Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive25

User:Odd nature

Resolved

 – Article is under protection, and the discussion has ceased to be productive. --Darkwind (talk)

User resorted to personal attacks and other hostilities (not assuming good faith) when I politely explained here why his edits were problematic. In fact, the user blatantly and unabashedly admits to violating WP:ASG with this comment (and he cites non-specific extra-Wiki material to justify it). Jinxmchue 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So? Reading your blog is illegal? Really? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice misrepresentation of what I posted. Jinxmchue 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You caught on. Good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If we are to assume good faith, what should we make of "I don't really give a rat's ass about Wiki rules anymore"? Have you renounced that view? Ossified 12:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You tell me. Jinxmchue 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll tell you. If that's your renunciation, it's pretty weak tea. Ossified 12:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) This is a Wikiquette forum, sarcasm is hardly called for. That said though, Jinxmchue, I don't see any real violations of WP:CIVIL in this links you've provided. (I won't comment on content/editing though, since I haven't looked into it). --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So making baseless accusations of me of not understanding rules and of "white washing" articles is civil? Jinxmchue 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....That runs into an issue raised in WP:SPADE. But since I haven't looked into the details, I don't know who is correct (factually) in this case. (And I haven't read your blog, so I can't comment on whether his allegations have merit). But you are correct, even if he is right, his doubts could have been phrased more politely. I'm not 100% they constitute a personal attack, but they do seem mildly uncivil. I'll leave a note to that effect. --Bfigura ^{(talk)<;;/small>} 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with SPADE. Odd nature disagreed with my edits and defended reverts by uncivilly claiming that I didn't understand the rules (proof of that?) and was trying to white wash articles (which boggles my mind since the reference I removed was nothing more than a second-hand repeat of the reference before it - how can I white wash something when the information remains?). Jinxmchue 07:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Could anyone who has been working on the D. James Kennedy article start out by explaining the issues in User talk:Odd nature#Recent edits to D. James Kennedy? The thread under that heading is a source of much bafflement. Who is talking about removing what references, and for what reason? I see no need to consider what is said in an external blog. Removing references is supposed to require a Talk page consensus. Who among you is confident that he has consensus to remove references, and please point to where that was decided. Removal of tags should need consensus also. EdJohnston 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The reversions made were not made with any consideration as to everything that was being reverted. The initial revert here, which is described by Odd nature as "Restoring deleted content/sources," actually restores a defunct reference (the Coral Ridge Hour reference) which I removed because it doesn't work anymore due to changes to the source website (now it simply goes to the main Coral Ridge Hour page). The revert also was made with no consideration regarding verb tense changes due to Kennedy's death, added date brackets or added fact/citation tags.

I honestly have never seen anyone request consensus when adding or removing references before. Either this isn't a well-known rule or it simply doesn't exist. Jinxmchue 07:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, I find it fascinating that Odd and Guettarda are apparently hiding behind WP:SPADE to defend their incivility. Can I do that, too? Be uncivil and then just say, "Whelp, I'm just calling a spade a spade! You can't nail me for NPA!"? Jinxmchue 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:SPADE? First of all, it's an essay, not a policy. Second of all, it simply describes the fine line between telling the truth and being a jerk. OMG I said jerk. But guess what, if we're talking about somebody making personal attacks, that's exactly what being a jerk is. A jerk is a jerk. The fact that we don't have to sugar-coat everything we say is not an invitation for you to throw WP:NPA out the window, and you (ought to) know it. --Cheeser1 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"It's an essay, not a policy." No! Really? I guess I was confused about that because of how others were portraying it. And incidentally (or not), one person's SPADE excuse for "a jerk is a jerk" is a NPA violation to someone else. Who do you decide is right? Additionally, I could equally use SPADE to justify the things I have said about others. They weren't personal attacks. They were calling a spade a spade. Shall we continue to go around in this endless circle? Jinxmchue 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you refuse to participate constructively, no, we shan't. --Cheeser1 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm being constructive. It just appears that people don't want to deal with uncomfortable questions and comments. Jinxmchue 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, you really do have to call a spade a spade here: Odd nature is consistently rude and uncivil, unless he's tag-teaming with other users like Orangemarlin, FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, ConfuciusOrnis, Filll, or others in their clique. They are their own little "cabal", communicating "off-wiki", intent on berating and beating down any user who might disagree with their well-known and obvious POVs, using whatever means necessary to maintain the "purity" of WP for them, regardless of whether it drives WP into the ground for its (that is, their) obvious bias. And once they have "pegged" you as "not one of us," they will stalk you, hound you, arbitrarily revert you and harass -- even ban -- you until you leave WP for good, because they own WP -- at least their little corner of it. They are their own priesthood, a prole's vanguard of the great unwashed masses who writhe in the muck of their ignorance, and they will brook no dissent from heathen such as yourself.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jinxmchue. Best of luck. --profg 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This I know. Every time I revert their weak and baseless additions, they band together to get around the 3 revert rule. Jinxmchue 01:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the article on D. James Kennedy has been placed under indefinite full protection by User:AndonicO. That suggests we might be able to close this report, least temporarily. Further discussion and negotiation can take place on the article's Talk page. If there is something more that this noticeboard could do, please outline what that is. EdJohnston 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Hefner

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Rogue and I debated for many days on the Discussion Page of the Hugh Hefner biography. He has deleted my comments nearly a dozen times with little or no evidence to support his view that my remarks do not belong on this page.

The statement that Rogue Gremlin opposes is shown, in complete context, in blue, below. It comes from the top of the Hugh Hefner page:

Hugh Marston Hefner (born April 9, 1926 in Chicago, Illinois), also referred to colloquially as Hef, is the founder, editor-in-chief, and Chief Creative Officer of Playboy Enterprises[1]. He is the majority owner of Playboy Enterprise Inc.[2]For decades, Hefner and Playboy Magazine have been icons of American sexuality and a voice for the sexual revolution.

The Playboy empire peaked in 1972 when the magazine sold over 7 million copies. Today, total circulation is just over 4 million.[3] The company Mr. Hefner founded, Playboy Enterprises, has since 1983, been managed by his daugther Christie Hefner, and today derives only one third of its revenues from Playboy Magazine. The balance comes through the dissemination of adult content in electronic form, such as television, the internet and DVD's.[4] Much of this electronic revenue comes not from the soft nude imagery which made the magazine famous, but from hardcore pornography connected with the company's ownership of Spice Digital Networks[5], Club Jenna[6], and Adult.com [7]

In editing this, Rogue Gremlin argues that he "Removed the negative comments on the biography of a living person." This argument is falacious and the comments should be returned. First, the "negativeness" of ownership of pornography assets is nowhere proven. Second, even it were indeed negative, Wiki guidelines do not prohibit such material from being in the biography of living persons. The actual language is: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." None of these conditions hold true as every single thing I posted is plainly sourced.

I argue that Hugh Hefner as the largest shareholder (over 60%), controlling shareholder, and most highly paid officer of Playboy Enterprises Inc. must be measured in no small part by the business results of that company. Once cannot reasonably divorce Mr. Hefner from all that happened since the day after he created Playboy Magazine in 1953. The image of Mr. Hefner as the sophisticated playboy may have once been connected with reality. Today, the business he owns is quite different than the one he started. The magazine itself does not make money. It loses it. Real money is made mostly in the TV and web business in which Playboy (under other trademarks) disseminates hardcore adult entertainment. My citations prove these points. I have not sought to comment on any of this. Only to report it. JerryGraf 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You should try either WP:BLPN or WP:RFC. Best of luck! Sarcasticidealist 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wwefan980

Resolved

The user is blocked for two weeks. M.^(er) 05:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wwefan980 (talk · contribs) made this edit to the Sandbox. I chided him with this, which I thought was a civil reminder. He replied by blanking the comment and putting in this edit summary. I replied with a reminder to be civil, to which he replied with this. I thought my comments were proper, and would like a second opinion. Corvus cornix 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your own comments were perfectly in-line with policy and Wikiquette; although your second comment on his talk page was a bit… terse. His replies were definitely out of line. As a normal part of the WQA process, I'd leave him a note reminding him of the proper application of WP:CIVIL, but you mentioned you primarily wanted an opinion on your own comments. Shall I ping him and see what happens? --Darkwind (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind. I don't want to escalate this, so I don't feel I should make any further comments to him. Corvus cornix 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a message and watchlisted his talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented a little, but this user seems to take anything as an attack. Asking him to be civil is uncivil, according to him, and thus justification for him to retaliate ("They were rude first"). He's also baiting people to incite edit warring (see here) and threatening to report those of us who are intervening (to whom, ourselves?). --Cheeser1 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT taken to an extreme. --Darkwind (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is also extraordinarily troubling. I think these two may need more than some constructive criticism from the WQA. This is out of line too. --Cheeser1 00:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He has also made similar uncivil accusations on my talk page, seen here. I agree with a 1 week block next time the user is uncivil. M.^(er) 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is too bad you aren't an admin Miranda and you are too power hungry to ever be one. I say you get blocked for threatening me by acting like you can block me when you can't. How's that? Wwefan980 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The user is blocked for two weeks. M.^(er) 05:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Guettarda

Work in progress; comments welcome

User also resorted to personal attacks and other hostilities (e.g. this edit about "temper tantrums") when problematic edits were pointed out. Jinxmchue 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPA? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Jinxmchue 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The incivility looks mutual to me, in tone and content. For example, you called his editing "mindless." I only followed the link you gave, so if there is more I have missed it. Bsharvy 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not incivility. That was a description of edits that were obviously not done with any consideration as to what was being changed. Jinxmchue 22:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And there you have it, folks. Everyone else is at fault but Jinxmchue. Odd nature 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Only I am at fault for anything regarding all this. Jinxmchue 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, I think you may not understand what people consider a personal attack. ANYTHING that is a comment about the editor or a quality comment about the edit, when previous comments about editors are present can be understood to be a personal attack. The two WA listings here seem to be a lack of good faith on your part as much as on others, based on the links you've shown. keep to neutral descriptions of comments (i.e., removing unsourced material) when you feel the need to revert someone. Also, try and keep to the talk pages of the articles. It is much easier to stay focused on the article, rather than the editor. Also, if your blog shows a particular point of view be careful editing to strongly towards it, because people will review your edits closely. --Rocksanddirt 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I really do think that most rational Wikipedians would agree that accusing someone of having a "temper tantrum" is a personal attack. Jinxmchue 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not when it's accurate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I see a lot of back-and-forth bickering right here in this alert that could be perceived as violations of WP:CIVIL. I suggest that you ALL read WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL, and take a few moments to examine your comments in that light. --Darkwind (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the last time this came up "Jinx" McHue insisted on replacing reliably sourced content with his own opinion. When other editors did not acquiesce, he complained about OWNership, and when no one reacted, he quit the project in a huff, attacking the project and fellow editors off-wiki. In other words, he threw a temper tantrum. That isn't an attack, it's a description of his behaviour. Now he's back and is up to the same nonsense, inserting weasel words like "purportedly" in front of the (sourced) information he tried to get expunged from the article back in June because he didn't believe the source (a report which quoted the leading scholar on the history of intelligent design). He has made his intentions abundantly clear. While one would have hoped that after his break he would have returned with a little more respect for our sourcing policies, his actions editing the article show that he still holds them in contempt. Per WP:SPADE, since he has resumed his pattern of editing, that I would be rather stupid to assume good faith on the part of an editing who has made it abundantly clear that he is not acting in good faith. Guettarda 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't realize that I typed my own handle instead of "Guettarda" above. My bad. Jinxmchue 07:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say there appear to be several ongoing issues underlying this. Resolving the specific issues mentioned in Guettarda's post should probably be addressed in some other forum within the dispute resolution process. As to the complaint which generated this thread, describing another editor's behavior is a tricky proposition because it can be very easy to slip into a personal attack if done incorrectly or if too much emotion is involved. Here, I think Guettarda was simply being blunt in describing the relationship between opinion and sourced material as well as their opinion of Jinxmchue's behavior. Anynobody 08:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we waste the community's time protecting POV-warriors, and attack reasonable editors like Guettarda. Excellent choice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Guettarda (and Odd nature) aren't "POV-warriors" at all. Jinxmchue 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Falsely accusing me of being a "POV warrior" is a personal attack. You really want to engage in personal attacks while complaining about Wikiquette violations? Please remove your personal attacks. Guettarda 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's just SPADE, Guettarda. Jinxmchue 14:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda please don't use personal information not disclosed by an editor to address them. While I don't think you were violating WP:CIVIL in this complaint it doesn't mean I think you're incapable of wrongdoing either.

Wikipedia has a pretty strict Privacy policy and right to vanish, and while using this site we should follow them as best we can. Anynobody 06:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Shutterbug

Work in progress; comments welcome

A violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF against myself and Jimmy Wales right here:[1]--Fahrenheit451 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks fairly uncivil to me also, and it seems the common tactic for an editer to accuse others of lying/deceiving etc. simply because they disagree with them is decidedly unhelpful. While I bet Mr. Wales could care less about Shutterbug 's opinion of him it does seem that Shutterbug would benifit from a cool down. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This user is the former User:COFS, who has an open ArbCom case. Any comments about this user's current behavior need to be brought to that case page, not to WQA. --Darkwind (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Struck per my comment below. --Darkwind (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true, see this:[2] That case is evidently closed. This is a Wikiquette matter.--Fahrenheit451 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't interpret that comment as meaning the case was not accepting further evidence, but since they do have a proposed decision under consideration, it probably is too late to add this matter. As for this alert, the user's behavior may be a violation of wikiquette, but I don't think WQA has the ability to make this particular user listen to reason when it comes to AGF/CIVIL/NPA, etc. However, if another WQA volunteer wants to take a shot, I won't complain. I've replaced the {{NWQA}} template on this alert with {{WQA in progress}} to facilitate interest. --Darkwind (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Granted, we don't have the ability to force anyone to do anything, much less listen to reason. But any reason for the doubts, or should I just drop a note on Shutterbug's talk? Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 07:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I witnessed an example of what Fahrenheit451 is talking about on L. Ron Hubbard. Shutterbug accused Fahrenheit451 of being a POV pusher. Fahrenheit451 disputed that description on the talk page. Long story, short it seems like good faith is lacking and some of Shutterbug's actions border on incivility. Anynobody 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Resolved

 – Two good faith editors, settled. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lately, this user and I have been discussing the an article for deletion. I've tried my hardest to state my position on the article without sounding offensive. I tried my best to do so, but this user persists to make rude comments towards me. I was hoping someone could step in and evaluate the situation. Thanks in advance! Icestorm815 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that both you and the user were entirely civil until the Noroton's last comment, when he did cross the line (so "persists to (sic) make rude comments towards me" is probably a little strong). I'll leave a note on his talk page. In the meantime, though, I'd suggest that if you see any WP:COI issues with Noroton's contributions (and for whatever it's worth, I don't), WP:COIN would be a better place to discuss them than an individual AFD. I'd suggest that both of you let the particular thread drop, since you've both stopped talking about the deletion of the article, and are instead arguing over Wikipedia policies that are only tangentially related. Sarcasticidealist 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I concur here. Also, I personally didn't see any hints of COI. (COI would apply is he worked at the school, not if he had written an essay to suggest that he thought schools were notable). Just let the AfD handle itself. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation: just stop. You've both !voted, you're not going to change each others' minds. And while I've known Noroton to have some--ahem--particularly strong opinions, I've never known him to have an agenda other than wanting to improving articles. Cmprince 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. Unfortunately, this was my first time citing Wikipedia policy in a dispute, so I'm not quite familar with the specifications. I'll be sure to learn from this experience and will avoid making the mistakes I made again. Once again thank you for all your help. Icestorm815 03:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with basically what's been said. AfDs should really not include huge drawn out debates between two people. It appears that perhaps he is wrong incorrect, but honestly, if you've said what you have to say, then stop. The closing admin will review what you've said (and the other votes) and draw the appropriate conclusions. You don't have to convince him, you just have to make your case and wait for the AfD to close. --Cheeser1 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would disagree that there was no incivility before I finally got a little sarcastic. Accusing me of COI could be the result of a mistake, so the first time Icestorm815 did it, I politely referred him to WP:COI and suggested that he show me how comments on my userspace could possibly be a violation. Then he repeated the allegation, again without any reasoning that linked anything I'd done with WP:COI. That's something more than just being mistaken. There's even a specific link to a spot on the WP:CIVIL page for just that kind of thing: WP:ICA. Wasn't that action by Icestorm815 uncivil? I think it's a bit odd that this editor can repeatedly bring up unfounded accusations of policy violations ("ill-considered complaint[s]" as WP:ICA puts it), even after I've asked him to back them up, and then only my sarcastic reaction is called a little uncivil. i don't understand why there's no note on his talk page asking him to be civil. Please advise. And, ah, thanks Cmprince, although in this particular case, I don't think my opinions were particularly strong.Noroton 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've made a pretty strong case that there was a technical violation of WP:CIVIL by Icestorm815. That said, he was arguing policy rather than personalities, was new at arguing policy, and pretty obviously believed in good faith that you were in violation of WP:COI. WP:CIVIL has to be interpreted in context, and I think context in this case is pretty kind to Icestorm815.

As for posting a civility warning on his talk page, I certainly could go over there and write "Hi Icestorm815 - you've violated WP:CIVIL by making unfounded (albeit in good faith) accusations of COI against another user. Please don't do it again." Instead, I responded to his alert (in part) by advising him that his COI allegations were ill-founded.

In any event, you're obviously two good-faith editors, and I don't think any further parsing of blame for this particular incident would be productive. Icestorm815, please be more careful in the future about making this kind of accusation, and thank you for apologizing to Noroton. Noroton, in the future please don't respond to incivility of any kind (whether good faith or otherwise) by becoming uncivil yourself.

Now, go forth and improve the encyclopedia. That's obviously both of your primary purposes in being here. Sarcasticidealist 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I was wrong to finally respond to Icestorm815 with sarcasm after repeated provocations. Icestorm815 turned that deletion thread away from issues and toward accusations against me after exploring my user space and finding some things he somehow thought were somehow policy violations. I take that kind of focusing on personality rather than issues as a serious mistake on his part and one that causes me concern. He's told me he's dropping it, however, so as far as I'm concerned, this is over. Noroton 04:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me like a gross misunderstanding of WP:COI (on his part). I'd say that, in general, don't bother responding to provocations on AfD pages. If a user makes an absurd, irrelevant, or invalid point (especially one that reflects non-comprehension of policy), the closing admin will discount that user's opinion appropriately. Responding unnecessarily starts a sort of back-and-forth thing that isn't very helpful. --Cheeser1 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Getaway

Work in progress; comments welcome

I have noticed a pattern of incivility from this editor against a number of users. I first encountered him when I gave him a warning for telling another editor “That's so liberal jam your opinion down their throats Wikipeidan of you” [3]. He responded with multiple tirades telling me I was “dead damn wrong” and “you are wrong and that is your problem, not mine.”[4] [5]. An admin asked him to tone down the hostility a little. Since that time, others have come into conflict with him, and he has responded in the same manner. After being warned about cut-and-paste edits, he responded with “you came along with your silly, incorrect comments and warnings… You should be ashamed of yourself.” [6]. More recently he has responded to criticism with comments like this: “I never stated that you were ‘deliberately falsifying sources.’ Making that charge against me without having anything to back it really must be embarassing for you.” [7]. I think he should be warned about his incivility.--Dcooper 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I did not state that Seicer was falsifying sources. That is flat out lie.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with the pattern of incivility. He has been blocked many times in the past for this and for 3RR violations. Here are some diffs --

* [8] The user does not agree to stop willingly insert comments into the middle of replies, which violates WP:TALK. See [9] [10]. His comments also err close to wiki stalking.

* "I will respond however I want to respond. It is not up to you to decide."

* "I will be following my own decision making process and your advice or lack there of will not be concerned or even remotely referred to."

* [11] Revert war on a smaller scale. He claims that the "burden is on you" whenever an editor does a change that upsets his method of editing.

* [12] Accuses other editors of harassment.

* He constantly accuses others of POV violations, such as at Sean Hannity, and when his edits are challenged, he asks for "burden of proof."

* ^ Same at Robert Byrd, where he reverted an edit, calling Slate an op-ed piece and claiming that I falsified a source. [13] I added portions of the article here.

* Similar editing style to WYLAH. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. This is not true. I do not state "burden is on you" whenever an editor does a change, that comment is simply not true. And, yes, when an editor is going against concensus then the burden is on them. That is fact and nothing to be ashamed of or warned about.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Not true.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will be. Nothing wrong with that.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is harassment when an editor comes to my talk page and write inappropriate comments such as this one: So, essentially you will be wikistalking my edits and violating WP:TALK in the future? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, when an editor does make a comment such as the one that I have quoted Seicer to have made on my talk page, I take that as a hostile, inappropriate and threatening comment and I WILL refuse to engage in anymore conversation with the threatening editor. This forum and other forums and rules will not be enough to make me interact with that editor, which of course in this case is Seicer. As far as I am concerned from this point forward this forum and anything else concerning this topic is merely a forum to discuss how we deal with nasty, threatening comments such as Seicer's that you can review here: Go down the section named In the future.... And once again, I would ask Seicer stop harassing me. I will not apologize for asking Seicer to stop harassing me. It is inappropriate for others to attempt to stop me from asking Seicer to stop harassing me. The harassment must stop.--Getaway 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not know what this is in reference to.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I never, ever stated that Seicer falsified a source. That is just a flat out lie.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't know who this person is. But I would encourage any of the admins who have access to the appropriate tools to check the edits and you will see that it is not me. I've learned that you have to nip these types of false charges in the bud very quickly or they just grow and grow.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of stuff to comment on here, but I will just point out, that the statement: "I will be following my own decision making process and your advice or lack there of will not be concerned or even remotely referred to." is not at all in the spirit of consensus. Dlabtot 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of stuff to comment concerning your comment, but when an editor comes to my talk page and makes the comments that Seicer did then the discussion should be about how we stop Seicer from harassing other editors. Also, Seicer's comments do not exhibit the charms of someone who really cares about consensus, of which you claim to be concerned.--Getaway 20:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There was general consensus to add the bit at Robert Byrd regarding his renouncing of former racial ties. Most of the discussions against it were in regard to the Slate source, where some were comparing Slate to an "op-ed" piece, and disregarding the Charlotte Observer article as being "inferior" to a CNN article. (my initial restoration); (I restored an accidentally removed cite just above); [14]; even Getaway (talk · contribs) agrees.

Furthermore, he attempted the same tactic at Strom Thurmond, where there was general consensus. (Getaway replaced a Slate source (same one used at Robert Byrd) with one that was nothing about); [15] [16]

Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello all - this is quite the situation. Before I begin, I want to make clear that I'm dealing only with Wikiquette issues. This means that I'm not dealing with accusations of sockpuppetry (which should be reported to WP:SSP). I'm also not dealing with the question of whether User:Getaway accused User:Seicer of falsifying a source; until I see a diff in which Getaway makes such an accusation, I'm assuming that no such accusation exists.

All of that said, I think there are a lot of Wikiquette breaches going on, here. On User:Getaway's side, some of the diffs provided are certainly violations of WP:CIVIL. Moreover, you seem extremely unwilling to assume good faith on the part of people with whom you are in dispute - you are quick to accuse them of deliberately misrepresenting you (instead of assuming that they honestly misread what you wrote), abusing Wikipedia to further their own political opinions (instead of believing that they're genuinely trying to be NPOV), of being too lazy to provide sources (instead of considering that they might not consider a source to be necessary, or some other good faith explanation), etc. Also, your writing style, whether intentionally or otherwise, gives the impression that you are positively foaming at the mouth with rage as you write. I think that it would be useful to focus on short, succinct posts (like you've been making on this page) rather than long drawn out ones. I also echo User:Dlabtot's comments about consensus. Finally, WP:TALK (a guideline) does discourage using responses from breaking up the posts to which they are responding, and you seem to do this rather often; please try to respond to entire posts at once rather than breaking them up.

There is some blame on User:Seicer, too - notably, I don't think what he wrote on your talk page could reasonably be summarized as "So, essentially you will be wikistalking my edits and violating WP:TALK in the future?". That appears to have been an unecessarily inflammatory response.

I think given the bad shape your wikirelationship is in, I'm going to see how you respond to my comments before I start talking about possible solutions. As a first step, you each need to take responsibility for how you've aggravated the situation, and I want to see if you're both willing. Sarcasticidealist 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the citation for Gateway assuming that I was falsifying a source:

1. Stating that the article I cited does not exist.

2. Asserts that the 'burden' is on me to provide a citation.

I explained to him on his talk page that not every citation requires a URL or an online source. Given that there are thousands of citations on Wikipedia that are from books, newspapers, and etc. that are off-line, it would be unbearably difficult, if not impossible, to give summaries or snippets (the latter which I provided at talk:Robert Byrd although it is a copyright-vio) of every citation.

Per the wikistalking comment, it is in regard to this comment: [17]

"I also noticed that your edits seem to protect Byrd and condemn Thurmond. Since they are both avowed racists, you really should think about why you feel the need to provide aid and comfort to an old racist like Byrd. And, yes, you did. You're argument is basically, "See, Byrd isn't as bad as Thurmond!!!" Which is not only wrong, but strange. I'm going to respond to that silliness with a response that goes to your argumentative level, "At least, Thurmond was never in the KKK!!!" Look forward to more of your edits on the Robert "KKK" Byrd article."

I took note on the last sentence, which may indicate he will be monitoring my edits at Robert Byrd and possibly elsewhere for the explicit purpose of reverting them based on my prior edits. Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the second issue first, I don't think it's fair to infer an intent to wikistalk from his comments - he said he was looking forward to more of your edits in one specific article. All this means is that he's going to monitor the Byrd article for your edits, and presumably for others' as well. It *could* be interpreting as a threat to wikistalk, but I think doing so is precluded by WP:AGF.

The second issue is a little more complex. His edit summary said that the article "didn't exist", which intially appears to be an accusation of falsifying a source. However, if you look at the reference you put in with regards to the Charlotte article, it included a link to the slate article. What Getaway could well have meant is that the Charlotte article didn't exist at the end of the link that was supposed to lead to it. If that's what he meant, he certainly should have been clearer. But this illustrates the importance of WP:AGF: in cases where an editor could have meant different things by his/her words, we should always assume that his meaning was the most innocent of the available reasonable explanations.

This is not to say that Getaway has been behaving perfectly reasonably, and that you stepped in and unfairly ascribed a whole bunch of nefarious motivations to him/her. I think that your interpretation was quite reasonable. However, so was the interpretation I offered above, and I think that we should function on the assumption that it's correct (especially since he/she is adament that she/he never accused you of source falsification) until we see a compelling reason not to.

Thank you for your response. Hopefully User:Getaway will respond as well, and we can start working towards resolving this. Sarcasticidealist 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He initially removed the Slate citation, calling it an opinion reference, and the statement as a whole due to that. There was debate regarding the Slate source, with the users in question calling the source an "op-ed" piece. The Slate citation was restored and the source for the Slate article was the Charlotte Observer, where they conducted an interview with Strom Thurmond. The Charlotte Observer citation was not to reference the comment regarding Robert Byrd renouncing racism, but to provide verifiability to the Slate article.

At Strom Thurmond, the Charlotte Observer citation, in conjunction with the Slate article, provides a solid citation for the comment regarding Strom Thurmond not renouncing racism.

Kind of confusing. Let me know if you need additional clarifications. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with the use of the Charlotte Observer as a reference, even if it's unavailable online. The problem was that the Charlotte Observer footnote (not the Slate footnote) included a link to the Slate article. Users, such as Getaway, could have clicked on that link, expecting to be led to a Charlotte Observer article, and instead finding themselves as Slate. This could easily cause somebody to conclude that this was a faulty reference. Sarcasticidealist 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that was my mistake (looking at my original inclusion). But that could have been handled far better and in a much more civil manner, IMO. The citation could have just been edited, since the citation immediately below it contains the exact same URL (I was copy/pasting the template). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could have been handled more civilly, and I hope that we can get to that once User:Getaway offers a response to my original comments. I just wanted to resolve the question of whether User:Getaway had accused you of falsifying a source. I think that it's fair to assume that he/she said something that was not intended as such an accusation, and that you (not unreasonably) took it to be such an accusation. On that specific question, I think there was a blameless misunderstanding, and hopefully we can stop dealing with that in favour of the various other issues raised by this alert (of which there are, sadly, a great many). Sarcasticidealist 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I am the editor that User:Dcooper is referring to as the target of User:Getaway's "...jam your opinion..." comment above. I would suggest that readers have a look at some of Getaway's edit summary commentary on the Sean Hannity article and discussion pages from around the end of August. In particular, this diff, and this diff are quite illuminating. Please keep in mind that I was (and still am) a new editor, and that these are Getaway's responses to my attempts to achieve consensus. There are limits to WP:AGF ("This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary). I assert that Getaway has demonstrated ample evidence of lack of good faith, as well as frequent bouts of incivility. Furthermore, I believe that Getaway has a prior, abandoned account User:Keetoowah in which he demonstrated much the same behavior. The existence of prior warnings (including warnings against legal threats and being placed on personal attack parole) under this username should be taken into account in determining whether User:Getaway is a regular violater of Wikiquette. Ossified 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those diffs are uncivil. I do need to advise you that this page isn't primarily for determining whether anybody is a regular violator of Wikiquette; instead, we try to identify instances in which Wikiquette has been violated and try to prevent future violations by the users in question. Obviously, this requires good faith on the part of all involved (quite often, all it takes is a third party such as myself advising an editor that his/her edits are uncivil, to make that editor look in the mirror and change his/her ways). If we can't accomplish that, there really isn't much else we can do. The next step is generally WP:RFC/U, but we always hope that it won't come to that.

For the time being, let's wait to see how User:Getaway responds to my comments; hopefully that will give us a basis on which to move forward. Sarcasticidealist 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I would certainly prefer to avoid any future conflicts with the editor in question. Ossified 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gayunicorn attacking other people's religions

Resolved

Would someone please have a word to Gayunicorn (talk · contribs) concerning this edit and his/her refusal to retract it? Corvus cornix 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm less concerned that the comments are offensive, and more concerned that this user seems to be labouring under a serious misapprehension as to Wikipedia's purpose. I've left some comments to this effect on his/her page. Hopefully that will help clear things up.

In the meantime, it might be best that you avoid interacting with this user unless necessary. Regardless of the wisdom of your words, it's apparent that he/she does not wish to read them, and little good will come of continuing to post on her/his talk page. Sarcasticidealist 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gayunicorn 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)for the record I am just stating that our North American culture is based Judeo-Christian beliefs and that the media is a reflection of this, I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Thanks for the heads up though I will refrain from personal comments in the future.00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Don't be combining my belief set with yours. And frankly, you're incorrect. And lastly, it would be appreciated by all of us if you take the time to learn about signing your posts. Thanks OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a note regarding his signature on his talk page. As for the religious comment by Gayunicorn (talk · contribs), I added on the talk page of the AFD that a person's religious beliefs should not weigh in as a valid opinion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely just a nonsense AfD vote. The closing admin will surely disregard it, as would be appropriate. It appears as though others have already pointed the user to the purpose of Wikipedia and now it's not a catalog of majority or normative opinion. --Cheeser1 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User blocked due to inappropriate user name, and also tagged as suspected sock of User:Tweety21. Marking as resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs)

User:Hal Cross

Resolved

 – It appears that the etiquette problems have subsided, at least for now. The editors involved have begun more discussion on this matter, and I believe the WQA-related disputes have been resolved. I may be wrong, in which case this complaint can of course be reopened. --Cheeser1 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

I'd appreciate an outside opinion on the conduct of User:Hal Cross. He's been editing at American Family Association since July, and his approach to the community leave an awful lot to be desired. He seems to have ownership issues with the page. He is uncivil -accusing other editors of being vandals, engaging in information suppression, violating policy, etc etc. He engages in tremendously long circular discussions, usually ignoring the responses he gets to his points, and the result has been that just about every over contributor to that page has drifted away. If you want the full history then have a look at Talk:American Family Association/Archive 2 and Talk:American Family Association/Archive 3, but be warned - they're very long.

Recent examples (a small selection from a long, long list):

• [18] - WP:CIVIL (calling other editors vandals and POV pushers), poor interpretation of WP:NPOV
• [19] - Accusation of creating a POV fork. What actually happened is that a long list in the main article was split out into a sub-article, so nothing was removed.
• [20] - Accusation of information suppression, WP:OWN.
• [21] - Arguing in circles, ignoring previous points, protestations of innocence.
• [22] - "Please watch carefully and learn from me and other concerned Wikipedia editors" - I'm not sure if this breaks any policy, but it's not a particularly useful way to talk about a content dispute.

After the third archiving I essentially gave up responding to the same points made over, and over, and over again, so if you want to read my specific responses to his arguments then you'll need to have a look at Archive 3 - but this isn't about the content dispute. It's about the user who is obstructing the discussion so much that he's making consensus almost impossible to achieve or follow. If you want a contrasting example, see here: User talk:Citadel18080/AFA Discussion with Orpheus. Same article, same content dispute, but a resolution in two screens of text that pleased two editors who were opposed at the start. The difference is that Hal Cross wasn't involved.

Also see this AN/I that he filed [23], which was roundly ignored by administrators, but is a good example of his vexatious approach to editing.

Orpheus 09:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Counter-Complaint

Hello all. I am a fairly new editor here, so I would also like some advice on using Wikiquette correctly to handle this long standing situation on the AFA article. I have already been getting some feedback from other editors and admins, and Orpheus has been hassling me about it on my talkpage [24].

I feel its unhelpful to simply point you to archives, so here are some diffs. Feel free to check them to see if they are representative:

• Long term context: Category dispute. Orpheus and CMMK want the homophobia category to be applied to the AFA article because anti-AFA people say that the AFA is anti-gay. I (and other editors) do not want the category because it circumvents NPOV policy, is used accusatively, and it adds nothing to reader’s understanding of homophobia. To my mind adding pop singers to a Michael Jackson article is useful, but homophobia serves no use as a mere accusation towards AFA. Lists have always been encouraged as an alternative[25].

• The past month or two: I have been working to enrich the article with reliably sourced views from the AFA and those with views about the AFA. E.g. [26] [27] That diff was the result of me adding information on beliefs. CMMK and Orpheus objected and removed the information, and I made subsequent improvements and additions. Orpheus both here and above ignores the fact that I have dealt with all objections and Orpheus still makes no effort to discuss the specific points to and adjustments of the edit. [28].

• After I make the adjustments, I restore the new information and it gets deleted. I make civil discussion for why it is deleted. No discussion is made in return for my discussion or questions. Discussion is often dismissed or is highly unconstructive [29][30][31][32][33][34] and some editors are often unhelpful to other editors [35].

• Myself and other editors are getting tag-teamed by Orpheus and CMMK [36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. As far as I know that’s a classic example of WP:OWN. Again, it often happens within the hour and without any discussion, or Orpheus makes reference to discussion that happened a long time ago, and ignores multiple changes that have been made [43]. Orpheus refers to a non-existent consensus [44].

• Those reliably sourced additions tend to get deleted within the hour without any discussion [45]. Unreliable negative information gets added, and any positive information, with more reliable sourcing, gets deleted [46]

• Orpheus and CMMK make a lot of edits without any discussion at all, and they fail to reply to civil discussion [47] [48][49][50] despite there being a lot of activity over that information on the article.

• Any one sided comments or headings I will try to make balanced or neutral [51]. From my beginners understanding of Wikipedia policies and recommendations, what Orpheus and CMMK seem to be doing is pushing a particular POV by constantly disallowing relevant views, by POV forking which removes information about why the AFA boycotts certain companies, and via information suppression [52].

• To my knowledge I have done nothing to WP:OWN the article. I have requested outside views on the subject from a variety of editor viewpoints [53][54], and been constructive in my communications with other editors and admin [55][56].

I know it’s a controversial subject that can involve high emotions. For example, CMMK has made discussion rather personal on several occasions [57][58] referring to editors as liars and information as “lies”. I understand that this is a controversial article and that its important not to get personal. To my knowledge I have never removed reliable sourced criticism of the AFA, yet Orpheus and CMMK have constantly removed any information that shows the AFA as having genuine cares and concerns about society [59][60]. I have discussed objectionable subjects as neutrally as I can with reference to sources. If you can offer me any way to adhere more closely to Wikiquette, especially in a way that constructively improves the article, I am very much open to your suggestions. Hal Cross 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, please read WP:SELFPUB Dlabtot 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll be the first to comment and hopefully I'll help. First, I'd like to say that the bulk of this is more of a content dispute. It's hard to evaluate this situation without taking into consideration the content dispute at hand. I'll step past that for a moment. I don't think there's a whole lot of Etiquette problems here so much as misunderstanding particular rules and/or disagreeing about content. I do believe User:Hal Cross is making some false accusations, but it would appear that these are being made genuinely (not uncivilly). He may honestly believe you are trying to create a POV fork, and saying so doesn't amount to breaching WP:CIVIL or anything - it's not like he called you stupid or made other sorts of personal comments.

• Content - On the other hand, I would like to discuss the content dispute, and the various policies that are being cited. First of all, most anti-gay groups assert that they are not homophobic. Some go so far as to say that they are the only ones who are really helping LGBT people, by turning them to the right path. This does not mean that it's true. LGBT people don't necessarily have a cohesive set of goals or an agenda, but groups and individuals have particular desires - to marry, to be treated as equals, to have their sexuality not scrutinized so much. Whatever the case, opposing those goals (in the name of "the American family" or what have you) would appear to be anti-gay prima facie. This is also almost certainly verifiable, it is at least mentioned, I'm sure, in gay-interest magazines. So that's what I see going on in the content dispute - giving the organization's opinion of itself more weight than the reality of its actions and the views of other groups/individuals.
• The complaint - As for the particular complaints against Hal Cross, I believe he may have been acting contrary to policy, but perhaps not in an uncivil way. This is in the sense that none of the diffs you've provided are particularly hostile or rude. On the other hand, Wikiquette also applies to the sum-total of one's actions. It does appear that Hal Cross is being fairly stubborn, and unyielding in his (mis)interpretation of things like WP:NPOV. There is also a complaint that he has been reverting in other people's userspace (see his talk page). I believe that requires a bit of intervention - since he's already here, I'll forgo commenting elsewhere, but would ask that he think things over.
• The counter complaint - To speak specifically, there are a few points. (1) I don't see any POV fork issues at all. These accusations seem totally unfounded, and may serve to make the discussion hostile. (2) Hal Cross consistently reverts people's reverts of his bold edits. This is troubling - it creates an atmosphere of edit warring, and does not seem to reflect well on Hal Cross's willingness to work towards consensus. Hal - you cannot remove content without consensus. If people object, you have to establish a consensus (meaning everybody needs to agree) before you remove it again. (3) The only accusations of incivility I see are things like "he called me a liar." However, this came after what appears to be a gross misrepresentation of policy to support a particular side in this argument. That could easily be considered lying, and I don't think saying so is out-of-line. Orpheus has made efforts to engage you in discussion without edit warring, but the revert craziness seems to go on. Other editors have also asked that this edit warring stop, but to no avail. There was also no "hassling" - Hal Cross (apparently falsely) said that he had been seeking outside views on his editing - Orpheus obviously would have liked to see those views - this does not constitute an attack, hassling, or an invasion of privacy. When it became clear that Hal Cross was either being deceptive, or not forthcoming with the result(s) of any review(s), Orpheus came here to get actual outside opinions, which Hal Cross may have mistaken as an attack. (Again, all this is on Hal Cross's talk page).

The bottom line - the bottom line is that neutrality is hard to maintain. It makes things contentious. It's a hotly-contested content dispute. However, criticism does belong in the article, and categories should reflect that. The fact that the AFA continually opposes gay activism and LGBT people's goals is pretty well documented. Furthermore, this article is not a safe haven for the AFA's idea of itself to flourish. We should be doing our best not to use the AFA's website as as source of information, or at least not considering it a source of unbiased or complete information about itself. The AFA wouldn't be considered a reliable source anywhere outside of this article, and its contributions to this article should be kept in perspective. I think Hall Cross fails to see this, and fails to understand several other important policies. The heated atmosphere is due in no small part to his repeatedly reverting reversions of his bold edits, and his misunderstandings of things like POV forking. His counter-complaints appear to be more or less without merit. I'm not sure if this is incivility or a breach of etiquette, but Hal Cross should accept reversion of his bold edits from now on, and work to form consensus. This will require him to familiarize himself with what is and is not reliable sourcing, what is and is not POV forking, and how to construct a balanced article. --Cheeser1 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and considered reply Cheeser1. I agree on not using the AFA article as a source of unbiased or complete information about itself. To my knowledge, I never have, and have always sought other sources on their opinions. Should be kept in perspective: Yes completely. I am working on context all the time. If you can offer ways for me to add more reliable context to the article I will be grateful.

Concerning POV forking. I agree. I am uncertain of how to proceed and would like your advice on the issue that AFA boycott certain companies for certain reasons. How do you suggest that I can present those AFA views neutrally in the article without them being removed to other articles?

The information I have been referring to on reliable information is [61] and [62]. The finer points of those articles are not presented so I would appreciate your input on how to apply these articles in this situation. I have used AFA related articles and web pages, in combination with other information I have obtained from Proquest databases. To my knowledge, that satisfies the crux of those requirements in the articles, though I would like to hear more about your recommendations. The article states “Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.” That is what I have presented and Orpheus and CMMK have gone against those articles I believe. They have used the argument that these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, which goes against the recommendations. I know you are only suggesting caution, though they are acting on total removal of views. In line with your suggestion I would like to know how best to apply caution.

Forming consensus has been hard. Its made harder due to some editors seeming to refuse discussion, or offering dismissive comments and unconstructive suggestions. How do I handle that constructively according to your view of this situation? Regards Hal Cross 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, I believe that you are refusing discussion as much as (or more than) the other editors, especially by reverting reverts (probably the best way to avoid working towards consensus). Dismissive comments may be warranted when certain contributions merit dismissing. Removing boldly added content is not necessarily nonconstructive. Listing the beliefs of this organization in great detail would not necessarily be encyclopedic, nor would doing so by simply repeating what is found on their website. Listing the boycotts, for example, would be the same as listing (for example) every single protest lead or sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition, instead of simply reporting the notable or encyclopedic content. There is a clear statement of the group's beliefs in the lead of the article - concise and in the group's own words. To continue to elaborate (ad nauseam) every single viewpoint or boycott of the group would make this into a pulpit, instead of an article. I realize you aren't trying to include every detail, but much of the details of their views would be considered more or less irrelevant - we need not make this article a list of all the things the AFA supports, opposes, boycotts, etc. Furthermore, the POV of the group may be important to consider, but it should not unduly shape the tone/content of the article (especially in the criticisms section). For example, "first amendment rights" is not the same as homophobia or anti-gay activism. Sure, you could call it that (and that may be what the AFA calls it), but that's sugarcoating/dodging the issue. Calling it anti-gay/homophobic is not non-neutral. The group has stated its opposition to LGBT activism and LGBT rights, and there are reliable third party coverage to document these views and actions. These sources should be used wherever possible, instead of citing the AFA. These content considerations should be discussed on the article's talk page - however, there seems to be difficulty based on your edit-warring and your (mis)use of other policies (as in your counter-complaint) to distract the issue (perhaps unintentionally) and keep consensus from forming based on the policies in question. --Cheeser1 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Cheeser. If you look at the deletions more closely, Orpheus and CMMK are not actually removing all views that are solely supported by the AFA. They are inconsistent in that matter. They are leaving plenty in. [63] but they are removing AFA supported views that put the AFA in a considerate or concerned light. It seems that it is ok for CMMK and Orpheus to have negative information supported by AFA sources, and any positive information is deleted. Hal Cross 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, PS, to my knowledge, since I have been here I have not once removed criticism of the AFA from the article. And I reiterate I believe it is blindingly obvious that Orpheus and CMMK have consistently and repeatedly removed NPOV compliant information that sheds a positive light on the AFA. If anyone can give me your views and suggestions on this main point I will be grateful. Hal Cross 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not picked through the entire history, the diffs you provide do not seem to demonstrate anyone acting without neutrality. Much of what they seem to remove is simply a positive statement of the group's opinion by the group itself. Such material is arguably "spin," and shouldn't be introduced into the article. --Cheeser1 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective Cheeser1. I am not a member of the AFA, loved members of my family are homosexual and well accepted, I am not a practicing Christian, Muslim, or any other type of Abrahamic religious follower, and I don't claim to be neutral at all. There are outside opinions from other sources that would probably never be called spin. If you can see your way to at least considering that information we will be getting some way towards resolution. Oh, by the way, if I am allowed to present information that you consider spin, will I be ok to present it as spin by attributing you as a source? Hal Cross 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to specifics. There is an AFA view that Yahoo provides pedophiles with child pornography. Now that may be considered spin against the homosexual agenda. Basically the AFA believes that the homosexual agenda is full of people such as NAMBLA who like obscenity and their activities will lead to the encouragement of pedophilia. The view is also reported by PR Newswire according to Proquest databases [64] and removed by Orpheus only a couple of hours later without discussion [65]. Now do I censor the AFA as it is "spin"? Do I accept it because I am following WP on reliable sourcing? Hal Cross 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, I accidentally replied above in the wrong section. Please read WP:SELFPUB. The American Family Association should not really include any text that is based on their own website. This really is a content dispute, not an etiquette problem - none of the diffs you've provided really show any violations of WP:CIVIL that I saw. I'd suggest starting over on the American Family Association article, with a version based only on independent sources. Dlabtot 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dlabtot. Again I am very much in need of guidance here. Which of these points specifically applies?:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Hal Cross 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I believe I've addressed this below. Namely, an individual action alert is not relevant to the AFA's notability (unless there are other sources that address the alert in a non-trivial way). Since it is an accusation against Yahoo, it could also be seen as contentious and involving a claim about a third party.

In other words, if the Random Organization filed a complaint that FooBar Corp. was giving porn to minors, there's no need to include it here unless the accusation has had reliable, independent coverage. (Which doesn't seem to be the case here, as discussed below). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll sort it outHal Cross 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer "Which of these points specifically applies?" - all of them. What the policy is stating is that unless self published material fits that very long and exacting list of requirements, it should not be included in an article about the entity that did the self publishing. Dlabtot 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dlabtot, I was in the process of applying that long and exact list of requirements and was told off for it [66]. There is other more relevant and encyclopedic information to add to that section. Which is why I did not remove the heading. Work in progress. Hal Cross 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitratry Section Break

Hi there. If I can chime in: I agree with you that such content shouldn't be removed without comment as it isn't blatantly violating WP:RS. However, I'm not convinced that Wikipedia should report an action alert from the AFA unless it's picked up mainstream coverage (ie, USAToday commenting on the AFA Boycott). Otherwise it does come across as spin-y. (Since Wikipedia isn't for PR, we probably should have more than a press release, given that there are a relatively large number of action alerts issued). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A minor point - it wasn't without comment, it was with this comment. Otherwise, I agree with your AU$0.04. Orpheus 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the diff. That certainly is a reasonable justification. For next time though, if there was a reference to the talk page comments in the edit summary, perhaps Hal wouldn't have made unfounded accusations. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bfigura. I agree and have been consistently working to provide whatever mainstream coverage I can get hold of. Where it is not supplied, it is consistent with the context of the secion of the article in question. I am not interested in spin. My main concern is to make sure the actual views of the AFA are not suppressed. From what has happened over the past few months, it seems that suppression is utterly rampant. It will be really easy to obtain secondary sources and in that case all relevant views will be presented again. There are a lot that I have not used because I believed that facts will be more accurate from the horses' mouth. Your solutions seem to be coming together pretty well in my mind. Its just a matter of presenting the other sources I originally left out. Cheers Hal Cross 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can show how a particular self-published citation meets all the requirements of WP:SELFPUB, it should not be included, even if it means that the 'actual views of the AFA' are therefore are not promoted in the article. Putting something in the article simply to insure that the AFA's view is presented seems to violate the spirit and the letter of the policy. Dlabtot 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine Dlabtot. The key views of the AFA are described by independent reliable sources so those views can be presented despite the efforts of Orpheus and CMMK towards one-sidely removing them. WP policies will be satisfied. In fact the views will most likely be clearer, more fair, and more compelling this way. Cheers Hal Cross 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

But you've been presenting them verbatim or paraphrased from the AFA website. That's the problem. Sourcing is key, and you cannot simply parrot the AFA. Orpheus and CMMK were reverting your changes because you've been adding material that is improperly sourced (and from a nonNPOV source to boot). --Cheeser1 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I know the problem by now. Many of Orpheus' and CMMK's deletions were of reliable sources other than the AFA website and publications. There are many reliable sources where those came from. I'll make sure that AFA views will be supported using independent reliable sources. I have no problem at all with Orpheus and CMMK removing unreliable sources. Its the removal of reliably sourced AFA views that I believe will be the more pressing problem on the AFA article long term. Hal Cross 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Thanks again for your input folks. I found the advice conflicting and contradictory in a fairly humorous way, and I am making sense of it as best I can. The only things I would actually disagree upon is the assertion that I have not communicated any more than the other two editors, as I believe I have made more room for discussion than any other editor I have seen. I fully agree with suggestions on how to move forward though. Orpheus and CMMK seem to be back into discussion at least to some extent now you have applied a bit of scrutiny, and I am grateful for that as I feel it at least temporarily stops what I see as month upon month of tag teaming. I would appreciate any follow ups from any of you. On overall reflection, I think you have been pretty fair considering the circumstances. Regards Hal Cross 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gaetanomarano

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Beyond Wikiquette and into subtle vandalism / linkspam. Referred to ANI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This user put links leading to his website on talk pages of many articles. He adds links to the talk page in the Reference section. He reverts editions that delete his links. This user also claims that Google (and other "lobbies") censor him . Check his entries fore more details Scorpene 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more of an issue for the administrator's noticeboard. This seems to have gone beyond Wikiquette. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will have a look there, thank you for the tip. Scorpene 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Madrus

Resolved

 – Impersonating user indef blocked. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has copied all of my own user page and most of my talk page unmodified to his userpage and his user talk. Here's his contributions page. User Madrus is a new user since 19.09.2007 14:00. I learned of all this when he announced about his new pages on my talk page.

The difference between his and my usernames are two letters: mine is Mardus, his is Madrus. In Estonian language, they also mean two different things, so it doesn't appear that much to be a username hijacking, but it still feels like that.

I didn't want to notify him of this alert, because he has copied all of my talk content to his talk page. I checked the different resources on user conduct, but couldn't find the correct specific place (other than here) of alerting about the incident. What can be done about it? -Mardus 02:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the type of thing WP:U#Doppelganger accounts addresses.

It is acceptable to pre-emptively create another account with a username similar to one's own, with the purpose of preventing impersonation by vandals.

What to do when it actually occurs is probably best handled on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Anynobody 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I blanked it for the interm with the edit summary: "Blanked as it is a direct copy of user:Mardus: Possible conflicting username that should be brought up at WP:UFA". This needs to be brought up there. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't had any chances to attend much of the above, so here's thanks for resolving the issue. The copied pages and notification of these in my Talk came as an unwelcome surprise. To pre-empt doppelganger accounts, I would have used a different method. I was also more interested as to who did that and where. -Mardus 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User Precious Roy

Resolved

 – Closed, Wiccawikka indef blocked for being a sock --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)*apprears to be attacking voters in coven(short film)

• making allegations towards me of being a "sock puppet", I dont know what this person is talking about, but not appreciated.
• Appears to be bringing in a personal fight into a voting forum. (has a history of quarelling with a user Tweety21 and other users, and writing derogatory statments in the voting forum)
• Appears to be border-line attacking religious freedom.

Wiccawikka 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

These sockpuppet accusations are made on some pretty inconclusive grounds. I would say it's pretty uncivil to label everyone a sockpuppet of someone just because they agree. Not sure where to proceed - others, do you have any ideas? --Cheeser1 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The puppet Tweety21 was using yesterday, Gayunicorn (now indefinitely blocked) was very vocally anti-Wicca. (Also note, I haven't accused the other "keep" !voters of being socks.) I can list many reasons why I say Wiccawikka is Tweety21's puppet if you want, or you could wait for the Checkuser results. Precious Roy 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You can list the reasons? You better. If you don't, then your accusations are unsubstantiated and uncivil. And until the RFCU in question is finished, I'd suggest you not use its possible outcome as the explanation for your actions. You're supposed to assume good faith, which includes assuming someone is not a sockpuppet - if you have substantial evidence to the contrary (now, not evidence you might have pending the RFCU), you must present that, and you should do your best not to repeatedly make your accusation. Labeling most/all of the user's comments as "this is a sockpuppet" or "this is an SPA" (not to mention repeating the warning/accusation) seems quite premature. --Cheeser1 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't jump all over me. I wasn't saying anything about the possible outcome; I was giving you the option of either asking me for my reasons, or waiting for the outcome—conclusive or not. Also, I have not "repeatedly" labeled her comments. I put a "suspected sockpuppet" tag on her talk page, and labelled one of her comments (the first one) on the AfD page. Precious Roy 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to ask. Accusations like this require an explanation. As for repeating your accusation, you've accuse her in several places of sockpuppetry. One accusation, with at least minimal justification, would suffice, until conclusive (ie not circumstantial) evidence is found. Wiccawikka is clearly a new/inexperienced user, and confronted with accusations like this can be confusing and disheartening. When these accusations come with no explanation or justification, it becomes fairly uncivil. I'm not saying she isn't a sockpuppet - I have no proof, but I've assumed that she isn't until we know that she is. This means you should treat her civilly and explain your accusation, including explaining what you're accusing her of. No one should have to ask, especially not third parties like me. --Cheeser1 18:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding her experience level, take a little time to review Tweety21's level of expertise. She'd been around longer than me (almost 2 years) yet edited like someone who had just started; helpful tips (even down to telling her how to sign her comments) went unheeded. The asking part I was referring to was in regards to this forum. If you want an answer, you have to ask me. Precious Roy 19:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for suspecting WiccaWikka is Tweety21 include 1) the time of day the edits started 2) that she went immediately to the Coven AfD (which her last sock, Gayunicorn, was causing problems in yesterday), 3) when she leaves comments on people's talk pages, she almost always posts them at the top and usually leaves them unsigned 4) she frequently makes multiple sequential edits 5) in the AfD she says "I usually don't get involved in these kinds of forums" yet she is familiar enough with the formatting (Tweety21 was involved in a number of AfDs—2 examples:1, 2), including "Strong keep"' 6) problems with spelling 7) makes baseless accusations (that I'm "attacking voters", I "writ[e] derogatory statments [sic]" in the AfD, that I have a "history of quarelling [sic] with a user Tweety21 and other users", etc). I could go on but I realize that none of this is ironclad proof. You're the admin, you tell me—do I have to open a new sockpuppet report on this user? I'm hoping the checkuser will settle matters but since it's the first time I've used it, I'm not sure what to expect. Precious Roy 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood this process - no one here is necessarily an administrator, we're not here to take administrative action, but to mediate disputes between people who are (in general) editing in good faith. Even then, administrators aren't here to tell you what to do. These things are circumstantial. 6 is irrelevant. You opened the window for 7, since you brought up Tweety21. 5 means she can mimic bullet-points. 4 - plenty of people do that. 3 - many new users do this. Again, none of this is conclusive, but alot of it can be explained by the fact that she's new. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you've elicited a complaint, and your conduct may have been colored by how dismissive you were (due to the assumption of sockpuppetry) and the fact that you didn't explain yourself (which can only be justified by the hypothetical future outcome of the RFCU). I will admit that you've raised suspicion, but when the user asks "what's a sockpuppet?" directing the user to the person to the sockpuppet complaint against GayUnicorn isn't helpful. My only point here has been, from the start, that you assume good faith - this includes assuming that this person is not a sockpuppet (no matter how erratic her behavior) until you have more-than-circumstantial evidence. --Cheeser1 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I do plead ignorance to the process here (I've never visited before today). I did say outright that none of it is really proof; I know it's all circumstatial, but people have been convicted in court solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The poor spelling is not irrelevant; it, like the rest, establishes a pattern. Regarding #7, the only one I've "opened the window for" would be a history of quarrelling—but only with Tweety21, not "other users" (being partially based on fact does not make something true). I've never "attacked" anyone, made derogatory statements (not even when accusing of sockpuppetry), or attacked religious freedom. #5 It was more the usage of "Strong keep" than the bullet points. And #3+4, yes plenty of new users do that; it's not any one of the things I've listed—it's all of them put together. As I said on your talk page, I have taken what you've said to heart and will be more gentle in the future with any suspected sockpuppets. Precious Roy 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I overlooked her claim that I'm "attacking religious freedom". I've never made a single edit that could be misconstrued as attacking religious freedom. Ever. Unless one considers nominating a film called Coven for deletion an attack on religious freedom. Precious Roy 19:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling out the reasons. Next time thought, I'd at least provide a link to the place where the reasons can be found (the checkuser, or RfC, etc). As far as reporting goes, can't you just add onto the old sockpuppet file? --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As a note, this is also on ANI in this thread. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New Complaint

I've moved the following comments from a section below, as I think the user meant to place them here. (If wrong, please let me know). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)User:Precious Roy

Wiccawikka 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)User: Precious Roy again engaging in Harassment, has already been warned once before, constantly accuses me of being a sock puppet

I was alerted by another user of the following abusive comment he left about me (below comment by Precious Roy after being warned against abuse) he constantly puts sock puppet on my user page, I'm pretty fed up with this abuse, was warned by User Cheeser1 I am quite concerned about his fixation with abusing me. I noticed he has an entry about a serial killer as well.

Hello m'dear!

My pleasure. Music is the one area where I would dare claim advanced levels of expertise (20 years working in music, don'tcha know). Every once in a while I've gone behind an editor's back and created an article that had already been declined. In most cases I had to do a little extra work because references or content wasn't up to WP snuff (like today). I've been busy dealing with a sock whose user has been a thorn in my side for about a month now. It's my own fault for getting involved but it bums me out that I could've been doing actual helpful stuff around WP but instead spent most of the day dealing with nonsense. C'est la vie. Precious Roy 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Wiccawikka 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I need to continue to defend my actions here or not; I thought this was considered resolved. Here is the post that Wiccawikka has included above. Notice that there are no names named—she is assuming I am talking about her. I don't recall being "warned against abuse"; I think I was cautioned to WP:AGF, which I agreed to do. If you feel I am not living up to that, please point out specific edits where I have failed. Precious Roy 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This has really gone too far. He was not warned for making the allegations, I simply reminded him (a bit too sternly) that he needed to justify them. He was not being abusive, he was simply jumping to conclusions without explaining himself. There are actually a number of things that indicate that you might be a sockpuppet of the other user - similar IP addresses used when posting anonymously, similar topics, your account started up when the last sockpuppet was banned and participated in the same discussion. Is this conclusive? No. But it is suspicious. Saying so is not against the rules. --Cheeser1 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I don't there's been any civility violation here that hasn't already been dealt with. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)