times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and has been asked to be civil. I don't believe that my request for the user to be civil with those who may hold differing opinion regarding the notability of a subject is asking for to much. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to confirm the statement "already survived one deletion attempt"; the above references are to the first AFD on this article, an early PROD was quickly deleted by Viridias without much in the way of general discussion.—Ash (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The diffs provided by the original complainant strike me as, at worst, mildly incivil and best overlooked. Certainly not to a level that I would support intervention. Gerardw (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible example of hounding. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N/N was linked to in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mun_Charn_Wong which Viriditas has been participating in; it's a reasonable good faith assumption he followed the link rather than hounding anyone. Gerardw (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Good lord. If no one else wants to hone up to it, I'll take full responsibility and do a bound-to-be-a-mess non-admin close as delete since this is never going to end otherwise. As in, never. Ever! It's been derailed and just pushed all over the place. The difference between notability of a living person and a recently-deceased are essentially the same, and history has not drive the gears of time forward to advance the concept of notability. Success is not notability, scare mention in 2 books is not notability. Absolutely nothing else there is encyclopedic. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Wong was one of the first Chinese-Americans from Hawaii to fight in WWII at a time when discrimination was rampant. After the war, he became a recognized life insurance salesman and won a prestigious business award for his work. He also managed to perform important WWII research and contributed to military history, as well as creating a scholarship at the University of Hawaii. He is known for his contributions to the field of life insurance (he published on the subject and gave speeches around the world) and he is known for his WWII research and work with the university. You've only been on Wikipedia since the second week of October,[96] and you've never created an article during that time,[97] yet you have 1,421 edits, and from your very first edit you've been participating in project space,[98], devoting almost 27% of your edits to AfD debates, and 31% to user talk pages. Your article work is as low as 28%, so you will understand my concern that you might not be here for the right reasons. In fact, it seems that most of your work here only involves nominating articles for deletion, and your 28% work in mainspace might consist of nothing more than adding deletion tags to articles. That's very strange behavior for an account only created at 11:19, 16 October 2009, if you don't mind me saying so. I'm curious, what is Wikipedia policy on accounts solely designed to delete articles? Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording in edit summary constitutes a personal attack. I have placed a lvl 2 warning on the users talk page, as appropriate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging the "world's greatest life insurance salesman" with multiple unneeded tags, including a "notability" tag, indicates an abuse of the tagging process. Please do some actual research before placing tags on articles. Additionally, expansion requests should not be used on articles already tagged with stub templates like Ben Feldman, as a stub tag is an "explicit request for expansion". If you are unsure of how to use tags, use the talk page and ask questions. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas, I guess as you are not listening, it is useless to point out that repeating criticism of RightCowLeftCoast here and in the AFD does not justify your offensive edit comment of "Suggest tagger do research for the first time in his life".—Ash (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do not continue to support bad editing behavior, which is clearly used to justify the unwarranted deletion of notable articles. This is a pattern, and we can see it in the contribution history. RightCowLeftCoast shows up to add an "article issues tag", then he follows up with a "prod", and then finally, the article is brought to deletion. Feldman has dozens to hundreds of references in the literature, and the notability tag was added for no reason whatsoever other than to justify this tactical deletion strategy. It's bad editing, and it needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
As the article was when I first read it, it received the tag appropriately. As appropriate, as the article is improved, the clean up templates are removed or replaced with more appropriate templates.
Regarding the Feldman article, I have added references denoting increase verification of notability to its talk page for use of other editors to improve the article.
I thank you for trying to show me the 'correct' way to edit wikipedia; however, the personal attacks are not necessary, and are not welcomed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas, I did not support RightCowLeftCoast's tag of the article, I pointed out repeating criticism does not in any way justify your offensive edit comment. Let me repeat, you are not listening and attempts to side-track the AFD are now this WQA are tendentious and manipulative. You only seem to have two types of response, answering questions with questions or making accusations.—Ash (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The goal of WQA is to help users reach mutually agreed upon understandings of how to work better together. It requires good faith and a willingness to listen to uninvolved third-parties from all parties.

  • Ash and RightCowLeftCoast, the first two accusations of Viriditas being uncivil were, at best, thin. Refusing to acknowledge that or withdraw your complaints isn't helpful. Continuing to look for dirt could be considered WP:HOUND.
  • Viriditas, the last edit summary was over the line. Not commenting on the merits of the edit, just the phrasing of your edit summary.
  • RightCowLeftCoast, posting the template on Viriditas's page isn't helpful (WP:DTTR) and if you ask for the community's help here you ought to let the process finish

I'm going to leave the section open to solicit help from additional third-party editors. (Some might disagree with me, and that's cool. It's part of the process.) You guys continuing a back and forth dialogue will not be helpful and most likely result in the alert going stale with no resolution. Not to discourage WP:CIVIL dialogue on the article talk pages; but if that's untenable I'd suggest wikibreaks, article WP:RFC or WP:THIRD, if you haven't tried those already. Best wishes. Gerardw (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

May I kindly ask how reporting continued actions of Viriditas directed towards myself is considered Hounding? I asked Viriditas at least once more to please be civil prior to using a lvl 2 template. It was not something that I did quickly or without hesitation.
I understand what you are saying regarding the back and forth, and distance between editors would definitely go a long way to deesculating the current situation. That being said, I have stopped directly working on Mun Charn Wong in hopes to avoid Viriditas. As soon as Viriditas began editing Ben Feldman (insurance salesman) I have stopped editing that article as well. I believe I have been relatively patient with Viriditas regarding his actions, and have asked multiple times for civility.
If you would like I can stop responding here as well. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have to agree here. Describing my responses to Viriditas' accusations as "looking for dirt" is emotive wording and a misinterpretation of the facts. I added reliable sources to the Ben Feldman article, Viriditas followed our edits, not the reverse. You may find it helpful to note that WP:3O only applies when two editors are involved and WP:RFC could only apply once this WQA is closed.—Ash (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What strikes me as rather rude is Viriditas demanding that every Delete !vote explain themselves, or openly challenging their statement (again and again and again). Seems overly combative. I don't have a stake in the AfD myself, but it's off-putting to see. The community isn't a bunch of idiots and you, and the closing admins know what they're doing. --King Öomie 15:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gerardw that many of the accusations of impropriety have been very weakly founded. It seems to me that the first accusation was made by Ash here, to which Viriditas responded in like by accusing Ash of personal attacks here.
It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that Viriditas mistakenly took Ash's comment; "I originally came to the article to provide a third opinion but I was aggressively rejected by Viriditas" as a personal attack, and said as much later on, which Ash took as a personal attack.
To me it seems that there was no real malice in either patry, at least to begin with, and looks like a honest misunderstanding has simply escalated;
Although I doubt that Ash's first comment was intended as a personal attack, Viriditas took it that way, and from there the entire matter has slowly sunk down. I recommend that you all just leave the issue behind you. You all seem to feel that you have been attacked, and you equally all seem to feel that you haven't made any personal attacks.
My Advice is:
Firstly, be careful when interacting with other users, especially when accusing them of impropriety.
And Secondly, remember to assume good faith as to intent; in a sensitive area like AfD, tempers can fray, it's important to remember that just because a user seems to make a harsh or cutting remark towards you, doesn't necessarily mean that their intent is to hurt. If you can, just ignore it.
Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive76&oldid=1142555679"