Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive47

User:Orangemarlin

Stuck

 – and closed as unresolved - both parties fail to recognize each other's concerns, or the problems in conduct. In future, another step in WP:DR such as RFC on user conduct is more appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Over the past day or so, Orangemarlin has exhibited extremely belligerent, uncivil behavior towards myself and others. The situation began with my removal of a blatantly false quote from a few articles. (See here, here and here.) I provided sources in the edit summaries proving the quote to be phony. I recall reading how such obviously false information can be removed from Wikipedia with prejudice and without discussion (from my understanding of what BLP says here, which would cover Phillip E. Johnson's article and any instance of this phony quote attributed to him in other articles). As expected, these proper and source-backed deletions were reverted and Orangemarlin falsely labeled my edits as "disruptive" here.

I attempted to politely ask Orangemarlin about the removal here, but he ignored the inquiry and deleted it while falsely labeling it "uncivil" here. I tried again here with the same result here.

Orangemarlin subsequently fabricated a sockpuppet accusation against me here and here based on EXTREMELY flimsy evidence which included blatantly false and easily disproven information (i.e. where my IP address tracks back to). I feel this accusation was made solely as an intimidation tactic. Orangemarlin was asked about this accusation by another editor here, in response to which he further accused me of vandalizing the article(s) here. I responded to the new accusation here, which Orangemarlin deleted again with the false claim that I was being "uncivil" here.

I approached another editor for help and he asked Orangemarlin about the situation here, with Orangemarlin responding unequivocally that I was a sock, "case closed," and with the edit summary of "we don't give AGF to socks" here. (I didn't realize WP policies and guidelines were subject to Orangemarlin's whims.) Orangemarlin went further on to describe his feelings about anonymous IP users here, which do not assume good faith (at least when they involve edits that runs contrary to his agenda).

During the sockpuppet accusation, I removed Orangemarlin's notice from this IP addresses talk page as I had read it. Orangemarlin reverted my removal with false claim here and here that they could not be removed until the case had been decided (which is completely unsupported by the WP pages about this process).

Finally, yet another editor (an admin, in fact) politely asked Orangemarlin to answer some questions regarding his accusation against me. The questions were here and the request is here. Orangemarlin once again took the uncivil route, bizarrely calling the polite, proper questions "rude and insulting" here.

The accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism have all been dismissed and abandoned, but Orangemarlin's policy-violating uncivil and non-AGF behavior remains unchecked and continues even now here, here and here (which includes his added desire for me to be blocked for no good reason), and I really doubt it will cease. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The userpage of User:Jinxmchue is relevant. (Not saying that means we should ignore the IP, but it's relevant)

I am not entirely pleased with how OrangeMarlin handled this entire thing. His conversation with HiDrNick is worth a read. Also, I would hate for OM's recent edits to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kdbuffalo to become a trend... Yeah, he was right that the IP was someone he'd interacted with before, but chucking out names of possible sockmasters with little to no evidence is a little sketchy.

That said, I don't think I could be entirely objective here -- I have too much admiration for the work OM does in combating fringe pov-pushers on Wikipedia. Someone else should take a look at this, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have had similar experiences with OrangeMarlin (and other editors in his clique of friends). it seems to be an intimidation tacit used to forestall criticism of their perspectives, but unfortunately they seem to be immune from any form of administrative action regarding it. C'est la vie... my suggestion to you is to be polite, firm, and reasonable in your dealings with them, and to keep in mind that it's mostly bluster. I'll take a look at the pages you noted, and if there's anything I can do to help content-wise, I will. but I fear you're just going to have to put up with their attitude. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a personal attack, Ludwigs2. And on the Wikiquette Alerts page no less. Very considerate since you're saving OM a trip. Odd nature (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of writing an essay: Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack for accusing... The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

sounds interesting. let me know when you finish typing the title. =D --Ludwigs2 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

if you say so. for me, it's simply a statement of experience, one which I can back up through diffs. and frankly, I'd love the chance to take up the matter here, since when I filed my own wikiquette grievance against OM, it was quashed before I even had a chance to participate. as you choose, odd nature... --Ludwigs2 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a minor, several months old mistake which I admitted to and apologized for is relevant beyond how the incident was and continues to be blown completely out of proportion by Orangemarlin and others on his side. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your sockpuppeting evading a block is relevant. If it was an honest mistake why have you been trying repeatedly to delete evidence of it for months? You seriously don't expect the community to just ignore that, do you? OM's guess that you were Kdbuffalo sockpuppets seems well-founded, if factually mistaken, now that you've admitted you are a sockpuppet of Jinxmchue. He dropped the claim as soon as you admitted that, so there's nothing to this filing. Now move along. There's nothing here for you. Odd nature (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You see the tactic here? Instead of addressing OM's behavior, they are trying to turn the alert back upon me. (And incidentally, if there were anything to this months-old "evidence," why has nothing come of it? Either advance the accusation or retract it.) 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jinx, you've admitted [1] are using an anon IP to sockpuppet. You used this sock to edit war to insert pov content over the last 3 days. Now you're raising a stink when you're rightly identified as sockpuppet? Your using victim bully tactics here. It's not going to work; OM was right that you are a sockpuppet, he was just wrong on who's sockpuppet you are, that's all. Identifying a edit warring sockpuppet as a sockpuppet is no insult. Now please move along. Odd nature (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify your smear tactics with any further responses. Address OM's uncivil behavior, not your personal chip on your shoulder against me. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I will. Odd nature, will you please cite diffs where this editor has "inserted pov content over the last 3 days", or strike your statement? ➪HiDrNick! 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And now we have Oddnature reverting several editors' contributions simply based on his personal bias against me.[2] Wow. Just wow. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, this is not resolved. This is about OM's incivility, not his claim against me. And I would really like someone other than OddNature or any other friend of OM to handle this. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? How about starting to assume good faith, Jinx. I don't even know OM. He's been no friend of mine, though I do trust him more than some others. Odd nature (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I have nothing against you or any other editor here, but I myself would like to see someone other that the same-old-faces have a chance to comment on this, before it to gets quashed. --Ludwigs2 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that will be me, although I have commented on OM in the past due to his (repeated) appearances at Wikiquette alerts -- most without merit. That said, I don't see any personal attacks. It may be heated, but it was warranted given the situation and was met with an equal amount of hostility, in addition to POV-pushing. 67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was using Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to POV-push and edit war and that takes an increased weight when dealing with the situation.

My point is, back away and go find something else to do. You aren't helping yourself in this situation by complaining about Orangemarlin, when you have committed infractions that could warrant sanctions if it is not curbed. seicer | talk | contribs 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Your comment was two-thirds about me and one-third about OM - and that one-third didn't even have anything to do with issues I raised. I never accused him of making personal attacks. I accused him of being uncivil or, as you so cutely put it, "heated." (Hey, can I use that word, too, and get away with behavior contrary to WP guidelines and policies? "I wasn't edit warring. I was engaging in heated editing.") Anyway, let's look at what the WP:Civility page has to say:

"This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible."

I don't see any "excepts" in there. No "except when someone is editing under an IP address." No "except when you consider someone a sock puppet." OM apparently sees many "excepts" on that page and feels perfectly justified behaving the way he does. I wonder if the WP community at large would agree with that.

I'll back away when I feel I've exhausted my options. And I'm not trying to help myself. How would opening myself up to further harassment by these people help me?

Finally, I've faced and accepted the consequences for my actions. If I had been the one behaving like OM did during the past couple days, there's no way we'd be having this conversation now. I'd have been properly warned and probably even blocked mighty quickly. All editors are equal, but I guess some are more equal than others. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add in my agreement. I don't like being told to back away and do something else for the sake of peace, as though OrangeMarlin were a tantrum-bound four year old who couldn't be held accountable for his own actions. so far as I know he's an adult, perfectly capable of balancing his emotions and acting in calm, deliberate, good faith civility. the fact that he doesn't (and you yourself have noted how often his name ends up in alerts here, so that is not a personal attack but rather a demonstrable fact) is a poor reflection on his character, not ours, and I for one am not interested in coddling him.

if it were me, I'd make him sit in a corner and read wp:Please do not bite the newcomers till he could recite it back to me verbatim, and then I'd quizz him on it, just to make sure. --Ludwigs2 05:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Tantrum-bound four year old?" Thanks.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll use that out-of-context analogous phrase well, OM. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Orangemarlin has stepped up the incivility and ventured into personal attack territory. Check out this edit summary for his reversion of my (and lots of other people's) edits:

Reverting anti-semitic whitewashing

So now I'm being accused of being an anti-Semite. If OM does not face any consequences for these behaviors, they will only continue to escalate. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice try dude. I reverted whitewashing of Wildmon's anti-semitism. And of course, added references. But of course, it's a personal attack to state that I'm making a personal attack. Oh, this is too confusing. Enjoy your evening. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, OM. You obviously are referring to my edits (though you've carelessly reverted others' edits as well) as "whitewashing" even though all I did was move one section to a more appropriate spot in the article - something that I mentioned in the article's talk page and which went unchallenged. And adding "anti-semitic" in front of "whitewashing" is your attempt to describe my alleged motivations for making the edits I did. The only confusing thing is how you are allowed to continue your uncivil behavior and personal attacks. As I said before, if I were the one making the comments you are, I'd have been quickly warned and most likely blocked. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread is going nowhere but a flame war. Think maybe everyone could stop posting long enough for an admin to actually look at the thread? The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Ludwigs2 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

ah, sorry. I hadn't realized when I posted the above that that this alert had been quashed as well. since I can't expect an admin to look at a thread that has somehow been resolved (even over the objections of the person who started it), I feel no compunctions about continuing to post

This is unconditionally despicable behavior, though on the positive side I suppose it's good that OM has friends who take care of him. people, I swear... --Ludwigs2 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

1. Jinxmchue (talk · contribs), who has had three brief blocks the last of which expired in December 2007, announced at that time "Username retired", stating that "My IP address is not static and the last three digits change from time to time. I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT. If they change, they change. In the future, when I notice that the IP has changed, I will post a note about my identity on the new IP user page."[3]
2. Since 15:25, 19 May 2008, he has been editing as 67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs), whose talk page was started by another editor at 05:56, 26 May 2008, with "Warning: Censorship of material on American Family Association". After a series of warnings, 67.135.49.116 made his first edit to his IP user page talk page at 05:13, 17 June 2008,[4] but failed to post the promised note about his identity.
3. He was blocked for edit warring, not vandalism,[5] and on his talk page was advised that his edit summaries using "conspiracy-theorist language" and "hitting out in an aggrieved tone" were not a good way to build consensus.[6]
4. Subsequently, his editing patterns aroused suspicions of sockpuppetry which would have been resolved had he revealed his identity as promised. He only revealed his identity at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Kdbuffalo at 19:20, 18 June 2008, in response to a direct question asking if the IP was Jinxmchue.

• This gives some background in relation to civility issues, the content dispute issues should appropriately be dealt with elsewhere. . dave souza, talk 09:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Drama is alive and well. Sigh. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed

This is not ANI that only deals with strong personal attacks - it deals with incivility and other problematic communications between editors, regardless of how egregious it is, or how many times it ihas occurred. There are clear problems with (and concerns about) the way in which OrangeMarlin conducts himself, and problems also exist among some users who have commented here so far. In any case, it's clear that WQA is an ineffective step in attempting to resolve this dispute. No amount of additional discussion here is going to help the situation so I'm closing this. In the future, please file an RFC on user conduct or pursue some other step in dispute resolution as this will not be effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Totophi

Resolved

 – User warned, and blocked for sockpuppetry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User repeatedly uses personal attacks against editor nrswanson on Talk:C (musical note)#C4 etc. page simply because the editor disagrees with his viewpoint. For example, user insinuates intellectual inferiority of nrswanson based solely on that editor's religious background. When asked to stop personal attacks, user still persists. It is also possible this editor may be using sock puppets and a separate report has been filed for that violation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi. Nrswanson (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a rather long comment on the content dispute (for once, this is in an area where I have some experience and knowledge), and IMO the evidence falls in your favor, Nrswanson. But the problem, as you stated, is that personal attacks are now going both directions - more so from Totophi and the anonymous IP toward you than the other way, but I see evidence that you're both getting heated up about this. So I recommend you all step back and cool down a bit. Remember, attack the content, not the editor.

If this continues past the latest parts of the discussion (including my comments there), let me know and I'll take a closer look and/or issue warnings as appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments such as this are completely unacceptable:

• Totophi wrote at 10:17 on 12 June: "My respect for you and your accomplishments has come to an end. Do you realize how deluded your own statement is? The issue of contention does NOT concern finer points of music theory! In addition, you pompously accuse me of insults where I have stated none. You, on the other hand, are revealing more and more the fine talent of talking a lot while saying little. Do you still claim to uphold the values on which Wikipedia is based? Give it up, you miserable hypocrite. Oh, and that's not an insult, by the way." Et cetera.

That should earn him a block for incivility. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's grounds for an instant block, which is what seems to be requested here. Yes, it is uncivil, and yes it is overstepping the line, but Totophi later showed some signs that he was willing to calm down and stop being disruptive, and the purpose of a block is to reduce or prevent disruption. If a warning has been given, it would be in bad form to then block him without a continuation of the behavior that got him the warning. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that Totophi has made any serious attempt at calming down or working constructively. He has made no apology for personal attacks and has said my accusations of sock puppetry deserved no response since they were "obviously frivolous". It is apparent that he sees nothing wrong with uncivil behavior and, since the sock puppetry case has now been proven, it shows deliberate deceit with the intention of doing harm. I believe a block in this case is warranted as Totophi's actions prove his continued contempt for wikipedia's guidelines.Nrswanson (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo what KieferSkunk has said. This matter is resolved - if the incivility/personal attacks do continue, then please leave a note here with recent evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record. The sockpuppet case has ruled to block him for abusive socking for one week and an administrator has gone ahead with the block.Nrswanson (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:w2bh

Resolved

 – User advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In my Talk page, I got a message from user w2bh which contains the statement "I'd say you have some personal issues regarding your ethnicity and your ancestry". I feel this is a personal attack against me and my heritage. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy. No one should attack someone's ethnicity and ancestry. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello out there, user w2bh is still insulting me. He posted in my Talk page, "Or maybe you have something against unpure blood?" Now he is implying that I am racist. Is anyone out there? Why is no administrator speaking against this harassment I am receiving for User w2bh. Lehoiberri (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you have misinterpreted w2bh's remarks. The "personal issues regarding your ethnicity" comment, while it was getting a bit personal and I will advise w2bh to refrain from those sorts of comments, was not meant to "doubt your ancestry," as you interpreted it. w2bh was trying to understand why it was so disturbing to you to include a reliable source that classified the ethnic makeup of the majority of Argentinians as non-white. w2bh apparently interpreted you to have taken offense at the implication, which w2bh found confusing because he didn't see white vs. non-white as a positive or negative. Of course, I have no idea of knowing what is in your hand, so I want comment on that; I'm just saying it's clear that's what w2bh thought. He wasn't "doubting your ancestry" or anything.

I will advise w2bh to try to keep it more professional and less personal. In the meantime, I would also encourage you to try to be less sensitive about these issues. w2bh is not "harassing" you; the worst he did was make some improper speculation about your motives in reply to something you said. That's inappropriate, but it's not harassment. You could have made the whole thing go away by ending the conversation, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for future reference, you are likely to get a faster response here and at other noticeboards if you provide diffs of the comments in question. Also, I think the slow response was due to it being the weekend. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Slow response also because of "busy-ness" lately :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Yolgnu

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Users warned that future violations of 3RR will lead to blocks - referred to WP:AN/3RR Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This user has been making repeated edits to Malta related articles (specifically Maltese People) for some time now with an agenda I believe borders on xenophobia/racism. Any assistance in sorting out this issue would be appreciated. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to? Please provide a link.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to the Maltese People article, re: Talk:Maltese people specifically the 'Language section of infobox'. You have made edits in a similar vein to the Egyptians article. Also, you've removed my legitimate criticism of your questionable edits from your talkpage. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely see that there is some edit-warring going on at that article, and I would caution everyone involved to be careful about the WP:3RR rule. However, I don't see any xenophobia or racism... The dispute appears to be over whether an infobox should include only official languages, or if it should also include languages spoken by a sizeable minority...? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I felt that Yolgnu's targeting of Malta related articles (making no constructive edits) borders on racial discrimination, similarly, the edits to do with Egyptians. Hopefully the issue on Maltese People has been/will soon be resolved. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, Yolgnu (talk · contribs) and Gibmetal77 (talk · contribs) are both already in violation of WP:3RR. I have warned each of them on their talk page. Further reversions by these users could result in a block without further notice. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:MSJapan

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – referred to Article RFC or mediation for content issues, or WP:AN/I for conduct issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The above user is ignoring WP:V here. The source used is credible. Furthermore, the person who keeps removing the entry knows for a fact that the two major biographies of Christopher Smart document him as a Freemason, that he was part of the Freemason circle of Vauxhall, that there are over 20 academic articles that discuss his "A Song to David" based on interpreting the knowledge he learned as a Freemason, and the notable A Defence of Freemasonry has been attributed to him by himself, his peers, and others who contributed to the poetic appendix to the work. There is no purpose for the user to constantly revert except for WP:OWN purposes and a lack of respect to WP:V. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More actions by MSJapan, which the talk page proves as completely inaccurate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot comment on the merits of the complaint, although my personal experience with MSJapan suggests he is a strong editor. However, this venue is for breaches of civility or for instances of personal interaction which raise questions about good conduct. You have referenced a content dispute and I suggest you try either an RfC or Mediation. This is not the correct place for your concerns. Eusebeus (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note previously filed ANI complaint here which illustrates much more serious issues with the complainant than he would have one believe. These sources the user claims exist did not exist when the initial discussion was pursued, and they still have yet to be produced. The ANI complaint will also show blatant misrepresentation of a source by Ottava. My own research shows no consensus for Ottava's claim, as the sources that state definite proof of membership are all by one author. A more contemporaneous author posits other sources of smart's knowledge than Masonic membership, and no major Masonic writer has listed A Defence of Freemasonry as a work of the caliber that Ottava posits; that is entirely his own fabrication, as he has produced nothing reliable or verifiable to illustrate that particular position.

If we're going to talk Wikiquette, this thread should show pretty plainly who has the problem with Wikiquette. I would suggest, therefore, that the ANI issue be dealt with in lieu of this Wikiquette complaint, unless further punitive action is to be taken against the complainant for filing a spurious claim. I have shown the inaccurate claimant on A song to David to be Ottava. MSJapan (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You really know how to completely misconstrue statements and hide that fact by not actually quoting them 2. Since when would Wikipedia require all verifiable information at the very beginning? 3. Do you really think you can justify your constantly moving between pages deleting verified claims in a manner that boarders WP:STALK? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a place for WQAs - not content dispute - please refer to WP:MEDIATION or Article RFC for help to resolve it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, if you noticed, this isn't a content dispute. This is a borderline stalking problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, take it to WP:AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:ThuranX

Resolved

 – hopefully. Editor warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued gross incivility despite reminders for past 2 weeks. The comment for discussion entry for Talk:Captain America#Intelligence under intelligence revisited stated "sick and tired of this shit." User went on to write:

“ You know what? I don't care anymore. You don't care about the extant consensus, so why should I bother defending it on and on? You're never going to let up, or listen to fucking reason. Go add whatever you want. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC) ”

-66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

I have warned ThuranX to be careful in regards to civility. FWIW, it does seem like he is trying to uphold consensus -- but coming off a recent block for incivility, he needs to be far more careful to watch what he says and how he says it. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question ignored EVERYTHING that went before in favor of a split of 'ILIKEIT' and 'ISAYSO'. No amount of discussion, no amount of asking him to find external sources, had ANY effect whatsoever. AGF and Civility go only so far. I see no reason nor value in persistent civility beyond the point where it's clear an editor will not stop till he gets his way. This pushed well into gaming AGF and CIVIL, and I had had it. I'm not about to apologize, but there was probably a better way to tell the editor to go soak his head. ThuranX (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(Further, that an IP came right here suggests this is a familiar tactic for this IP.) ThuranX (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said both here and on your user talk page, it appears you are in the right regarding the content issue. The best way to deal with someone who ignores consensus is to 1) make sure the consensus is clear on the talk page, 2) make sure their objections to consensus are reasonably addressed (i.e. tell them civilly why they are wrong), and then 3) if they continue to object on the talk page, ignore them; if they continue to revert, report them.

The worst way to deal with someone who ignores consensus is to cuss them out. Now, maybe some day, if I edit Wikipedia long enough, I'll see someone say "You won't listen to fucking reason!" and have the other person respond with, "Oh, hmmm, perhaps you are right, let me take another look at your argument..." But it hasn't happened yet ;p --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

1, 2, and 3 were done, so he reported me before I reported him. Thanks for seeing all that, and still coming for me instead. Nice to know what kind of person you are. ThuranX (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a big rant here, but I decided it was unnecessary. This is all I need to say:

"What kind of person" I am: The kind of person who sees an editor coming off a recent block for gross incivility hurling obscentities at another editor, and rather than issue a templatized warning and/or report to WP:ANI, instead says to himself, "Perhaps there is another side to this story?"

ThuranX's definition of me "coming for" him: [7]

That's all that really needs to be said. If ThuranX has a problem with how I dealt with this, fine. In the future, when I see a report involving civility issues with ThuranX, I will go straight for the "warn" button in Twinkle, rather than investigating first. It will save me a lot of time anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all you did this time, so ... wow... big difference. You didn't 'handle' the problem at all, you said, 'ThuranX is right, but clearly, he should suffer forever, since IP isn't willing to change', which is ridiculous, and proves that on Wikipedia, he who cries first wins. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(redent) I am okay with no action, but please not this is my first Wikiquette report, as could be noted on my edit history. Providing additional sources to a discussion page rather than a contentious edit is my understanding how things are supposed to go. I made no page edits other than to get reasonable response to what I thought were new issues that addressed the previous arguement, and in the face of continued gross incivility, I did not feel so inclined to activly respond to User:ThuranX colorful remarks. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

For someone who so pointedly condemned my perceived incivility, I have to say that I am a bit taken back by ThuranX's comment "AGF and civility only go so far" and that he could have found a better way to tell a user to go soak their head. Nice to know what kind of person ThuranX is; he can dish out the condemnation and advice from on high, but cannot be bothered to follow it himself. I am not defending the anon's actions, but I am certainly drawing attention as to how Thuran seems to be of two minds when it suits his purpose. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between losing one's patience, like I did, and a constant holier than thou attitude, like you're displaying right now, and which has earned you numerous recent AN/I reports. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, perhaps you left after posting your righteous indignation at my "holier than thou" (and what sort of attitude do you think you might have displayed in your comments?) but before each of the AN/I complaints were found to be baseless. Rather a significant difference from being called to AN/I for what one has actually done.

I am working on my behavior, to try and be more charitable towards the foibles of others. This anger/civility - or rather "losing one's patience" - issue of yours appears to be a long-standing problem - at least in the two years I've been here. If you keep 'losing' your patience, perhaps you should attach a leash to it, or some such, so seek a longer-term method of rehabilitating your behavior so the temper doesn't get 'lost' out barking at or biting the neighborhood kids. Just a thought. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to note , the incivilty started upon the first response, not a mere push to edge. I hope this was an opportunity to bring this User's conduct to attention of others in case of future temper losses. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

Will an uninvolved editor please mark this thread as archived? I don't feel that I can do so any longer, since I am being harshly criticized for some reason that is beyond my understanding, therefore making me "involved" I suppose. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If he continues, leave a note here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Blaxthos

• Blaxthos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Blaxthos has on multiple pages[8][9] [10] accused me of being a POV warrior. This has been recognized by admin third party user User:Jaysweet as being a baseless charge. Blaxthos additionally has misused the admin noticeboard, taking a dispute with me there when this would've been the appropriate spot, seemingly in an attempt to intimidate me. This is not the first time this user has misused wikipedia administration tools: [11] there, he stalked and wrongfully reported a user who he'd had a longstanding disagreement with. It was recognized as a wrongful report and dismissed. The root of this disagreement is Blaxthos' uncooperative editing, specifically on the What Happened page. I will copy and paste the crux of the dispute from the admin noticeboard page:

After the initial inclusion of Dole's widely reported letter, Blaxthos removed the edit, asserting that it violated SPS. [12]. Note that this was an incorrect reading of SPS, as I later pointed out in the discussion. When I found a source that in no way violated SPS, Blaxthos removed the entire section (which, to me, constitutes blanking).

Now, you'll notice here[13] that Blaxthos was accepting the inclusion of Dole's letter and the selected other notable responses, saying that as long as McClellan's subsequent response was included, it would constitute a neutral point of view. I objected to this logic, but with no other people offering comments, I let the issue die, as did Blaxthos. We had reached an agreement...

UNTIL Mr. McClellan began his testimony before Congress. Then, without notice, Blaxthos proceeded to unilaterally edit out the section HE had agreed to [14], along with the language that we had likewise reached an agreement on, terming it "sneaky POV."[15][16].

Blaxthos subsequently took to calling me a "POV warrior" in his talk page, in the discussion page of the article, and now on here. This is rather reckless on his part and I am glad to see that this has been recognized as a false claim.

I do not know why Blaxthos is persisting in this campaign against me, and I will not speculate to why he suddenly, surreptitiously subverted our earlier agreed upon text. I am disappointed by his continued spurious claims and hostile attitude.

I did not wish to take this further than civil discussion, but since Blaxthos has been hostile and has resorted to misreporting this on the admin noticeboard, I feel that this warrants some outside attention. Trilemma (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, let me state right away that I am not an admin :) I frequently help out on the admin's noticeboard, because most of the problems there an be resolved by discussion alone. I believe this is one of them.

I would rather see it handled here, since ANI is such high traffic, but since Blaxthos wants to keep it going there, I will respond there for now. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misinformation then, Jaysweet. If it's any consolation, you appear to have the temperament suited to be an admin ;) Trilemma (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to contribute to splintering this discussion into multiple locations, nor will I allow a content dispute to be dragged onto conduct noticeboards. The "facts" above are non sequiturs, and as such I will only address them at ANI. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. Although, you know, ANI is for admin action, and you haven't actually asked for any admin action, you've just said that Trilemma is not observing proper Wikipedia etiquette, so I don't really understand why we have to air it on such a high traffic noticeboard as ANI... but whatever, I'm not going to argue about that. Marking this discussion as done. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay, while Blaxthos insists on keeping this on the admin noticeboard, my decision to post this alert is in part fueled by his (imo) misuse of the board. It's unfortunate that he won't reply here but I would very much like this issue to be looked at by observers on here, in this context. Trilemma (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I removed the "Not a Wikiquette alert" tag. However, I gotta go for the day so somebody else will have to pick this up :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• The editor has been warned at ANI not to remove comments from talk pages (whether or not he self-reports it) or he will be prevented from doing it again. Additionally, after my warning, you both agreed to focus on the issues at hand now and follow Jaysweet's suggestion. So do you still want to proceed with this separately, or can I mark this as resolved for the time being? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While the specific case of the conditions surrounding the RfC have been resolved, there is a general conduct issue that I feel warrants attention. Blaxthos has signaled some level of cooperation in this, as of today, by editing some specifically aggressive language ("An editor (referring to me) has repeatedly inserted criticism from subjects quite disconnected from the topic of this article that serves only to disparage the book and it's author, and has cried "vandalism" when presented with WP:UNDUE.")he used in starting the RfC [17], but this was only after my personal request on his user page, after my requests both on the Admin noticeboard and the talk page of What Happened appeared to go unheeded. At the same time, I feel that the manner in which he started the RfC, the way in which he went about unilaterally removing significant chunks of agreed upon text, and his general non-cooperative attitude until he was essentially compelled to warrants attention--especially since this is not the first time that he has misused administration areas during a dispute with another editor. Trilemma (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Jaysweet will be willing to pick this up again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> No good deed goes unpunished? ;)

Trilemma, you mention that Blaxthos has misused noticeboards in the past. Do you have diffs of this? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's the link from above, [18]. Arzel should've taken his case here, but summarized it instead in the admin noticeboard [19]. Clearly it wasn't a case for there, but it would've been appropriate to bring it here. Having followed the incident, it appeared to me that Blaxthos was stalking Arzel, due to their past interactions, and looking for a way to use administration areas as a tool of revenge. I didn't involve myself in the affair, but being that this is now a second instance in which Blaxthos appears to be misusing administration areas during conflict, I feel it warrants noting. this, combined with his decision to unilaterally remove a significant section of an article after he agreed to its inclusion, is why I feel perhaps a sterner warning is needed.Trilemma (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed are unconstructive comments in AfDs, such as [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Destroy All Humans! series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional chemical substances, A-M, [28], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases, [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], etc. Far too many WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:NOREASON, WP:PERNOM, and Wikipedia:Merge and delete posts, which are an etiquette issue in that as others have said calling people's work "cruft" is insulting and elsewhere others have also strongly suggest that we don't merely approach AfDs to just try to delete articles, but that we take some time trying to fix them first. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Blaxthos aware that this thread is still ongoing? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I alerted him to the initiation of the process, but he has seemed disinterested in participating. Trilemma (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's what I see:

I don't see a big problem with the AfD diffs that Les Grand pointed out. While I am sympathetic to his position on that, and think that probably a lot of those !votes weren't particularly valuable, there's sort of a de facto tolerance for that kind of thing.

I for one don't like Blaxthos' habit of privately contacting people on their talk page to get them to reverse a decision/opinion every time something doesn't go exactly his way (e.g. here). I think it is a bit overly-aggressive and doesn't encourage a harmonious resolution to problems.

I also don't particularly care for his habit of putting everything as a numbered bulleted list every time he is trying to make a point... heh.. But it's hard to fault him hugely for this. My concern with it is that it can come across as very confrontational. But who can say if that's really his intention? It's just a style I don't care for, but there's nothing inherently incivil about it.

The Arzel 3RR case potentially points to a bit of Wikilawyering.. it is unclear if he really felt it was a legit 3RR violation, or if, as some editors had alleged, Blaxthos had been lying in wait to "get" Arzel on something. I would be inclined to WP:AGF for now, but it is a little bit of a concern.

The bottom line advice I would have for Blaxthos is to just chill out a bit :D People are going to bend and break the rules a lot of the time, and one needs to pick their battles. Sometimes, allowing people to bend the rules can even be a good thing. Even when it's not, I think Blaxthos would benefit from letting other folks' transgressions slide a little more.

However, I don't see any major Wikiquette issues on Blaxthos' part. With the possible exception of the Arzel 3RR case (and again, I am assuming good faith on that for now), the only thing I can really find Blaxthos guilty of is approaching situations differently than I would approach them. heh... I'm still awaiting that promotion to King of Wikipedia, but until then, I think Blaxthos is allowed to do that ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack in Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Complainant advised to use diffs in the future, and should consider taking a break from the topic. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

under the dub heading compromise The user User:The Hybrid is harassing me Yami (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I went over there and I could not find any harassment. I think that there are some editors (yourself included) who need to take a step back from this conflict a bit (and it is a conflict). My personal opinion is that this is not a Wikiquette issue, and is more of a content dispute issue. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yami -- Please see this guide for how to provide "diffs" of individual user comments. Like LonelyBeacon, I see no evidence of harrassment and I frankly have no idea what you are talk about. If we missed something, you can provide a diff of the exact comment. Otherwise, please patiently work out your differences. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly frustrated that the subject of this complaint responded a little aggressively to a comment you made during a content dispute. However, the comment you made was very problematic, so it's a good idea to pay attention to those concerns and ignore the tone expressed by the subject of the complaint. Stick to the issues next time - comment on content, not contributors. Beyond that, there's nothing else to see here. It might be a good idea for you to take a break from the topic. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Landon1980

Stale

 – Complainant gone on wiki-break. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user began by editing the Underoath Article against a consensus. The user keeps removing "Christian" label off of bands that classify themselves as being a "Christian band" simple because he thinks that means their religion, not music. Wikiedpia's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music all say otehrwise. He brought the conflict to my user page, and then went on to say I was being uncivil myself. I admit, I haven't kept my cool (because the pages that are being edited have had previous consensus to keep the Christian label and they didn't edit accordingly). I tried to tell him that a Christian band plays Christian music (as common sense would tell), but he refused and went on to edit my user talk page with "I don't understand you at all, isn't it about time for you to convert back over to atheism anyways?" I am highly offended by this, I don't think it's right or even civil to tell someone something like that. I told him to stay off but... I highly doubt he will. He isn't the only one to do this, as there are two others, but at least they have been civil about this. Please resolve this. There isn't a Chrsitian Metal wikiproject and a Christian metal category for nothing. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IronCrow, you are the only one who has been really uncivil [42], complaining about everything, and getting really angry and frustrated because no one seems to support your point of view (As we can see here [43] [44]) you have even tried to bring people into the discussion to support your point of view [45]. You have also tried to be the victim all the time, giving apologies to people that has edited the Underoath and As I Lay Dying articles, like if articles can not be changed, or something can not be argueable. [46] [47] And, let's not forget you have accused us of sockpuppetry (and it's not the first time he do that : [48]) Seems like you can not stand people with other point of view of what you think of a "Christian band" is. Admins, please read the whole discussion before taking any actions, here [49] and here [50]--Kmaster (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add two cents here if I may. IrønCrøw is a major contributor to the Wikipedia's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music and to cite them in support of an arguement here, or to claim some sort of consenses, amounts to nothing more than saying he says so. That is not support in favor of a position but spamming to win an argument. It's self-righteousness at its very worst. Personally, what I'm seeing here is a wiki member using music to cram christianity down people's throats whether it's appropriate to a topic or not. Unless a band is singing in the choir on Sunday mornings, anybody would be hard-pressed to prove they are anything but makers of secular music. And let's not forget that promoting an agenda is NOT music, it's politics, even if that agenda is Christianity. The inquisition failed a thousand years ago. Don't let IrønCrøw breathe new life into it here on Wikipedia. Willie --216.8.171.242 (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I should start by supplying all the diffs of IronCrow speaking in all caps, calling me silly, ridiculous, a sock puppet, lacking viability, "we are all adults, I hope," etc., but I'm not going to. I also want to say that I never said that Christian bands did not play Christian music. What I said was a bands genre is what kind of music they play, and that just because band members are Christians it doesn't mean they play Christian music. My opinion is if a band is metalcore they play metalcore music, if a band is 'Christian rock' they play Christian rock music, etc. The whole conflict is over the As I Lay Dying (band) and Underoath articles: We all agree that Christian has nothing to do with their genre, and that they are both metalcore bands. Well myself and two other editors feel the lead sentence should describe the band in genre related terms like all the other articles, deeming them a metalcore band, rather than a Christian metalcore band. We moved the fact the band members are all Christians into the second sentence so it wouldn't confuse readers by making them think they were a 'Christian metalcore' band rather than a metalcore band. I realize that a lot of Christian bands play Christian music, but that is when 'Christian______' is their genre. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a bands genre the kind of music they play? Does the fact they are Christians make it Christian music instead of metalcore? Landon1980 (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If they, themselves call the music they play "Christian Rock" then that is their genre. Calling it anything else is original research. If on the other hand they do not call their music "Christian Rock" then it is OR to call it Christian rock, even if they are Christians and they play rock music. If there are significant other sources calling theeir music Xtian Rock then you might mention that, maybe, but should put in some phrases like "have been called". OK?Filceolaire (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• If they're Christians, then they fall under the category of 'Christian persons' or something to that effect that has been used as a category by the relevant WikiProjects - in effect, this is a biographical detail. If they play music that is on Christianity (Gospel music might be a good example), then they can be called 'Christian bands' or 'Christian metal band' or whatever. If they don't play on/about Christianity, then they are not Christian bands - even if as individuals, they may follow Christianity. If you need me (or someone else) to explain this better, OK, but the rest can be resolved among yourselves - both of you need to retract your incivilities (wherever made - by striking through them) and move on. If this is not possible, then please state why not here, because it should be simple to do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Landon1980 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything about the debate, but I agree with everything Kmaster has said. IronCrow is the only one being uncivil, constantly typing in caps and acting like we just committed a crime and are denying it. He even said he was pissed off at us. [51] I was going to cite examples of this but looks like Kmaster already got the major ones. — ^FatalError 03:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil accusations on Pederasty article

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This is primarily a content dispute, and far beyond the capacity of this noticeboard to resolve. Sorry. Try WP:RFC perhaps? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Hello. I would like to draw attention to the pederasty article, which is having some problems right now.

Pederasty (as erotic relations between men and boys) is considered from various viewpoints, some historical, others positive, and of course majority views tend to be condemnatory, especially those that are concerned about the legal consequences, and harm to children. I (and it seems some other editors) am perfectly fine with every relevant view to be presented. Editors have expressed concern over POV forking (having a seperate pederasty and a pederasty in the modern world article), and that needs cleaning up, and there are many unsourced POV statements in the article. However, a group of editors (especially Haiduc [52] and AnotherSolipsist[53]) seem to be constantly removing peer-reviewed critical material when it is introduced:

When peer reviewed literature presenting relevant and majority views on pederasty are presented, they tend to cry homophobia, political conspiracy, smear, and propaganda and revert large sections of text [54][55][56][57][58], and as can be seen from the above, they make every attempt to remove material that describes the critical or majority views on pederasty. The accusations of “homophobic propaganda” are also quite ridiculous considering that most homosexuals have a dislike of pederasty and research suggests that they are mutually exclusive anyway [59]. When material is moved to the discussion page for discussion, they tend to totally ignore it [60][61], and focus instead on distracting from discussing material facts by throwing uncivil accusations about [62][63]. They fail to assume good faith, and fail to address the actual facts being presented. Their protestations seem to amount to “I don’t like it”. I have made strong efforts to follow the edit-revert-discuss cycle to all reasonable lengths, but constructive discussion of the material in question is not forthcoming. Any advice or attention will be welcome. Phdarts (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that reliable sources on the topic should be included, especially those pertaining to the majority or critical view. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagee with the above editors. In a nutshell, Phdarts and other editors are pushing the bizarre pov that pederasty (an awful and equivocal word!) is pedophilia. Elsewhere I've pointed out that they are different things: I wrote: "How stupid it would be to call, say, Chaplin's (who was much older than me) marriage with an 18-year old beautiful nymphet 'pedophilic.'" It's surrealistic to discuss with pushers who put into the same category Chaplin with, say, a Catholic priest who molests dozens of little kids. Yes: this article deserves attention but since this subject is too controversial this will be my first and last post in this page. —Cesar Tort 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Cesar Tort. With respect, pederasty is considered to be a form of pedophilia for many researchers in peer reviewed articles. It is considered to be homosexual pedophilia yet at the same time pederasty is considered mutually exclusive to homosexuality (because homosexuals (similar to women) prefer fit, well toned clean looking mature males, rather than the pederast's "boyish purity ideal"). Pederasty is generally considered to be sexual relations between a male over 18 (usually and in the classical Greek and Roman sense over 40) and a child or adolescent (most often but not always 12 to 16). In most legal juristictions it is illegal. The research says it is generally considered to be pedophilia (in English), and in the US is it considered to be the sexual abuse of adolescents (Crosson Tower, amongst other academics). These are peer reviewed articles and books we are talking about, not just unsourced speculation. Feel free to add any contradictory information you wish, but this is a matter for all relevant views, including the scientific. Phdarts (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so, I'll take a crack at this one... I am aware of a long-running edit war on Wikipedia between pedophile apologists and anti-pedophile activists, but have stayed well on the periphery of this battle. I really don't need that kind of stress in my life, heh.

It appears this dispute is related to that long-running war. Would that be at least somewhat correct?

Again, I don't have any desire to mediate in that dispute, nor do I feel like I would have the skills of knowledge to do so. To put it bluntly, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

So, while I am absolutely not going to attempt to resolve content disputes at Pederasty (dear god, no), what I will offer to do is if there are specific issues of incivility or tedentious editing, I am willing to look at diffs and try to give advice in relation to that. I am willing to warn users about civility (given a clear-cut diff of said incivility, of course), and I am willing to help broker specific compromises.

If you want someone to go mediate on the article itself, you'll have to find someone else. Frankly, I don't think you are going to get a lot of takers on this noticeboard -- over here, we usually just try to soothe tempers when people are getting a little stressed at each other. This kind of complicated mediation is beyond most of what happens at Wikiquette Alerts.

Within these constraints, let me know what I can do to help. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

" I am aware of a long-running edit war on Wikipedia between pedophile apologists and anti-pedophile activists... Would that be at least somewhat correct?" No, it would be 100% incorrect. That's exactly the problem. None of the editors who object to the behaviour of Phdarts are "pedophile apologists", and I would be astonished if they did not object to idiots who labelled them as such. The reason that I consciously used the word "idiots" and the reason why this "Wikiquette alert" is a disgrace are the same. The real insult is to the editors who oppose Phdarts and who feel deeply and quite rightly insulted by comments such as the one you have just made. All the editors who object to Phdarts's edits complain about homophobia, for the very reason that Cesar Tort has given, and that I have also given, without getting any response [64]. Editors are frustrated by the promotion of fringe theory by Phdarts whose activities are essentially protected because of fear of the insinuations by editors who make comments like yours. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you so easily PaulB, but I did give a response [65]. If you feel that some of the literature of academics is homophobic, your view is not what counts in the article, and in the abscence of any information that states those views are homophobic, your accusation goes directly to the editors who provide the facts. Using terms such as idiots, and homophobic, certainly feels abusive to those being attacked as such. It feels uncivil and certainly makes discussion and editing very difficult. The article requires a far more constructive approach. From this point there seems to be a great deal of persistent work to do to get to that point. Phdarts (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you so easily Phdarts, but I did give a response to you, as your diff indicates, since it is the diff of my response. You gave no response to me. Do try to keep to the facts. [66]. Paul B (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul B. The text [67] largely answers your question even though it came before your question, as does [68] and [69]. Older or mature men having erotic relationships with adolescent females are generally condemned as pedophiles. That is a common view in and outside of academia. The same is true with older or mature men having relations with adolescent boys, though the term pederast is used instead. Again, these are not fringe theories at all and they are supported by the literature. This is so basic it should not even need to be repeated. Treating editors as homophobes or idiots really doesn’t help matters. Please discuss cooperatively. Phdarts (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Older or mature men having erotic relationships with adolescent females are generally condemned as pedophiles." This is utter fantasy. If the girls are above the age of consent they absoutely are not. Adult men having sex with teenage girls happens all the time. It is, for obvious biological reasons, normal sexuality, not paedophilia. Your own sources acknowledge that. We have no special word for it, hence the fact that using a special word for the equivalent practice within a homosexual context is discriminatory. Your complete refusal to acknowledge that this is a legitimte and common position is the cventral problem and it leads to extreme frustration. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Paul B. If you are interested in fairness, talk to a homosexual who has been persecuted for having an erotic relationship with another homosexual of the same age. It happens. I understand you are frustrated. But then you will obviously be frustrated if you have to countenance all relevant views of pederasty. I think you will have to somehow cope with this. The fact is, pederasty is condemned if not hated by parents and singles alike. Its just a fact of life. Beyond that, the law in many places condemns pederasty. Getting back to definitions, the most common definition of pederasty is always Men and Boys. Then Men and Male Children. Then children of around 12 to 16. In many legal situations, when there is a relationship between an over-16 and a 24 year old, it is often not considered pederasty or pedophilia at all. However, many people in academia and society will dislike the idea of mature men having erotic relations with even 18 year old males and females, and there is a very significant push for having the age of consent as high as 21. Pederasty, to the majority, is erotic relations between 12 to 16 year olds, is generally considered a form of pederasty, and is just one of those things. When pederasts are prosecuted, they get hit very hard in prison, because sexual deviants, especially those who focus on minors, get it really bad in prison. Again, if you find that unfair, I think you are just going to have to cope with that somehow. All relevant views are to be allowed in the article, especially when they come from reliable sources. Its as simple as that. I'd recommend treating it with a detatched attitude. Hope this helps. Phdarts (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no end your offensiveness is there? The constant references to "deviants" and assertions about what a fantasised "majority" are just forms of insidious bullying far far worse than anything of Haiduc's. There is no "very significant push for having the age of consent as high as 21". That is a very extreme minority view. In the UK the age of consent for homosexual relations was reduced from 18 to 16 in 2000 - with majority popular support. There is no debate whatever about it being raised, and the idea that it should be raised to 21 is so very far beyond the mainstream that it is the fringe of the fringe. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul B. Please assume good faith. Yes there have been historical reductions in age of consent, and there have been protestations. These are all significant views that can be represented in the article wherever appropriate. It is your view that an age of 21 for consent is fringe. Try telling that to the father of a young daughter in, for example in a traditional area of the country. Your view is not what matters here. It is the reliable sources that count. Please deal with the material at hand without ignoring the assume good faith recommendation. Phdarts (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a provisional requirement. It is not my personal view that it is fringe. It is simply a fact. There is no significant debate to raise it. The majority - which you keep claiming support for your view - agreed with the equalising the age of consent [70]. "Try telling that to the father of a young daughter in, for example in a traditional area of the country" Is that supposed to be an argument? Please provide evidence that there is any significant proposal to increase the age of consent. That would mean that major parties supported such a change or that lobby groups with widespread support were making it and that legislators were proposing legislation to that effect. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The pederasty article was having no problems (for many years) until a group of like-minded editors suddenly descended on the article en masse about a month ago. "Coincidence" is probably not the best word to describe the event. Their edits all aimed to depict pederasty as child abuse, and used as stratagem the fact that the word "pederasty" is polysemic. One of its meanings IS indeed "child abuse." But that meaning is well covered at the article(s) on that topic. There is a link to them in the article.

The meaning of "pederasty" that is covered in the article by that name is as defined there: the definition which applies to much of its history and which is used by sexologists, historians, artists, etc. It happens to include many legitimate homosexual relationships in modern times, to the extent that they take place between adolescent youths above the age of consent and post-adolescent or older males. Thus the insistent efforts to impose a child abuse model on all pederasty is, sad to say, homophobia.

The main argument that this crowd has been clinging to is that they want the article to reflect "majority views." But Wikipedia is not a compendium of conventional wisdom. It is an elitist undertaking: we humble editors take the knowledge that scholars and intellectuals (the elite) have created and present it in digestible form for the use of the masses. Not the other way around.

I could say much more, but I respect other editors' time and I am not here to complain. Haiduc (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. Assuming good faith is very important, especially with this type of article. Your statements about removing child abuse related information might have a little credibility if it weren't for the fact that you also remove critical information that is directly related to pederasty and pro-pederast groups [71]. The dispute does seem to go a lot further back than the "coincidence" you refer to. You might be constructive if you could learn to assume good faith, discuss the actual matter of the edits, and stop using such antagonistic edit summaries. Phdarts (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jaysweet. I understand your reluctance to step in to the situation. Both the articles in question and the style of discussion seem also to me to push away the normal reader or editor.

I started off on Wikipedia looking at improving material on psychology and therapies in general as that is my background. The pederasty article caught my eye after a general look at the state of the psychology on some of the paraphilia related articles. Similar to the pedophilia article, there seemed to be a long term push to remove some of the pertinent facts about harm to any related party. The huge range of pederasty articles seemed and seems to have a distinct lack of majority views, especially regarding policy, concerns about harm to minors, and psychological harm in general. Information is lacking both pro and anti and I started working on filling the gaps, especially where “Citation needed” was presented.

The feeling I got from some of the editors on the article was any factual or majority view on pederasty should apply only to child abuse articles, and that if it was presented on the pederasty article it would be an attack on homosexuality. Of course, from just a cursory view of literature on homosexual society, its clear that modern and majority homosexuals distance themselves from pederasty. So it seems extremely desperate to me that someone should constantly claim homophobia when a phenomenon (pederasty; erotic attraction to male children) largely seen as a type of pedophilia (erotic attraction to children) has well sourced majority views applied.

I imagine the article will require mediation. Whether there are any anti-pedophile activists or pedophile apologists doesn’t particularly bother me. I am resigned to the fact that Wikipedia will probably have those elements. Its the presentation of views in proper proportion, and the scientific views that largely dictate modern social, legal, and ethical matters that really needs work. Any editors who appear to be pedophile apologists would actually be better off with some of those majority or science views being presented, albeit with all sides of the controversy. But that’s not happening right now, as there seems to be a general fear that the article will look totally condemnatory when all views are presented properly. I don’t think it will be that bad. I believe the main problem is that fear, together with the idea of “article ownership”. Good Wikiquette and discussion will help.

What variety of diffs are you interested in looking at first? Phdarts (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the lecture, sir. I have always assumed good faith, and I have usually been rewarded with interesting and constructive discussions from which I learned a great deal and which almost invariably resulted in improvements to the articles I worked on, whether pederasty-related or not. In your case too I assumed good faith, but you, Phdarts, together with your collaborators, quickly disabused me of that illusion. You have consistently refused to engage in any meaningful discussion, as have your associates. Instead of engaging in a process of reasoning you have attempted to enforce your point of view by force of numbers and interminable repetition of favorite themes, one of them being the imposition of "majority views" and another being the incessant appeal to assuming good faith while destroying that faith through your behavior. I see that here too that pattern continues. Mediation?! Please go ahead. Your own words indict you better than mine ever could. Haiduc (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. This is a Wikiquette discussion, and you really are supposed to consider me as in collaboration with you. According to what I understand about Wikipedia (actually Wikipedia makes it blatantly clear on policy pages) we are supposed to edit, and civilly discuss matters when they are disputed. You have not been civil, as far as I can see, in your constant allusion to conspiracy, smear, propaganda and so on. You have also largely been ignoring material facts, and have been focusing on accusations. Assuming good faith, I did doublecheck your assertion on propaganda within the literature, and the only reliable facts I could find were "Durkin, Keith F. & Clifton, D. Bryant (1999) Propagandizing pederasty: A thematic analysis of the on-line exculpatory accounts of unrepentant pedophiles. Deviant Behavior 20,2:103-127.". This goes into detail over the faulty reasoning of pederasts, such as calling pedophilia pederasty, harmless, consensual (even when it is legally non-consentual), educational, and attacking society as homophobic. You nipped that piece of peer reviewed evidence based psychology in the bud here [72] and called it homophobic propaganda. The article has a severe lack of modern scientific material for enlightening the reader. But one good thing at least; I am glad you are interested in mediation and that we can move forward, perhaps even without all the desperately angry and accusational edit summaries, attacks, and discussion headings. Phdarts (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear me, this is why I don't get involved in these discussions. I write a couple paragraphs, and I come back 14 hours later to see several Kbytes of arguing. You anti-pederasty activists and pederasty apologists (I will not make the mistake of saying the pedo- word in present company anymore!) really need to see WP:TLDR. hehehe...

I have a few thoughts about the content dispute, but I am not nearly qualified. I would like to point out that Statutory rape is in Category:Child sexual abuse, FWIW, so even if we accept that pederasty and pedophilia are two separate things, it still seems remiss not to discuss an association between pederasty and abuse. But I don't really know anything about the literature, so I'll just leave it at that observation and not comment further on the content.

So, the Wikiquette issue at hand... Phdarts, to test my understanding, your main Wikiquette complaint is the edit summary that used the phrase "homophobic propaganda." Is that correct?

PaulB, Haiduc... words like "homophobic" and "propaganda" are very strong words, and when you put them together the message is even more intense. I would caution you to be very careful about using words such as this, especially in edit summaries (since they can not be retracted or modified later, not without admin assistance). I, in fact, avoid using words like that altogether most of the time -- and I have edited some pretty homophobic stuff out of articles before, but I try not to use those words because it just antagonizes the other side.

One option to move forward is that Haiduc can acknowledge that the words "homophobic propaganda" are highly charged and agree not to use language like that in edit summaries anymore. I think that is the easiest way to move forward, and it is what I would recommend. After all, if you feel a source is homophobic propaganda, you can still feel free to challenge it, but using less loaded words, e.g. you might say on the talk page (not edit summary, please) that "I feel this source has a clear bias as evidenced by X, Y, and Z, and I would object to using it as a reliable scientific source."

If this is really unacceptable to you, we can talk about other options. But really, does it take away from your ability to edit if you just don't call something "propaganda" in an edit summary? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jay. Yes, you are correct, the most obvious evidence for the reason for my complaints are on the edit summaries, arguments and discussion headings, that tend to scream "homophobia". And this runs on into the general discussion, that generally ignores when the actual material is placed into the discussion page, and instead focuses on accusations towards editors. The material is is simply not getting discussed. Its just getting objected to by editors who like the classical view of pederasty (pederasty as education, rather than pederasty as a sort of pedophilia). All that is really needed is that some editors stop claiming "homophobia" when they see something critical, and actually get down to discussing the author, the journal, and the relative weight of the actual view. As far as I am concerned, all the critical material so far has been ignored, so it can all go into the article, and there is a lot there. Any seemingly pro-pederasty editor are really shooting themselves in the foot here. I reckon myself to be pretty reasonable. That doesn't involve summarily booting peer reviewed articles from the article. Adjustments are fine by me. Any encouragement towards sensible discussion, rather than editwar, would be helpful here. Phdarts (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)PS, your suggestion to Haiduc is also very helpful. Phdarts (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay, if you cannot see how profoundly noxious Phdart's language is then I am sorry. He maintains the rhetoric of politeness as a strategy, while constantly using very derogatory and divisively judgemental comments that consistently mirepresent the views he is responding to. Referring to an argument as homophobic is entirely legitimate, and certainly no more objectionable than referring to "deviants" and insidiously attempting to smear an editor by association with them. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the literature Paul B, and try to keep a level head about it. I checked up on Haiduc's accusation of propaganda and the literature search led me to Durkin et al 1999. If you find it impossible to countenance the literature, then I think you have a serious problem. It does take a certain amount of self control to deal with objectionable subjects. I suggest you start at least trying to assume good faith, and trying to work with editors who deal with the actual literature pertaining to pederasty, both ancient and modern. Phdarts (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am closing and archiving this debate, and referring the participants to WP:RFC. While I do think there are some Wikiquette issues here, they are too intertwined with the underlying content dispute issues, and those issues are far beyond the ability of this noticeboard to address.

For instance, I wish people wouldn't throw around words like "homophobic" or "propaganda," but we can't really call it a cut-and-dry Wikiquette issue unless we establish whether or not an academic source criticizing pederasty can be considered homophobic -- and I'm going to cowardly refuse to even participate in that debate, sorry.

I have discussed this with another editor who is heavily involved in resolving requests on this noticeboard, and he agrees -- we just don't have the right people or the right resources to deal with it here. If an uninvolved editor would like to bravely take a crack at this, they may remove my {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} tags and reopen the discussion, but I would ask that nobody who commented here does so. As I said, we just can't help you here. I am sorry. Try WP:RFC. Best of luck. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

SlamDiego

Resolved

 – Appears to be a retaliatory report. Will re-open if Blackeagles provides diffs --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• SlamDiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

highly uncivil and if you check the start of his edit history he doesn't act like a new guy hence I suspect he's also a sockpuppet. --Blackeagles (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs of the incivil comments you are referring to? Thanks :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about his accusing me of be a salking horse "last-caught sockpuppet" or that "Maybe you need to blow your nose, then."

Or he's obvious grudge against people of faith that taints so many of his posts and that's just in the last 7 days if one checks his edit history you'll find he makes remarks like this all the time. And then there's his sockpuppetry. My experience has been that most people start an account on wikipedia to edit articles (not to talk or argue) and as a result they start editing in articles. SlamDiego started editing in a talk area and went right from that to starting an article with a redirect, and not long after showed the kind of knowledge of wikipedia that only comes with working in it for over a year [73]. It's pretty obvious been on wikipedia before and under a different name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeagles (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you go all the way back? His first contributions were in August 2006. (no opinion on recent comments I haven't looked at them.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just as I noted here, there is an open checkuser request from SlamDiego on Blackeagles here. Adam McCormick (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, for the info. Marking as resolved, unless Blackeagles can provide diffs of actual incivility. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about his accusing me of be a salking horse "last-caught sockpuppet" or that "Maybe you need to blow your nose, then." Or he's obvious grudge against people of faith that taints so many of his posts and that's just in the last 7 days if one checks his edit history you'll find he makes remarks like this all the time. --Blackeagles (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackeagles, please follow the link I provided in my first reply to you, to see instructions on how to create a diff. (You should look at the Simple Diff Guide, which can be found here) I will not dig through SlamDiego's contribs to try and verify these comments; you really need to provide a diff so that we can rapidly locate the comment in question and then judge it in context. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and if you are concerned about the allegations of sockpuppetry, please wait for the Request for Checkuser to be resolved. If this exonerates you, it could potentially reflect poorly on SlamDiego, and we could consider it at that time. Please wait for it to be resolved, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assert that you were a stalking horse; I wrote “Plainly, this nomination is a stalking horse.” And my assertion was that Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle was the “last-caught sockpuppet” of Grazon. As to the edit-summary suggestion “Maybe you need to blow your nose, then.”, I remind you that it followed your summary “This doesn't smell right” (for an easily verified assertion, already supported by the refs of the article, but for which I provided an explicit link). Anyway, I will hold any further comment here until after the completion of checkuser/Grazon. —SlamDiego_←T 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend everyone reading this check SlamDiego’s edit history from the start even if you disagree with the rest of my statement it is a fascinating read.

The fact is though that people who are new to Wikipedia don’t start out editing like SlamDiego.

He’s a clever one SlamDiego, chances are he’s working from a server with a rotating IP address.

He’s not new to Wikipedia he’s been here before under a different name.

He doesn’t operate like most disruptive editors though.

He limits his edits and conceals his disruptions from most people with the shear volume of his grammar corrections, and further dissuades most people from confronting him by employing a large vocabulary when he isn’t threatening to have people banned.

He’s the equivalent of a cumulative poison that takes years to kill a person but in the end it does.

I’ve also looked into grazon and while he did a lot of damage it wasn’t hard to spot.

I suspect he was a leftover from an earlier time from before the Seigenthaler incident.

SlamDiego is a new kind of creature and if you don’t keep an eye on him he will be more destructive that grazon ever was. --Blackeagles (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Blackeagles has also produced Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:SlamDiego. My inclination is to believe that I should (for the most part) ignore it, until and unless it is transformed into a properly filed accusation. —SlamDiego_←T 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Er: He's also created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SlamDiego (no “User:” before “SlamDiego”), and has transcluded it into Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. My guess is that this is more a matter of flailing than an attempt to misdirected me about which page held the charge. —SlamDiego_←T 01:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The allegations about SlamDiego not being new to Wikipedia are completely asburd. Here are a number of reasons why I don't want to hear about the crap ever again:

1. SlamDiego's first edit was a question on a Talk page. This is about the most normal first edit I've ever seen. He didn't even try to edit an article. There is nothing to see here.
2. His next 14 edits were totally average edits, creating a stub article, fixing typos, etc. This is just normal new user stuff.
3. His 15th edit was an attempt at a disambiguation page. That's a little ambitious for a new user, but SlamDiego was not new by this point -- he had been editing Wikipedia for two months! (Aug 2006 to Oct 2006) So all this proves is that SlamDiego is not a complete and total idiot. I mean, are you really saying that if a user takes less than 60 days to understand how a disambiguation page works, they must be some kind of supergenius? Um, no.
4. It's totally irrelevant anyway. Even if we assume that back in freaking 2006, SlamDiego was not new to Wikipedia, there is nothing to prohibit users from starting a new account in order to get a fresh start, as long as they do not use it disruptively. SlamDiego has not been disruptive (unlike, ahem, certain other people). There is no evidence of him engaging in sockpuppetry whatsoever. Incidentally, that is why your WP:SSP report is a completely malformed and bogus report -- you are not allowed to "fish" for socks, you have to actually have suspected sockpuppets to report. But you have none. You have zero evidence, but have created a tedentious sockpuppetry report anyway.

I am sorry if I am being incivil (and on the Wikiquette Alerts page, no less, heh..). This just really irritates me. See, it's one thing to make tendentious, retaliatory allegations against someone. But the least you could do is have those allegations be NOT STUPID. Learn how to actually fill out a WP:SSP report before you filed a bullshit one, okay? Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well put. This is another example of how this page is consistently misused by editors seeking to game the system instead of genuine breaches of civility. WQA seriously needs a rethink to stop this kind of nonsense. Eusebeus (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Maldek

• Maldek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maldek and I have been involved in a long running "difference of opinion" over reliable sources on the Burj Dubai article - Maldek saying an fan-boy blog site is an accurate source of information, and me and many others saying we need verifiable information from reliable sources even if it's not completely up-to-date, as per Wikipedia policy. Now for once Maldek believes we have a small point of agreement over the proposed height of another middle eastern skyscraper, Al Burj, when in fact I was simply copyediting another editor's contribution and assuming good faith that they had subscription access to a source. Unfortunately, Maldek is now taking this as some kind of endorsement that must be correct because I am "the man in charge" or "the God of Wikipedia". I really don't think such edit summaries are appropriate and is coming close to being a personal attack - but what do you guys think? Astronaut (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• • It would be useful to provide diffs to illustrate the instances you reference above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We don't need diffs for the obvious (check contributions history). In any case, I'm not sure how to settle this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• (reset indent). I came here to decide to post a WP:WQA or WP:RFC/USER on User:Maldek and notice that someone has already started a WQA so I'll elaborate on a similar issue related to poor choice of sources and poor method of editing by the editor. User:Maldek has very poor (IMHO) judgement on what constitutes a reliable source. They post huge numbers of links to talk page as justification of their edits and don't add (any) references to their actual article edits e.g. [74], [75]. The weirdest one though is accidentally mistaking some Wikipedia mirrors as being the sources of the Wikipedia article and accusing Wikipedia articles of plagiarism [76]. Back in March the user wanted to be deleted [77]. Maybe someone can ask if they want to be blocked from editing ? Ttiotsw (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone pour oil over troubled waters?

While adding material to Relationship between religion and science article over the past two weeks or so, I keep encountering what I perceive as rather strong language from User:Hrafn on the article's talk page Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science: the latest is "I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose," but in the past it has included such phrases as "Put up or shut up" I also am encountering rather pointy behavior. Recently, he or she followed me over to the unrelated project WP:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song where he or she brought up several other AfD's I had just contributed to (I don't think I went too far, but maybe I did. For I cited WP:TROLL). Plus he or she then tagged several of my other articles (e.g., Aydin Sayili). More recently, i.e., last night, he or she made drastic removals to the Relationship between religion and science article regarding well-sourced materials from H. Floris Cohen's 1994 book The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry in an apparent response to my additions of a small section, which I well-sourced to Peter J. Bowler's 2001 book Reconciling Science and Religion.

• Now the colorful language, the following me around, I could overlook and would ultimately hope to forget and forgive (and be forgiven too), but in the meantime I would like to work on the article Relationship between religion and science without undue language and behavior issues. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs of specific edits? The way the discussion is currently structured it's very hard to follow who said what... Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As the editor in question, here are some difs. Firefly322 has:

1. Made material misinterpretations ("Not at all a minority viewpoint") of edits that he has made ("A few yet significant number of scholars");
2. Made accusations of "POV", "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" & "WP:TRUTH" being the basis for my editing;
3. Repeatedly removed legitimate maintenance tags;[78][79][80][81][82] and
4. Repeatedly accused me of being a "WP:TROLL"[83][84][85]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

hmph... I would be happy to take a look at this page (partly because I didn't know it was there and it looks interesting), but I am currently in a bit of a tiff with Hrafn on a different page, and I don't want to export trouble. I'll take a look regardless, for my own interests and to offer what support I can, but unless H is willing to trust me to be objective on this issue I can't really feel comfortable making any comments. --Ludwigs2 04:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Total non-expert just throwing my .02 in, but looking back at the history of the discussions and WP:SPADE, there is some colorful language in this section that probably didn't help the process. At this point, my impression is that neither editor in this dispute is being particularly civil, and "who started it" is kind of irrelevant. Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As to the "I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose" comment:

• I was doing general maintenance on this article (which I had previously been requested to pay attention to, and on which I had recently performed major restructuring, unrelated to the dispute) in an area unrelated to the dispute with Firefly322, and documented my reasoning on talk.
• Firefly322 first inserted himself into that thread, then had the audacity to complain that my maintenance/documentation activity was in some way a "confusing distraction" because it was unrelated to the disputed material.
• I don't think that taking umbrage at such an accusation, and forcefully invoking my right to edit areas unrelated to the dispute, is unreasonable.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As to "Put up or shut up", that is a selective quotation -- my full statement was in fact "Put up or shut up, instead of making wild and WP:AGF-violating accusations. Provide the requested quotes."[[86] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have started with Firefly pushing for the addition of "A few yet significant number of scholars see religion and science as patterns or subsets of human consciousness itself ... " to the lead and rejecting rather than collaborating with Hrafn's reasoned concerns about this badly written reference to a minority view of questionable notability. In exasperation, Hrafn has used some terms which met with immediate accusations of incivility from Firefly. My recommendation is for Hrafn to take care to avoid the more obviously colourful terms when dealing with this sensitive editor, and for Firefly to pay more heed to Hrafn's advice and not take umbrage at comments on actions. In my experience, Hrafn has a sound and detailed grasp of issues, and should be taken seriously. . dave souza, talk 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:SmackingMonkeys

Resolved

 – User blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Has violated the three-revert rule on 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team. Also, see the comment he left on my talk page. --UWMSports (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, here is an updated link to the comment: [87]. You don't need to post an alert if the user has already been blocked. --haha169 (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. And yes, it seems to be already resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:GHcool

Stuck

 – No change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:GHcool is interested in me that he mentions me many times in his user page. I don't mind that, but what I do mind is him speaking bad of me: "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood". Per Wikipedia:User_page#What may I not have on my user page? this is a "perceived flaw" and should be removed from the page. I civilly asked him to remove the sentence but he declined to do it. Imad marie (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Given his response to your request, unfortunately, I don't think we can influence him to remove it. However, you may have better luck if you file this at WP:AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

People have had issues with GHcool's user page in the past. I am not entirely sure how I feel about it -- I am not convinced it violates any policies, but I'm not convinced it's a very good idea either :D I have dropped GHcool a note trying to find out more about this. I'd appreciate it if we could wait for a response from him before taking it elsewhere. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - my thoughts are the same too, but more towards unconvinced it's a very good idea. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to go over it now, but here is a link that provides links to previous discussions regarding the user page, including an MfD. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless the name(s) are removed, I don't think this can be closed as resolved. I've left the user an extensive final note in more detail. In the meantime, Imad marie has also engaged in incivility/personal attacks so a warning needs to be given. I leave the rest back to you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I warned Imad Marie for this comment, which was extremely unhelpful, particularly given the timing. On the same token, I am not happy with GHcool's use of the word "whining" shortly before that, and will probably say somethign to him about that.

I want to read the MfD regarding GHcool's user page before I am certain, but I think you may be right that we'll have to call this Stuck. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, it seems GHcool is not willing to change his user page, any advice on how to proceed with the dispute resolution? Thanks. Imad marie (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me 15 more minutes. There was a previous ANI thread about his user page, but it is deeply-archived, I want to see if I can find it first. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I can't find it. Heh, what's more, the user who started the report apparently left Wikipedia and asked that their User page and all their contribs be deleted, because there is no record of him whatsoever.

I will start a thread at WP:AN to discuss it. I remain on the fence on whether the page is prohibited or not. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

anonymous IP:69.158.150.249

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• 69.158.150.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This anonymous IP just appeared today specifically to edit in the Mexico Talkpage using very uncivil manners, insults and cynical comments[88][89], his only 8 contributions have been done in that talkpage and he even warned me that he was going to change his IP before it could be block admitting that his only interest was to troll in Wikipedia, therefore I ask for the blockage of his IP and hope that when he changes it we can detect him. Supaman89 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a very troubling case of sockpuppetry - referred to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

USER:PokeHomsar

Resolved

 – Although somewhat premature, user has been advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• PokeHomsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wow, where to begin... it's probably easier to just reference his contribution history... from his massively offensive userpage, to his incendiary accusations of "liberal bias" everywhere (only one diff given for brevity), to his false claims of "admin persecution", this guy takes the cake. He has even gone so far as to demand that contributors self-identify their political beliefs so that he may evaluate them. I suspect we're dealing with an adolescent, but in any case swift WQA action is in order. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this is already on the Admin noticeboard, it seems that a comment from WQA is a step back. If there's already an open case there, this could be seen as forum shopping. Given the description of the editor, an informal notice like "the community is concerned about etiquette" is unlikely to dissuade him or her. Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Right right... I just made notification here because last time I was faced with POV warrior type it was suggested that WP:WQA might be more appropriate. Things have escalated significantly since I made the post here, which kinda negates its utility. Thanks anyway... just trying to do due diligence.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it make sense for those voting on a POLITICAL issue to be completely neutral on their POLITICAL beliefs? Or is it just me? I have had this problem before with another liberal admin, Gamaliel. I am seeking to add neutrality to the actual articles, but I see the talk page as a place for me to voice my concern and beliefs about an issue. Just tryin' to be fair and balanced.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "neutral" on political beliefs. By definition, a belief is a position. Holding political viewpoints is not a problem - otherwise there would be no editors on Wikipedia. Our system relies on good faith debate between those of differing political beliefs, as a means of reaching a neutral and mutually-acceptable article that accurately describes the debate without taking sides. FCYTravis (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for labels to be thrown around during a content dispute, so this really could've been dealt with without pursuing formal steps of dispute resolution. In any case, the user has been advised accordingly and there's nothing else to see here. Move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I am more concerned with a couple of PokeHomsar's edits to politics-related articles yesterday than I am with his user page and his talk page comments. He has been warned about NPOV, though, so we'll just need to keep an eye on things.

I do wish Poke would stop calling everybody "liberal". That's just annoying. Not really an WP:NPA or WP:CIV problem, but just annoying.--Jaysweet (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

His recent conversation on User talk:Dayewalker is also disturbing. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, at WP:ANI, he also accused me of making a personal attack against him because I said his user page pissed me off on a "personal" level. Which is incredibly ironic, because his user page includes the text "I hate liberals" and "gay rights (WRONG!)". I don't particularly consider myself a liberal, though I suppose some people would -- but in any case my wife is definitely quite liberal, so his user page says he hates my wife, and therefore I don't care for it on a personal level. If he doesn't like that, maybe he should stop talking trash about my wife?? :p

Poke, if you are reading this, please take a step back and try to consider your actions from the outside. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol...yes, calling everyone liberal is irritating - I thought that's where it ended. If there's more problems, please do replace my resolved tag accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the resolved tag is okay for now -- the Poke hasn't quite crossed the line to warrant any action against him, so I think a warning is fine for now. I'm just very concerned about the efficacy of a warning, given the other stuff that has happened. But we'll wait. Like I said, I hope that if Poke sees this he can take a step back, and maybe stop viewing everyone as enemies. Even though I found his user page personally very aggravating, I do not consider him an enemy, nor do I hate him (unlike the way he feels about my wife apparently, heh). I hope we can all reach that same level of understanding. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Vapour

Resolved

 – Editor warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am having a discussion with Vapour (talk · contribs) at Talk:MV Oceanic Viking over their desire to include a quote from an Australian political columnist Dennis Shanahan in this article (we were edit waring, and have taken the matter to the talk page - please see [90] for the text in question). During this discussion Vapour made a number of insulting comments against me. He/she has stated that "You do not seem to understand the policy of this site", that my edits are motivated by my political beliefs and that I am tying to censor other views. I have not mentioned my political views or views on whaling in this discussion, so they seem to be assuming that I hold various positions, and the wording I've proposed identifies Shanahan as the source of the comments and links back to the opinion article in which he made them, so I don't see how I'm suppressing his views. Vapour seems particularly upset that I called Dennis Shanahan right-wing, but he has admitted not knowing who he is, and this is simply a statement of how Shanahan is widely percieved (see for, instance, [91] and [92] for a couple of published examples which briefly discuss his leanings towards the conservative Liberal Party) and I would have removed similar quotes from left-wing political writers praising Australia's current left-wing government as being unsuited to the topic of the article (a ship).

More seriously, Vapour is now claiming I am abusing my admin status by trying to throw my weight around. I'm not sure how I could be doing so, however, as I only mentioned this status to rebut his abusive comment that I don't understand Wikipedia policies (eg, as I wouldn't be an admin if I didn't have at least a rough idea of the key policies), noted that it's no guarantee that I'm right and haven't used any admin tools on this article. Could someone please look into this and issue a warning as appropriate? Nick Dowling (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide (more) diffs? I'd like to see (for myself) what the actual comments are and where they have been made before moving on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All the relevant comments are still on the talk page - nothing has been archieved and I don't think that anything has been otherwise removed. [93] is me being told that I don't understand Wikipedia policy and that I'm not allowed to touch the quote, at [94] I'm accused of censoring opinions I disagree with and at [95] he/she ignores the fact that the text I'm proposing specifies and links to Shanahan and again accuses me of censorship. [96] is the really objectionable comment where I'm accused of abusing my admin status and making edits based on my politics (please note that this came about 36 hours after my last comment, so it's not part of a hot-blooded argument). Hope that helps. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a warning regarding that conduct. Also, the editor clearly misunderstands content policy, and has been using it inappropriately - but this is the outside the scope of a WQA at this stage. Article RFC and mediation are options you need to consider exploring for those content issues. Hopefully the matter is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think that the content dispute is that big a disagreement - it just needs to be discussed politely. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to really see where the user acted impolitely. Can you quote that portion for me? El_C 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He/she assumed bad faith (eg, that my edits were politically motivated and made in ignorance of Wikipedia policies) and that I was miss-using my admin status. That's impolite behaviour in my opinion. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you "lodged a complaint" a bit prematurely. El_C 11:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this wasn't a particularly bad case. However, I took a break from editing that article in the hopes that it would cool things down (which normally works in my experiance) but instead the attacks continued, and in some ways got worse. I didn't see the point in continuing to butt heads on the article's talk page so I took the matter here to get a second opinion as it seems to be the correct resolution process for etiquette issues. Thank you also for your comments. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did come close to dismissing this as premature too, but there is some cause for concern, and after all, it's better to deal with now than later when it's escalated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(I was about to post this response, then I was informed that I got a message. So please be aware of that fact.)

This is Vapour. Thanks Nick Dowling for informing me that he made a complaint. Here is my response. I made an edit sourced to the Australian, the biggest national newspaper in Australia. Then someone deleted it due to its being (right leaning) criticism/opinion. When someone's objection is not about the reliability of source but opinion expressed in it, it is a sign that the person is not familiar with wikipedia. Nick Dowling has not stated what is his political affiliation. That is fine. His or my politics is not an issue as long as edits are reliably sourced. However, he made his politics an issue by deleting an edit due to its politics/opinion. To my surprise, Nick Dowling turn out to be an admin. To make a matter worse, it is he who told me this. It is my opinion that it is extremely unwise for an admin to state his admin status in an edit dispute then later, make a complaint higher up because the other side was not nice enough to him. Admin is a judge, jury and has many system privilege. An admin shouldn't behave like other wikipedian by spinning wikipedia policies and system to his advantage like a lawyer do, then imply that, since he is an admin, he know the policy. Him taking the complaint higher up made the matter worse. Now it is an another admin who have to declare who is right. If I wins, then it shows that an admin doesn't know an elementary application of policies or worse, admin bend policies for his partisan bias. If Nick Dowling wins, it is "who you know" not "what you know". Lastly, this dispute could have been easily settled if Nick Dowling left my sourced edit alone then went on to look for a sourced statement in support of Oceanic Viking Vapour (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think remaining focused on the content, concisely, rather than making speculations about "partisan bias" and so on, is what's likely to advance the dispute forward. As mentioned, one problem with the edit is that it's 90 percent quote, 10 percent summary — it should be the other way around. Then you could try to reach a compromise about the wording. Thanks in advance. El_C 12:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also key to keep in mind balance and due weight, and to carefully attribute views accordingly. El_C 12:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider application of Undueweight guideline in this instance to be bogus. Few sentences by a political editor of the biggest national newspaper is not same as a paragraph or a section sized editorial of Holocaust denier or Flat Earther or Young Earth scientist. And I have been pointing out repeatedly that the issue can be solved easily by finding favourable opinion of Oceanic Viking. I made it explicit that I won't touch such edit if it is sourced properly. Instead, Nick Dowling made it explicit that his intent is to censor Shannahan's (right leaning) opinion from wikipedia. If he want to add left leaning or anti whaling or pro shipping edit, that is his business. By invoking this guideline, he is implying that it is my task to do all the work to make sure that all different opinion are presented in the way he see fit. Vapour (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact of matter is that censoring an sourced opinion is not fair. If he is admin, he should know that. Instead, he is filibustering the issue. If an admin doesn't want to lose, then what? Admin acting like a street lawyer to an average wikipedian is not fair. That include making Wikiquette compliant when opposing side point out that his policy argument is weak (and biased) and he, an admin, should know better. I usually leave sourced edit alone no matter how much it conflict with my POV, as long as edit is sourced from media or academia. Why can't I expect that kind of fairness from an admin. Vapour (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vapour, there are a number of points that you've raised (and failed to acknowledge) that are troubling. You may need to look back at the article talk page after some points below.

1. The Australian (I'll call it Newspaper-TA hereafter) is a reliable source.
2. The quotation you keep trying to include in the article is in a reliable source (News-TA), but is made by Dennis Shanahan (the author). Saying that the quotation is made by or on behalf of The Australian is a misrepresentation/original research and is known as synthesis.
3. Also, beginning the sentence with "According to" is considered weasel.
4. You made a large assumption of bad faith in suggesting Nick Dowling does not know policy, with no basis at all. Nick Dowling tried to move your attention back to the content, by pointing out that he would not be elected as an admin or a WikiProject coordinator if he did not know policy in the way you suggested. You then proceeded to claim that this was a misuse of administrator status - it was not. You must assume good faith in your interactions with others.
5. Although you are the only two users who discussed this content at the time, consensus must be reached before you re-insert content into a page. There was no consensus - but you continued edit-warring. You must refrain from edit-warring.
6. Wikipedia is not to be used as a battleground as if a user wins or loses.
7. Users who have grievances are expected to (and encouraged to) pursue the Wikipedia dispute resolution system. If Nick Dowling did not come here, and this continued, then you may have been blocked immediately for disruption. You need to understand that your conduct is unacceptable.

You must familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, and understand them, and should not (at any time) game the system. If you cannot comply, and continue to edit disruptively, then this matter is not resolved and stronger measures will be used as necessary. Does this clarify it for you - have I made myself clear? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I still maintain that it's key to aim at balance (representing all views, proportionately) and to try not to overquote. Also, try to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. El_C 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Neon white‎

Resolved

 – Both users cautioned that templating may be perceived as incivil, and both have agreed to stay off each other's talk page for awhile. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Neon white (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is misciting and misusing WP policies and warning templates, is accusing me of doing the same, and is refusing to stop posting to my talk page after being asked to stop. Groupthink (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can take a look, but please be aware that you will get a much faster response if you provide diffs showing the edits in question. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency of interface... sometime page top, sometimes page bottom... sigh... anyway, diffs per request. [97] [98] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupthink (talk • contribs)

I have notified Neon white about this thread. I took a look at the pages in question, and while I think that Neon's warning in regards to edit warring was made in good faith, I also think your request to cease talk page communication is reasonable. I will see if he is amenable. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that you will still have to work out the Eric Rudolph edit war somehow. Also, be warned that even though you may feel your change is sourced and unbiased (I have not examined it yet), if it were to come down to 3RR, Neon white would be unlikely to be blocked, because there is an exemption to 3RR for good faith WP:BLP concerns even if those concerns turn out to be invalid. Not saying you are wrong (again, I haven't looked at it), but just be careful. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted and much appreciated. Groupthink (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Neon white has agreed to the compromise: Both of you should stay off of each other's talk page, at least until this blows over, and pursue other venues for dispute resolution. I see Neon white is already in contact with PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) and hopefully some understanding can be reached.

I would caution both users to remember that templating another user can be perceived as incivil, even if you don't mean it that way (see WP:DTTR), and that the worst thing you can do in that situation is get in a retaliatory template war. Both users are trying to do the right thing, I believe, so there is no need to "get all up in it". :D :D

I am marking this as resolved for now. Best of luck with the content dispute! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A warning about edit warring on Groupthink talk page was completely justified and continues to be justified as the reverting of any edits to this page without discussion by Groupthink which has been going on for a number of months as the [99]] can confirm continues. However the use of templates as a retaliation is clearly incivil and a misuse.[100] As has been pointed out controversial info about a living person has to be removed from an article without question, this is not misrepresenting policy, in fact it is a policy that cannot be taken seriously enough. I have asked the admin that protected the page to removed the contentious info inline with this policy until the issue is resolved. This is being discussed in a civil manner with other editors on the talk page. --neon white talk 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:I am me93

Resolved

 – Editor advised/warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User originally stated on their userpage that their IQ was "probably higher than yours". I thought this was rather provocative, and removed it. Kd lvr then reverted me, and I am me93 left me a rather aggressive message. Me and IAM93 then discussed the matter- his talk and my talk. IAM93 continued to be aggressive and completely missed the point that his userpage isn't his own space to do whatever he likes. After reverting back and forth, we were left with an even more aggressive userpage. I don't want to revert war, so I bring the matter here for a third opinion. Never used this page before, apologies if I have done this wrong. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a glance at Wikipedia:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. User pages are a wee bit different from normal pages, and as long as the content isn't blatantly offensive it's generally given a wide latitude. Editing other people's user pages isn't strictly forbidden, but it's generally frowned upon. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that, I was basically asking whether I was being too sensitive suggesting that the message crossed the line. However, regardless of that, IAM93's conduct since I removed the message has hardly been perfect. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think IAM93's initial statement about his IQ was over the line Jtroska (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the new additions to the user page (all the "none of your business" stuff). It's sort of funny, because I don't offer any of that info on my user page either, but I don't feel the need to toot my own horn about it.

As far as the original IQ comment, I think it just makes him look like a tool, far more than it has the power to offend. If you were really concerned about it, the proper way would have been to open a thread here or a similar place first, rather than removing it. As SDY said, user space is a little different and WP:BOLD/WP:BRD don't really apply there. Unless somebody makes a blatant and direct personal attack, or a legal or physical threat, their user page should not be edited without first getting consensus. (obviously reverting vandalism on another user's page would be an exception, that is always fine)

The kicker: The page now reads "IQ -- High than yours". I guess if I had a higher IQ, maybe I would use poor grammar as well! :D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I am me93's page was and is fine, but these two responses weren't. I left another message reminding him to stay civil, but would suggest that J Milburn doesn't remove the IQ statement unless it's again directed at a specific editor. --Onorem♠Dil 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Jaysweet, and endorse Onorem's reminder. If it doesn't escalate, then this should be resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input, I'll leave it now. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dragon695

This comment is a personal attack accusing me of being a tendentious cabal. This sort of harassment was discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design but apparently Dragon695 didn't get the message. I'd like it to stop when I return to that page. Odd nature (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little oversensitive to consider that a personal attack or "harrassment". We don't tell people they can't engage in any criticism just because the recipients of the criticism don't like it. Kelly ^hi! 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "cabal" to describe activities is considered a personal attack. Dragon695 has absolutely no evidence that Odd Nature was doing anything other than requesting an apology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Accusing anyone of being tendentious is a personal attack which violates WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. Accusing anyone of being part of a tendentious cabal compounds the insult. Look at my comment Dragon695 attacked me for. Really, sort of incivility needs to stop. Odd nature (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I see Odd Nature has shown up to solicit a round from the ID boo-hoo brigade, well I stand by my statement. You and the rest of those WP:TE members of the ID Cabal will either change your attitude or face the music, so don't think the whole OrangeClownFish affair gets you off the hook. My comments pale in comparison to how rude, loutish, and completely out of control some of the things you guys do to newbies and unrelated editors who show up at pages your "Wikiproject" WP:OWNs. The so-called scientists who claim to defend science are actually hurting those of us who really care about science. Real scientists are gentlemen and scholars, not oafs and louts. If anyone wants diffs, the Intelligent Design RFC is chock full of them. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The "the ID boo-hoo brigade"? "ID Cabal"? "Oafs and louts"? Clowns? Amazing. Please, read WP:EQ and WP:NPA. If you insist on attacking me, this the right place for it; you'll save me another trip. Odd nature (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And between here and here you go out of your way to insult OrangeMarlin calling him "OrangeClownFish". That's just unacceptable. Odd nature (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I resent these personal attacks from Dragon695, and request an immediate retraction and apology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, nothing's going to happen. He can attack you two with impunity. He won't be censured or even asked to apologise. You will just have to get over it. In a word, you are casteless. Struck comments not appropriate here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. My punishment, I suppose.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the phrase "self promoting" is said to be a sanctionable offense [101], and many editors charge that identifying them as "Wikipedia Review editors" is a personal attack and uncivil [102] (even if they are editors who have accounts at Wikipedia Review) and even listing Wikipedia policies [103] is viewed as an uncivil attack [104], and even questioning this is viewed as a personal attack [105], it is a bit hard to imagine how this outburst is not problematic. Can someone explain it to me?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd nature, Filll, and Orangemarlin, there's a little bit of irony in the fact that, to complain about insinuations of cabal-like behavior, the three of you showing up here acting like, well, a cabal. Dragon695 apparently realizes he shouldn't have made some of the comments he did, and has gone off to do some constructive article work. Might I respectfully suggest that you all have a nice cup of tea and do the same, rather than escalating the drama. Thank you... Kelly ^hi! 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No more cabal-like than you defending Dragon695 here and elsewhere yet again. Pot, meet kettle. Odd nature (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the response I expected, Kelly. Seriously, fellas, you really didn't expect to get support here, did you? Struck comments not relevant to the WQA report. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really expect much different. I have been collecting examples of silly extreme examples of sensitivity to "incivility" and inconsistency at [106] and this just gives another great example of something weird with our implementation of our WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. Just more of the same. It is good however to register a complaint and compile the evidence of hypocrisy and ludicrous application of policy, because eventually these examples can be studied for useful information I think.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's weird, I don't think I have ever defended Dragon695 before. To my recollection, my only previous interaction with that user was mildly chide them for inappropriate use of WP:BRD. But I'll look forward to your correction if I'm wrong. Regards... Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Ok another one for my list. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to go do something else and leave these people be, for now. I'm sorry about that outburst, it could have been worded better. I will stand by my original statement: Odd Nature, Filll, and company will either modify their behavior or find themselves sanctioned by the community. Attempts at obfuscating the issue by FT2's one-off mistake will not succeed. I feel strongly that these editors who all have claimed, at one time or another, to be champions of science do more harm then good to the project. More importantly, they make strong believers in science ashamed to be associated with them due to their persistent odious behavior towards anyone who disagrees with them (see ID RFC for diffs). They certainly don't represent the highly regarded, well mannered, scholarly scientists I've ever met. Vigorous debate yes, but the tear–down, scorched–earth campaigns against those of opposing viewpoints is just outrageous. What you did to Mrs. Picard sometimes makes me want to reconsider my principled, strong opposition to WP:BLP. That is all I will say on the matter for now. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Picard? What on earth are you talking about and what does it have to do with your incivility? What assurance do we have that you're not going to repeat this episode later? As far my seeking an apology from FT2, I've gotten one from another arb, so clearly one is owed. I suggest you do not insert yourself into that matter again. Odd nature (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hardly know where to begin. Thanks to people like Dragon695, I have stopped editing these kinds of articles completely. Am I not allowed to defend myself? Is no one involved with ID allowed? And I still have not seen how we did anything bad to Professor Picard. Have you talked to Professor Picard? Do you know what her position is? If you are so concerned about the statements about Professor Picard, why not mount a lawsuit against the New York Times, which is where we obtained our information? If what we did was so terrible, then what they did was clearly many times worse. What is amazing, is that Dragon695 believes that Picard episode justifies any kind of outrageous behavior on his part, or anyone else's part. Good heavens. I also think that Dragon695 does not know many scientists or much about science.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have found Dragon695 to be friendly and constructive as evidenced by such comments as [107]. So, I believe that he is a benefit for our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:This is not a forum for further personal attacks or vague threats of retribution. If you cannot be civil here, don't expect an outside voice to be sympathetic to your concerns. Insulting the process is unlikely to help. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • If this is an attack, I might as well just scramble my password and leave Wikipedia completely. Your idea of what constitutes an "attack" is amazing, particularly considering the summary dismissal of fairly hostile terminology like "clownfish" and "louts" and "oafs". As for mocking the proceeding, well with that sort of performance, what else would you expect? If you do not want it mocked, then perhaps you should consider why it is being mocked.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't particularly care, actually. This is not a formal process, and I am not an administrator, it's just a place for people to bring their concerns for a neutral review. My perception at this point is that tempers are running high and that neither side will be satisfied with anything but outright condemnation of the other. I actually find the threats to be far less civil than the comments you've raised as a concern, but that's just my opinion. Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Since I've started engaging on ID-related subject matter, I find Filll et all's position, as custodians of these quarters, much more understandable. They are dealing with people who will argue ad infinitum over points of terminology day after day, in what seems a form of filibustering, so i can understand a few "off-the-cuff" remarks now and then. That being said, Dragon695 is obviously being pointedly incivil here, but perhaps he's had a rough day. Everyone was upset with the Orangemarlin arb case, however for widely different reasons, apparently. Still, once we've aired our grievances, we should take everyone's feelings into account and try to cut each other a little slack and move on. In parting, I for one am in no way ashamed to be associated with the ID wikiproject, and urge more people to put these articles on their watchlist so that there are more eyes on these matters. Amerique^dialectics 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this project is one where tempers are likely to run short, since assuming good faith is a challenge with such a controversial topic and so many editors who have strong feelings about the topic. Maybe the only action to take here is a reminder to everyone about WP:MASTODON and stepping back a bit from editing while angry. Wikipedia being wrong does not make the world explode. Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good advice. Kelly ^hi! 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

Storm Rider (talk · contribs)

I wonder if someone could have a look at the comments being directed at me on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.? - Juden (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Juden, it would be much easier if you could provide wp:diffs so that we can see what comments in particular are bothering you. happy to take a look if you do. --Ludwigs2 04:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of things like this (note the edit summary) and this , which seem to have poured over to this. - Juden (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - well, at least he's got a flair for sophisticated insults.  :-) my guess, here, is that you tweaked his religious beliefs and he's fuming about it, and since these diffs only cover maybe a couple of hours it will probably blow over. but I'll leave a message on his talk page and see if I can figure out what's eating him. believe me, though - I've seen SOOOOoooo much worse than this. --Ludwigs2 04:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really gone on for months... so perhaps it's unfair to involve you. I mostly wanted a sanity check. Nearly every edit he objects to is instantly reverted and only occasionally discussed - usually vituperatively. You're right that it's all religious stuff. I think the problem is bigger than you think :) - Juden (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

you may be right; I'll see what he has to say. religious issues are always tricky, because almost everyone who edits them is convinced they know the right of it, and different opinions can lead to a lot of friction. keep in mind, if he reverts you more than a couple of times in a day, or with an unpleasant regularity over a period of time, you can always ask for assistance from an administrator (see wp:3rr), but I'd save that as a 'last resort' kind of thing. it's much better to figure it out and get some kind of working relationship going.--Ludwigs2 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look, and while some of Storm Rider's comments are pushing it in terms of civility and good faith, the edits Juden is adding have some problems. The allegation that Joseph Smith fathered children with women other than Emma smith is a tinderbox, and would need to be well-sourced. Even if it was well-sourced, care would have to be taken regarding the Undue weight policy. I know quite a bit about Mormonism, and I think I've only heard that allegation once or twice (doesn't mean it's not more common than I think, but I am a little skeptical).

Juden, if you would like to pursue this further, Storm Rider should be notified of this thread. Let us know what you'd like to do. It looks like Ludwigs has already asked Storm Rider to tone it down. Wikiquette Alerts is not intended to mediate in content disputes, but if you are continuing to have trouble with reverting each other, I could probably take a look (Full disclosure: I was raised Mormon, but have not been affiliated with the church for pretty much my entire adult life, and I hold little sympathy for the organization. I believe I can mediate without allowing a conflict of interest to get in the way, as I do not consider myself to anti-Mormon either, but I am not completely uninvolved either) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I doubt that is going to happen. I just happened to stumble upon this myself. Juden is not interested in any type of cooperative effort to write articles or anything. He has an opinion and POV that he is firmly dedicated to. The only other time he raises his head is when there is contention to be stirred up or added to. Regardless, it might be helpful to insert yourself in some of the editing, if for no other reason then I will not have to hear that incessant whining about civility. I am not familiar with your editing in my years here, but I trust there would not be any conflict of interest. I would enjoy working with you. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider was aware, since Ludwigs' note. By all means, more eyes on civility patrol will be appreciated. Ludwig's request to tone down the rhetoric went sadly unheeded. Please, by the way, don't mischaracterize my edits: perhaps you have confused them with someone else's. I have never inserted any claim into any article that Joseph Smith was known to have children by his plural wives. - Juden (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not aware. The point is that Jay made a request that I should be made aware if you wanted him to provide assistance; you did not. Nothing more and nothing less. Ludwig made no reference to this bit of nuisance. Please do not state as fact what is in another editor's mind or add further spin to your situation. Again, please do not misstate facts when you don't know something as such. It is best just to refrain from editing at those times. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You think you had to be notified of the existence of a thread in which you had already posted? At any rate, I hardly think an attempt to get you to abide by WP:Civility should be characterized as a "bit of nuisance". - Juden (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Juden said: I have never inserted any claim into any article that Joseph Smith was known to have children by his plural wives. While this is technically true, it is terribly disingenuous. See this diff, which is only one of like three (both of you were pushing WP:3RR there at times, by the way). While you technically did not say that he did, there was no mention of this possibility previously, so it clearly is a hint. If I all of a sudden said, in the middle of handling this Wikiquette Alert, "It is not clear to me whether or not Juden beats his wife", do you think that would be fair? Of course not.

Also, since the section in question was providing views either way as to whether Smith did have plural wives, the statement is loaded from that perspective too, because it implicitly confirms that he has plural wives. In fact, forget what I said before, this would be like if I wrote, in the middle of this post, "It is not clear to me how often Juden beats his wife." Um, no. Not acceptable.

Now, if we produce some notable and credible sources that are discussing the possibility, that might warrant inclusion. Until then, though, the loaded statement simply does not belong in the article.

Regarding the allegations of continued incivility, do you have any diffs? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to fairness, no, I do not think your "disingenous" remark is fair. I rather think you're taking diffs out of context. There certainly was mention of this possibility in many previous versions of this article. The diff you cite was my rewording of "Smith had additional wives, but there is no definitive evidence he produced any offspring with them. See Polygamy and Plural Marriages section below" - which was not inserted by me. Further, the article quite clearly indicates that credible sources are considering that possibility - or rather, the article used to! The sources were on that page, as was a section about a Mormon genealogy lab that is working to disprove them, before they were moved to a more obscure sub-article. I think at present they can be found in Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. Little remains in the Smith article about polygamy, as it's been systematically hidden elsewhere and minimized in the main article - one needs to read past his death to find it, and then it appears again in the very last paragraph of the article. With regard to diffs in which Storm Rider has been insulting, they should not be hard to find ( [108] for baiting, [109] for name-calling (actually, just reading his talk page would be better than listing diffs: in his answer to Ludwigs incivility query he manages to continue to insult me, and multiple problems with civility are noted on that page, lest this be depicted as something he's only manifested towards me. ), [110], for sarcasm and baiting again, etc. ). His edit summaries as well as the edits proper also tend to be dismissive, non-collegial, and insulting. - Juden (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just glancing around at recent contribs, I have a suggestion that I often make to people who just can't seem to stop arguing: Stay away from each other's user talk pages. In fact, this is mutually enforceable: see WP:DRC. I would recommend that if someone's comments on your user talk page are just pissing you off, remove them. (Do not remove comments from someone else's user talk page, only from your own) I occasionally need to resort to this when I find I cannot communicate with someone.

Anyway, just a suggestion. It works for some people, not for others. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good one. - Juden (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I take it then you've read

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Storm Rider (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling the removal of insults an "unconstructive edit" is just another violation of WP:Civility. Thanks for providing further evidence.- Juden (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC) You might want to find a new complaint; that one is getting rather old and people aren't listening to you. Maybe if you jump up and down it will help, but I would actually recommend reading polciies and attempt to first implement them yourself. You may see it as a personal insult; however, that would be a personal problem and it would have nothing to do with my edit. My edit was a warning and should be interpreted as such. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for adding more evidence. - Juden (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

which will soon be gone :) - Juden (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly :) The recent incivility seems to be largely confined to your respective User Talk pages. I believe that the two of you may be unintentionally saying things that set the other person off in ways that would not normally occur. Limiting your interactions may go a long ways to improving the situation. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly less interaction would provide less opportunity for his incivility, but wouldn't solve the basic problem; my concern is that he seems to use rudeness and other forms of incivility as a way to discourage people from editing "his" article by making the editing experience unpleasant if they introduce opinions he disagrees with. And, as you've seen on his talk page, concerns over his behavior arise not only in his interactions with me, but his rudeness is repeatedly a complaint of people other than me, as well. I'd like to see some indication that civility was to be taken seriously here and that using incivility as part of one's editing "bag-of-tricks" has some consequences - or will in the future. - Juden (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can't help out with this anymore. While normally I am pretty good at putting my personal feelings to the side, I am a little pissed off about Mormonism at the moment. My wife's birthday is today, and my parents, who own an LDS bookstore, gave her a book on parenting that is written from a distinctly Mormon perspective. Signed by the author, whom they know, and everything. This was a very nice gesture, of course -- except that my wife and I are both atheists, she is ethnically Jewish, and they know damn well that we aren't interested in their freaking church. Of course, it's not really my parents' fault... they have been conned into believing that this sort of socially inappropriate behavior is "fellowshipping" and is not only acceptable (it's not) but that they are trying to help us.

Add to this the fact that the church leadership decided my adopted sister could not be sealed to my parents (if they are going to con my parents into being rude to their family and giving up 10% of their income, they could at least provide them some freaking emotional comfort, don't you think?!?), and right now, I don't really care whether Joseph Smith's biography contains slanderous information or not. Sorry. Neutrality is important in mediation, and I just can't be neutral right now. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope tincture of time lets the book episode fade into obscurity, and sorry for your troubles. I'm a little shocked that an organization that would seal Mr. & Mrs. Hitler to each other for eternity won't seal an adopted child to her parents, but.... you learn something new everyday... (and, btw - there's nothing slanderous in Smith's article, and that wasn't what this was about anyway :) - Juden (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dilip_rajeev

I'm very disturbed by the commentaries left by this user Dilip_rajeev at an AFD, in which a simply AFD turned into a shouting match between the pro-FLG and anti-FLG camps. For example here [111] he made attacks against another user for wanting to delete the article, suggesting him as a "CCP-hired thug paid to post pro-CCP messages and assault FLG practitioners". In another instance he accused a new user of being a CCP propagandist [112]. The user edits nothing but Falun Gong related articles [113], and has been blocked 3 times previously for edit warring.[114]--PCPP (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a highly controversial topic and it is not surprising that editors who have a strong POV on the topic will resort to heated debate & strong language. That said, I don't see a particular wikiquette violation here. The insinuation that an editor is a paid agent of the CCP is perhaps the closest thing here to a personal attack, but Dilip has refrained from direct accusation and, frankly, that kind of conspiracy-mongering probably hurts him more than anybody else. I would be interested to see what others have to say, but as for myself, while I see a heated debate I don't see any clear-cut incivility. Citing a 3RR block from last September, btw, is a canard. Eusebeus (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with this particular user's style of actively preaching FLG and turning the AFD into a debate about FLG itself. Is it possible to gain the attention of some admins to settle the current POV dispute arousing from FLG articles? I've tried to create an RFC but didn't seem to get any attention.--PCPP (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that POV-pushing by any party is problematic, but it is not really a wikiquette issue if it remains at the level of content; a reminder that AfD should remain a focused discussion and not a soapbox could be potentially salubrious. Have you informed the editor of this alert? Eusebeus (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the user is now using a external link (which I find libellous) [115] to accuser another user of "sowing confusion" in wikipedia.--PCPP (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

IP user 216.70.26.237

IP address 216.70.26.237 has been making drastic reversions to articles, including List of programs broadcast by ABC Family and List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Those edits have been part of ongoing edit wars (see Talk:List of programs broadcast by ABC Family#Article organization and Talk:List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon#Article reorganization) in both articles. Furthermore, he has used the "undo" feature without an edit summary [116] and has used the summary "rv vandalism" to restore his preferred version of the articles. [117] [118] [119] [120].

Note: I have left a talk page message with this user about a month ago. [121] RJaguar3 | u | t 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: The above diff was about edit warring. This diff [122] was about the use of "rv vandalism" edit summaries. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? You didn't even talk to me about anything. 216.70.26.237 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

216.70.26.237, what exactly do you mean by "You didn't talk to me about anything"? RJaguar3 left you this and you wanted to leave him this response. That is considered discussion in my book. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, seriously he/she brought up something from May 28? Talk about old news. I don't see what the problem is so please explain it to me. 216.70.26.237 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to turn this into an argument, but I will say, simply, that you've been making major, controversial, non-vandalism-reverting edits with either the undo function sans summary (which implies that the edit is a simple vandalism revert) or an explicit "rv vandalism" summary. The reason I reported this is, after I left a message 2 weeks ago about the "rv vandalism" summaries, you made another "rv vandalism edit" [123] just yesterday. I fail to see how this is old news at all. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, my misunderstanding. Im sorry, I forgot that you can add a summary after an undue. 216.70.26.237 (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no prohibition that I am aware of about using the "undo" button to change to a preferred version, as long as it does not constitute edit warring. (You may be confusing this with the Rollback function offered to some Wikipedians, and available via scripts like Twinkle -- those features should not be used except for vandalism and other egregious issues)

One other piece of advice I would give is that it is almost always a bad idea to call something "vandalism" unless it is really, really obvious (e.g. blanking an entire page and replacing it with "I like doo-doo!"). Even if someone is making a highly controversial edit that goes against consensus, generally one should avoid calling it "vandalism" as this only serves to fan the flames. So, avoid the V-word when possible.

Does 216.*'s promise to use the edit summary resolve this problem, or should someone look into it more carefully? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:LardleFan

Hi. Please review Special:Contributions/LardleFan as this user has made several personal attacks against me. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much the personal attacks that concern me as it is the utter lack of anything constructive to contribute to the project. His contribs are all either vandalism or working on an article for a word he/she made up. This user is headed for an indefinite block sooner rather than later. I will keep an eye, thanks for the heads-up. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll block as vandalism-only account if the disruptive behavior continues. I'm keeping an eye on him now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123

User:Cleo123 has treated me in an incivil way. There are multiple instances, but the main one of concern should be those found here. To be upfront, a few admin have contacted me and asked that I file a complaint here about current incivil treatments of myself. I have filed a report of the above user's actions on my talk page and a report on the above user's use of BLP and other policies to justify their behavior. This report is just for incivil comments about myself which the above user refuses to stop.

1. "Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. [99][100] Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior."

An accusation of incivility based on my removing an off topic dispute by the above user that I did not want on my talk page and made it clear in the summary that I was reverting (yet they denied that they could see that I reverted).

2. "You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page."

Claims that I posted derogatory remarks using this as evidence, even though I did not post any derogatory remarks nor even post there.

3. "When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks?"

Vague allegations of incivility or possible sock puppetry.

4. "As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous."

More claims that I was being disrupted based on my activities here and here.

5. "Now the numerous sources available make it clear that Steve Windom was the victim of defamation that resulted in criminal charges. The incident is currently discussed in a neutral and fair manner in the article. Yet, you have been arguing for a detailed reprinting on Wikipedia of the material that a court ruled to be libelous. You have even encouraged a new, inexperienced user to create a free standing article in order to showcase this libel, insisting that Windom who you claim to have contacted in real life, (in violation of Wikipedia's policies on original research) will have to sue Wikipedia if he wants to get it removed! When users attempt to explain Wikipedia's libel policy to you, you have repeatedly taken the unusual stance that only actual libel victims are allowed to mention the word WP:LIBEL on Wikipedia."

As you can see, the above user claims that you cannot talk about legal cases dealing with defamation, even if numerous news papers reported on it. The above user also condemns any mention of it before they even see it. The above user also challenges John Carter's and my proposal of moving any indepth discussion of the incident (false allegations about prostitution) to a new page in order to remove any WP:WEIGHT issues. The above user then attacks me for contacting the subject of the article in order to determine if they felt that the way we were handling it was "defamation" in order to negate their claims that it was defamation (as only the person in the biography has the right to determine such and not any proxy unless given legal permission to do so). They are then claiming that it is "original research" even though such a thing pertains only to the pages themselves and not to figuring out legal issues behind the pages. They then claim that I don't understand policy. Swatjester's comments on the legality and the legal process of the page can be found here. As he states, it is an issue for OTRS and the Office.

6. "I've said that a court ruled the material in question to be libelous, which it did. I've cautioned you about knowingly reprinting libel on Wikipedia as you could be exposing Wikipedia to potential legal problems. I think WP:BLP is very clear that libel about living people is to be removed immediately."

Another claim that I would be producing Libel before even seeing what I would right.

7. "You entered the article's discussion late in the game and have been defending the view of an editor who was repeatedly inserting defamatory material into the article."

Claims that I "entered" into a "game" at a time that was "late". Also claims of defamation.

8. "For reasons unknown, you are still on the page fighting like hell to "mediate" a dispute that no longer exists, even going so far as to contact the article's subject and argue for the creation of a separate "scandal" article for reasons unknown."

Questioning my use of mediation between User:Dem1970 and User:Audemus Defendere. As you can note, both of the have stopped their edit war and are no longer fighting in a semi-incivil manner.

9. "I am a disruption? LOL! Sorry, but that is downright amusing coming from a user who has been banned from participating in FAC discussions (for behavior that is strikingly similar to your conduct in this matter)"

The user links here, which you can note that I took a short wikibreak from FA review, and I was not banned. As you can also note, SandyGeorgia, who helps run FAR/FAC stated that I was a good contributor and was opposed to the proposed actions of a vocal minority.

10. "cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times."

The above user cites this, which had no real result and did not agree that it was "extreme". They also cite my block log, which dealt mostly with an edit dispute at Treaty of Tripoli which I broke 3RR based on reverting just before 24 hours, an edit dispute at to proposed changes to WP:NLT which community consensus agreed with me on a stopping of the wording from being changed, and a block until I apologized for "tenditious editing" based on User:MSJapan and my dispute over the legitimacy of academic sources which did not involve a 3RR and was disputed by quite a few admin. Do any of these pertain to the situation? No.

That is just one page. There are multiple talk pages that include mostly repetition of the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add - I don't really appreciate these actions. Its one thing to disagree with wording or content, but this is just a string of personal attacks after personal attacks. I stepped in because Dem and Audemus were having a problem and I helped them to work together. What do I get in return? The above. I have more important pages to work on, and all I get is Cleo123 attacking me left and right. I don't have the time or ability to deal with this, and even removing of the attacks on my own talk page result in an attempted revert war by the user. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

78.151.142.191

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Being handled at ANI, here --Jaysweet (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Maunus appears to be in contravention of WP:DRC. S/he has made repeated reverts on my talkpage. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be 78.151.142.191‎ (talk · contribs), not Maunus, who is restoring the warning. There is now a relevant ANI thread, so I am closing the Wikiquette alert and referring there. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to Maunus; I had not realised 78.151.142.191‎ (talk · contribs) was the one making the reverts. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, just so there's a record of it in both places -- it was uncovered at ANI that the IP had legitimately misinterpreted WP:DRC due to some confusing wording (which incidentally was added by some joker called Jaysweet who really needs to learn how to keep the central ideas in his sentences together rather than separated by tangential remarks and numerous commas :/ ). I have fixed the wording. The edit-warring over the comments turned out to be a good faith error.

Other issues were handled at ANI as well, but they are not directly relevant to this alert. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

user:Nishidani

Being consistently attacked by user:Nishidani. user:Nishidani has been accusing me all over wikipedia recently. He has been accusing me of calling him an antisemite, something I've never done, and I politely explained his mistake to him, he keeps ignoring this and accusing me in order to confuse an administrator and attack me on every occasion. He has called me a terrorist organization fanatic a Lehi aficionado - aficionado means fanatic, fan, enthusiastic follower , which means he claims I'm a terrorist organization fanatic. He's difficult to discuss with because when in content dispute, he claims the other party to be a vandal. He name-called me a myriad of slurs one of which was that I engage in chronic vandalism. To top it all, he now threatens to report me. This is harassment. Recently, I've been stalked by user:Meteormaker, and his attacks against me seem like a personal vendetta, because he is an ally of Meteormaker on several articles. Here he followed me to the stalker's page and spread lies on me. He claims I stalked him on pages I always had watched. He then says "Big blokes aren't supposed to whine, especially about piddling matters" and yet threatens continuously to report me, probably thinking he can trick an administrator into believing that I called him an antisemite. The reason he's doing all that is because he 'lost' in a content dispute in Talk:Lehi (group), where a consensus has reached and he didn't like it. This consensus was already reached in November 2007 and the article had a stable version (about this issue). He now introduced it again, and didn't reply to the issues I've raised and other users' pleas to move on, and instead tried to make it personal again. I want him to leave the personal attacks aside and focus on the content. While he calls my words dreck, which is crap in Yiddish I've always tried to be very polite to him. I said to him "I know you're reasonable and I respect your opinions", and this is what I get. Being called a terrorist fanatic and accused of saying things I've never said. Amoruso (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the way Amoruso has reported our exchanges bears even a minimal semblance of the truth, I do indeed think I should suffer a year's ban. If, on the other hand, in reading closely the contexts he himself cites, one examines the whole record, then I do not think I need reply nor ask the appropriate administrative page for administrative action against him, for he had made the case I would have made, in his own diffs. For the record, apart from calling me 'paranoid', 'suffering from an inferiority' and superiority 'complex' and someone who shares the same views as those of an antisemite, he now takes a remark of mine addressed to another user, Shevashalosh, in which I spoke of 'aficionados of mere hearsay in Lehi circles' as being directed at him. It is true that, subject to the insults documented below, I replied under provocation that the person insulting me with psychiatric labelling was a 'Lehi aficionado', but to make out that my remarking on his constant erasure of all well-sourced information on Lehi terrorism as the sign of an aficionado (fan) of Lehi traditions means that I called him a 'fanatic terrorist', is to maliciously distort the defensive quip, and convert it into a diffamation. He misreports his interlocutors as badly as he does the many reliable sources they adduce to back their edits. I would have reported this whole sad episode, from sheer exasperation, to the appropriate AE page, as I said I would do, but I simply do not know technically precisely how, or on what page the following evidence ( diff antisemitic innuendo), (rumour-mongering on other people's pages that I accused him of being a 'terrorist fanatic'), and (pseudo-psychoanalytic profiling of me as an 'egotist' with an inferiority and superiority complex suggestive of paranoid symptoms at the end of this thread). for diffamation and consistent provocative distortion of my words should be posted in order to enlist the relevant administrative review of Amoruso's hectic baiting manner in my regard. As to dreck, since Amoruso has pretensions to clinical knowledge of Freudian analysis, might I simply note that it is German, and used also in English, and when I use it, I personally think of the following passage from the Viennese master's usage: 'He had argued that the material in the Fliess letters that Freud himself had called Dreckologie, . . was not of value for the history of Freud’s early discoveries.” Young-Bruehl, Anna Freud, 1988 p.297 Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the source I cited, Nisihidani directly called ME a Lehi aficionado - which means terrorist fanatic, not anyone else. Amoruso (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Nishidani, I'm half-following this issue (well, more like 1/30-following) and I think Amoruso may have said a couple heated words as well, but calling out wiki-editors as "a Lehi aficionado [appropriating] such techniques as part of what appears to be a wiki-warrior strategy" is a clear violation of WP:CIV considering both the terms used and the tone. I would suggest striking this comment, accepting that it was out of place and moving away from personally directed commentary (See WP:NPA and also Erosion_of_critical_thinking) and towards bettering the project.

Also, if there are further comments which Nishidani or Amoruso would like the other to tone down or strike, now would be a good time as any to raise that request.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) a bit more. 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, with respect, you are picking on the one phrase I added after being called 'paranoid', and 'egotist', someone with an 'inferiority complex' and 'someone with a superiority complex', not to speak of the many other prior provocations elsewhere, which I disregarded because I read them as attempts to make me loose my habitual cool. There is such a thing as cause and effect, and if you look at the whole thread preceding that last word, you will see who is replying with analytical equanimity, and who is jabbing away, starting with 'don't be ashamed of your bias'. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)', to which I responded with vigour, admitting mine, but suggesting his editing was blatantly biased. Tit for tat. The remarks here have to be read contextually with what occurred on the parallel Lehi(group) page, where every endeavour to argue from sources was met merely with assertions and hearsay, and simnilar provocations, which concluded somedays later with the usual antisemitic insinuations. I don't mind being banned, but I expect that administrative eyes, if they do so, look closely at sequence, and at the quality of rumour-mongering, antisemitic slurs, and pseudo-clinical labelling to which Amoruso descended. Nothing in my remarks to him descends to that level. I think in the end Amoruso will get his way, and as in preceding attacks, I will simply withdraw in disgust from this encyclopedia, since the Lehi articles thread is a disgrace to scholarly discussion. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Nishandi for making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, if their intent was to make you lose your cool, then the Lehi commentary proved their alleged plan was a success. I would suggest you learn from this incident and avoid from getting dragged down by similar situations in the future. Instead, request others to focus on content rather than personal commentary and request uninvolved editors to weigh in.

Hope that will help, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)