Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive45

Repeated reinsertion of personal attack at Talk:Aspartame

Resolved

 – IP user warned

99.145.9.206 (along with a series of other IP addresses, all very likely the same person) inserted some unreferenced statements at Aspartame. After the material was removed and the matter raised at Talk:Aspartame, the editor became increasingly aggressive. The latter of the two personal attacks has been removed four times. Each time the message is removed, it is promptly reinserted. This is a kind of combination personal attack-edit war on a talk page!

Does anyone have any suggestions? I would personally like to see the user threatened with a block if they continue to reinsert the attack.

The target of the abuse, User:Edgar181, is an administrator, but I imagine he is reluctant to use his powers against this user as he is personally involved. I thought this incident was worth mentioning here, because it is wasting quite a lot of time and is rather unpleasant.

Ben (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I took a look and gave a "this is your only warning" to the IP for violating WP:NPA and coming close to violating WP:3RR. One more repeat of that and I'll block him (or another admin will). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Superb, what a response!

Cheers

Ben (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:KnightLago

I believe User:KnightLago is making false accusations of sockpuppetry against me because of my disagreement with his opinion on the Sandra Lee (cook) talk page. Instead of reporting suspected sockpuppetry on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, Knightlago simply removed several dissenting comments.

I brought up the matter with him on his talk page stating that I have never used User:Hahaho3's account. He responded that he used Wikipedia:CHECK to verify that we were the same. This is impossible, and I believe that he is making theses accusations in order to silence dissent to his suggested move.

If you look at the talk page for Sandra Lee (cook), you'll even see that User:Hahaho3 and I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudyskies41 (talk • contribs) May 9, 2008

Well, I have already left this user a note apologizing for the mixup, but I will leave an explanation here as well. Sandra Lee (cook) has been repeatedly hit by a persistent sockmaster, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Biff714. Biff enjoys continually inserting BLP violations into the article and its talk page. On the talk page he has supported himself, opposed himself, and just been a general pain. Biff, using an IP, and Hahaho3, appeared about the same time as the above user did (who was also editing under an IP at the time) and started his usual nonsense. I requested a CU be run and a number of socks were uncovered. In the process, the CU blocked Cloudyskies41's 1st IP and Biff's IP. I then struck both IPs' comments from the talk page thinking they were Biff. Cloudyskies41, under a second IP then appeared shortly after the block claiming not to be a sock. I told him a CU had just been run and found sockpuppetry. Cloudyskies41 then appeared, again asserting that he was not a sock. I then asked the CU to recheck the situation and he found that Cloudyskies41's 1st IP did not appear to be involved after all. So I unblocked his 1st IP and left an apology to Cloudyskies41 and un-struck his comments under his 1st IP with a note about the mixup. This was a good faith mixup, while trying to deal with a persistent sockmaster, for which I have already apologized. KnightLago (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:DarkFalls

Resolved

 – The editors involved seem to have sorted this out. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a serious difference of opinion, here. I don't mind being reverted, but I don't deserve insults and threats. Might I impose on someone to step in on this? I don't want this to escalate and I'm extremely agitated right now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

They were not threats or insults; they just mentioned that you need to look at A7 CSD criteria more closely before tagging articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

True incivility is the type that drives away contributors, and disruptively tagging decent articles for deletion is one way to achieve that. east.718 at 03:06, May 10, 2008

See also Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#User:DarkFalls. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This has also been posted here SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

...and all has calmed down among the aggrieved parties in the past five minutes. Can somebody proficient with pretty templates please close this one out? east.718 at 03:13, May 10, 2008

Thanks. Didn't mean to open such a can of worms. Such is the risk of new pages patrolling, I guess. Enjoy your weekend, all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rocketboom

The Rocketboom page has an unfortunate history of viciously negative attacks countered by unnaturally positive edits. Anonymous edit wars, COI warnings from admins, personal attacks -- this one has it all. The owner of Rocketboom (User:andrewbaron) recently created an account and could use some new-user guidance. He's not signing his posts, he's deleting other users comments, and so forth. Worse, he's clearly upset about Wikipedia as a whole. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt until he added material claiming that his then year-old show "premiered" during an Apple keynote when the Apple video clearly shows otherwise (his show is not even played). I've been trying to keep a calm, quiet distance and clean things up gently, but I'm officially calling in reinforcements now. I would like to get other editors involved to give him a bit of the "welcome wagon" treatment as he's a smart, influential guy that can undoubtedly help other parts of Wikipedia even if he lacks perspective on his own work. Likewise, I think it would prevent conflicts if I could get some editorial help on the page. If he sees other editors involved, I think we can turn this around. Thanks. -Cleanr (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left them a message. [1] Hopefully that will help. If a few neutral parties could watchlist Rocketboom and help keep it clear of slander and puffery, that would probably help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Wnt

User User:Wnt made the following comment in the Jeremiah Wright controversy discussion page: "(I'd like to suggest that they go edit suicide methods; maybe they could get an idea for something to cut that could improve their editing style)" [2]. His is the most egregious, but demonstrates a general lack of respect shown by several editors toward those who disagree with them. Trilemma (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Notthere

User User:Notthere wrote a speculative paragraph, basically soft-core fetishist fiction , on the talk page for Peter Abelard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Abelard#Was_Heloise_whipped_by_Abelard_for_not_doing_homework

I treated it as vandalism, and deleted it. User:Notthere's user page seemed to be a few paragraphs of more fetishist creative writing.

Notthere re-inserted the comment, and added a paragraph of personal attacks, onto the talk page. On my own user page User:geeklizzard Notthere continued his personal attacks. The tone of Notthere's is that of hate speech towards women. A closer look at Notthere may show some sock puppetry. How should I proceed and can an Admin or arbitrator help out? I'll report any further harassment by this user.--Lizzard (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Layla2008

User Layla2008 continues to add, then when someone undoes the same unsubstantiated, uncited statements over and over, the Layla2008 posts them again. In one instance, Layla2008 wrote: (cur) (last) 00:32, 24 April 2008 Layla2008 (Talk | contribs) (10,903 bytes) (→References: you can run best friends, but you can't hide) (undo) CatDogLover (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Question? It appears you have not notified the editor of the issue. Perhaps you should talk to them before bringing it here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks a complicated two-sided problem based on a content dispute, and possible conflict of interest.

• Best Friends Animal Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Layla2008 (talk · contribs)
• CatDogLover (talk · contribs)

Essentially, Layla2008 wants this version saying the society has Scientology ex-Scientologist members and culty roots. CatDogLover wants this version, not saying that. This is what the contention is about. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I did not at any point mention Scientology roots, merely that The Process Church was founded by ex-Scientologists, which is a well-known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.64.227 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction noted. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article seems to portray the organization in a very positive light. Regarding the dispute, it seems to me the editors have not done anything improper (the debate seems quite civil), and that the best final version would be something in-between that advocated by Layla2008 and CatDogLover. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kobra85

Resolved

 – Seems things have calmed down. Please reactivate if there are further problems. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kobra85 is not behaving in a constructive and civil manner, he constantly insults other editors and undermines their work. Whenever someone tries to communicate with him, including me, he often responds with a certain dose of arrogance, cynicism and mild personal attacks.
Just a while ago, after I tried to solve disputes with him on his Talk Page, he blanked it with an edit summary:
QUOTE (verbatim):

• 13:33, 7 May 2008 I'm tired of listening to people bitching about not getting their way

The history version of my failed attempts to communicate with him in a normal way can be found HERE and HERE. Other examples of incivility:
From his Talk page edit summaries:
QUOTES (verbatim):

• 16:02 6 May 2008 Kobra85 stop bringing this crap to my talk page
• 10:33 7 May 2008 Kobra85 you wish you contributed that much
• 16:07 15 April 2008 Kobra85 I need a break, idiots are annoying me

Additionaly, he tries to impose himself as an exclusive "admin" on many articles, especialy those related to the Republic of Macedonia and its culture. He often reverts other people's work maybe because of political reasons. He unilaterally removed some templates from many Ethnic Macedonian music-related articles, without making proper replacements for all of them in advance, which may also qualify him as vandal. A consencus can not be achieved, so I kindly ask the administration to take the necesary measures. Thank you. --Dzole (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One more example of his explicit language on: User: Revizionist's Talk Page
QUOTE (verbatim)

• 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Signed as Köbra (same user as User: Kobra85): Don't be so bloody ignorant, I reverted the article three times to rid it of your god-forsaken bullshit. If I had reverted it a fourth time, which I have not, then I would have broken the "three-revert rule"... Christ Almighty!

(end of quote)--Dzole (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left a note for Kobra on his talk page making sure that he is aware that he needs to abide by WP's civility policies at all times. This also includes a 3RR warning and an explanation of how 3RR works. However, I also noted in my response that I have not had time to fully research the whole issue, so my response is to be considered incomplete right now - I may have more to say to all of you later. (This may also come from another WQA "staffer" if they get to it before I can.) Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivil behavior - User:Kobra85 (again)

After several warnings by several users about User:Kobra85's incivility, I couldn't stand his insults, and had to report them. This is only one of them:

• User: Kobra85: Don't be so bloody ignorant, I reverted the article three times to rid it of your god-forsaken bullshit. If I had reverted it a fourth time, which I have not, then I would have broken the "three-revert rule"... Christ Almighty!

Source - User: Revizionist's Talk Page

Regards--Revizionist (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrative note: merged this second WQA into the main complaint since it regards the same issue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-stalked

I inserted a passage into an article and User:GHcool, who had never edited this article in the 3 years of it's existence, reverted me here - 16:54, 9 May 2008. Just 9 minutes later he reverted me again here 16:54, 9 May 2008 on an article he'd never edited in 7 years. Neither of these were for any good reason that I can see and he'd done the same, on very dubious grounds, here 18:47, 8 May 2008 less than 24 hours earlier.

I don't wish to set up a fight with this user, but he's plainly wiki-stalking me and shows other indications of reckless breach of AGF to me and other users, clearly displayed on his UserPage (they've been there at least a year).

Can anyone suggest what I should do about this? PR^talk 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

thetruthseeker.co.uk does not appear to be a reliable source, so I think that GHcool was on extremely secure footing reverting controversial edits to controversial pages based on a pov-pushing blog. There is no question whatsoever about those reverts; if GHcool had not reverted them, somebody else would.

GHcool's revert to your edit of Hamas also seems appropriate to me. While the source is more reliable in this case, and there is little question that Olmert said that about Netanyahu, the fact made absolutely no sense in the location you placed it within the article. It was completely out of context and had no relevancy that I can see to what was being discussed.

As to the allegations of Wiki-stalking... well, listen. Your username is "PalestineRemembered," and while there's nothing inherently wrong with that, in doing so your very username becomes a comment about an extremely controversial issue which much of the world tends to get very emotional about. You combine that with the fact that you made a number of edits using highly questionable sources such as thetruthseeker.co.uk and JewsAgainstZionism.com, and well... you're going to attract attention. Fair or not, that's the way it works. I mean, if I see someone make an edit that I think is trying to advance a particular POV, and I have reason to suspect they'll do it again, I might just check up on their contribs to see if they were engaging in that type of behavior elsewhere. That's probably what GHcool did -- he said, "Oh, this guy is using an unreliable source. Let me see if he used it anywhere else. Oh, he did! Let me fix that." There's nothing wrong with that, and it is not wiki-stalking. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns about GHcool's user page... Well, I wouldn't say he is breaching WP:AGF on that page, but I can see why someone might be concerned that it could come across as antagonistic. He certainly has the right to make his case, though. Is there something in particular that bothers you about it? Is it that he uses specific user's "Accusations" and credits them on his user page? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with any of my references ("truthseeker" is a convenient mirror of the content of the book). Nor is there anything wrong with my name, which has been extensively discussed and cleared by members of the ArbCom, amongst others. If there was anything wrong with the edits themselves, there is no question that the regular editors would have challenged them.

Would it be possible to stick to the purpose of this page, and the point at issue, which is that this user appears to be wiki-stalking my edits. PR^talk 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

PR, I explicitly said there was nothing inherently wrong with your name. I just let you know that it might attract attention to your edits, which could give the false appearance of wikistalking. I mean, you must understand that, right? It would be the same if somebody's username was "Israel4Ever", there's nothing wrong with that either, but that person's edits might just get noticed a little more frequently, don't you think?

And FWIW, I believe I am sticking to the purpose of this page: You believe the user is Wikistalking you. I believe that reverting two edits that rely on a questionable source, and a third edit that was completely out of context, does not in any way qualify as Wikistalking. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sent PR an email, and hope to be able to get a resolution to this off-wiki. -- Mark Chovain 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth

Resolved

This user and I met at Jeremiah Wright controversy, an article I created. Recently, a discussion got underway regarding the views from academians on the subject. The concensus decided that the section was too long, but User:CyberAnth did not think so, and labeled myself and another editor as "POV cherry-pickers". Meanwhile, I had been involved in a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama which had been going nicely and we were making progress. CyberAnth decided to interrupt that progress and post this on the page (which was later removed because it was unconstructive). The user then began a section at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy entitled POV pushing, where he accused myself and two other editors of being uncivil and partisan. I was upset, and responded, justifying my actions as I had not (and have not) done anything uncivil or against guidelines. In that message, I told the user that I was an experienced editor and pointed to two articles which I greatly aided in becoming featured: Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. CyberAnth then began stalking me and followed me over to the Ronald Reagan page, tagging the article for POV and unbalance. He also went to the Nancy Reagan page, and added in a claim that Mrs. Reagan was addicted to prescrption medication. I have reverted both edits. He then began a discussion at the Talk:Ronald Reagan page called Hero worship, calling the article "sanitized" and that he will be "working to introduce such critical material in a scholarly manner." There is also a possible sockpuppet of his, User:Bramlet Abercrombie, who has just begun to edit the Ronald Reagan page at the exact same time that CyberAnth did, and has added in quotes that had been removed many months ago. I think that issue is largely resolved, however, but the disagreements with CyberAnth remain.

Bascially, I have acted civil and CyberAnth has not, through failure to discuss or participate in discussions at Jeremiah Wright controversy, he needs to read WP:NPA, and stop WP:STALKING. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about CyberAnth. This editor has not engaged in constructive debate and has instead insisted on editing to their liking. In place of discussing, they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a POV pusher. Trilemma (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22 and Trilemma are in cahoots and have been doing some serious POV pushing in various articles by removing excellent material not to their particular liking, as if they WP:OWN things. It's pretty sad. Then they use this to try to continue that POV pushing by giving a slanted and extremely biased view of the conflict in their favor. These guys are such reverters of material and so constantly watch articles people might as well not even bother editing them. Cryptographic hash (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that I have not communicated on Trilemma's talk page ever, save when I notified him of this discussion, so we are certainly not "in cahoots" when it comes to anything. And you, Cryptographic hash, have also failed to point out any specific examples of where we have been "giving a slanted and extremely biased view of the conflict in their favor." I see that you have also begun stalking me and followed me over the Reagan article as well. If anything is sad, it is the fact that we have to continue pointing fingers at each other rather than resolving our disputes through discussion, something that you and CyberAnth haven't done. Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: CyberAnth continues in his stalking of me, now claiming that the Reagan article is full of POV, even though I pointed out to him that it is featured and not (by giving specifics). He seems to think that by not including a lot of info on Michael Reagan, the article is unbalanced and POV. And he has tagged the article as such. I cannot revert it, because that would be my 3RR. Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Will take me a little while to look at this edit wars history, back when done Billsmith453 (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the Happyme22 statement. The only POV-pusher is CyberAnth/Cyrptographic Hash, who is edit-warring to add slanted appraisals from questionable sources in the Ronald Reagan article, including smears of Reagan written by an undergraduate.[3] Happyme22 has a point of view, but has edited neutrally and towards consensus; when he and I disagreed over the appropriateness of a quote, he yielded to my addition of it. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Separately, I note that CyberAnth / Cryptographic Hash / Bramlet Abercombie have been making identical edits on identical pages with identical complaints. I strongly suspect sock-puppeting. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Gabriel, Trilemma and Happyme22. It seems very likely to me that CyberAnth, Cryptographic Hash & Bramlet Abercombie are the same person. They seem to have made numerous rather odd edits, and don't seem to be interested in consensus. What course of action do you three have in mind? Billsmith453 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the user CyberAnth. This user is often uncivil, accuses anyone who disagrees with him of POV-pushing, and has personally attacked me on the Jeremiah Wright controversy page in question. VeritasAgent (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I don't have a specific plan of action, although I have put in a request at the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser page to verify who CyberAnth, Bramelt Abercrombie, and Cryptographic hash really are. If they are indeed all socks, then the best thing to do is request blocks. If they are not, what do you suggest doing? Happyme22 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the results are in: I put in a request to reveal the IP addresses of CyberAnth, Bramelt Abercrombie, and Cryptographic hash. The results are now in: here they are. It turns out Bramlet is not a sockpuppet, although CyberAnth, Cryptographic hash, User:Ewenss, and User:C.m.jones are all the same person. I guess blocking is the next course of action, and I'll take that up at WP:SS. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved, as CyberAnth, Cryptographic hash, Ewenss, and C.m.jones have all been blocked indefinitely. Happyme22 (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Interference by involved administrator

Resolved

An administrator User:Omegatron, who has been active on MOSNUM and Talk:MOSNUM, has been particularly active since mid March on an issue over the binary prefixes (archives: B8, B9, B10, and B11).

Other, uninvolved editors had weighed in to state that it seemed clear that a rough consensus had formed and the policy should simply be adopted. Even after that (and help from uninvolved administrators), yet another round of work took place in order to arrive at a better consensus (Fourth draft). After extensive discussion by well over a dozen participating editors, a compromise solution was arrived at by an 8:3 vote with no new “oppose” votes in over two days.

Omegatron, as an involved administrator placed a {{disputed}} tag on MOSNUM. In my opinion, this amounts to nothing less than a simple rejection of the consensus view and taking sides in the dispute. As an involved administrator, I think this action is improper. I ask for help on this. Greg L (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been no failure by Omegatron to accept consensus since there has never been any consensus. Omegatron simply replaced tags which have been repeatedly removed by Greg inspite of the fact that they are an accurate reflexion in the state of affairs with respect to this proposal of his. JIMp _talk·cont 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• The above post can fairly be considered as properly representing the views of the minority “oppose” element. The larger majority believes that the truth of the matter is clear: that a more-than-full and fair hearing has been conducted, wide input solicited, and that a consensus has been achieved. It also seems that under such circumstances, an administrator who has been outspoken in his opposition to this guideline has no business placing a {disputed} tag on the very policy he opposes; it amounts to being an involved administrator in a dispute, which is prohibited, is it not? Greg L (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• P.S.: Upon further examination of Jimp’s above post, he completely mischaracterized my “removal” of tags. There are two tags (see here). The upper one was placed there earlier by an uninvolved editor (here) (leading to the entire 26–36 sections on Talk:MOSNUM). I removed that tag after we decided that a consensus had been achieved and the policy had rightfully been formally adopted. My problem is with the newly placed lower tag, which Omegatron, as an involved administrator placed on the “Follow current literature”-portion itself. As I understand Wikipedia policy on conduct of admins, it is wrong for an active admin to take sides on such an issue.

  I now see that a “support” editor just deleted the tag. I have little doubt that this will be restored by another editor (not Omegatron), thus clouding an already really messy situation that shouldn’t have occurred in the first place had Omegatron not done what he did. Greg L (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• What policy says that administrators are not allowed to have opinions? I am not remotely clear on what policy you believe has been violated here. Literally any user may add a template to a page. Literally any user may argue that a policy is disputed (and it seems several people are willing to do so in this case). There are rules against administrators using their special rights in disputes they are involved in (such as blocking an editor that disagrees with them, or locking a disputed page), but from what you have described nothing like that has happened here. It is not clear from your description that Omegatron has done anything inappropriate. — Aluvus t/c 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the history of the talk it will then become clear that there is good consensus. The changes by Omegatron and others do not have consensus.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I’ve seen many unjustified accusations made against Omegatron, but this one takes the biscuit. The discussion is connected to a new piece of text (known as Follow current literature) added to MOSNUM. The following 9 editors have all argued against its inclusion: Gene Nygaard, Gerry Ashton, Jeh, Jim77742, Jimp, LeadSongDog, Lightmouse, Thunderbird2 and Tony. A ‘disputed tag’ was added to the text, which Greg L and others have repeatedly tried to remove. (I have recently put it back because I think there is ample evidence of a dispute on the talk page)

Instead of listening to the arguments, Greg L responds with accusations of bad faith and rudely dismisses the need for consensus.

In a nutshell, there is no consensus for the new text. Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All the above listed editors have not voted against the text. What did happen is that some voted oppose but did not make valid points so in a nutshell there is consensus because the oppose minority ignored the better reasons from the larger supporting majority.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• After extensive discussion by well over a dozen participating editors, a compromise solution was arrived at by an 8:3 vote with no new “oppose” votes in over two days. All the above responses are debating the point of whether or not that compromise version properly constituted a consensus or not. The point is that Omegatron, as an involved administrator, took sides in this issue and placed a {{disputed}} tag on the page (the lower one here). For proof that Omegatron was actively involved in this issue, please see archives B8, B9, B10, and B11. Just search on “Omegatron”. Will someone please help me on this? Greg L (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's become apparent to me that User:Greg L has some kind of obsession with me. I have no idea what initiated this.

As I understand Wikipedia policy on conduct of admins, it is wrong for an active admin to take sides on such an issue.

I'm pretty sure there's no policy against administrators expressing opinions. You've probably misread Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of tools. It's prohibited for admins to abuse their tools in a dispute, just like it's prohibited for regular users to revert war in a dispute. We're just regular editors that have been entrusted with some site functions that can cause harm if misused. I'm not acting as a mediator or "superuser" in the MOSNUM discussion, and I'm not using administrative tools, either. My participation in the dispute is just like yours, minus the rudeness.

What did happen is that some voted oppose but did not make valid points so in a nutshell there is consensus

Apparently DavidPaulHamilton has the exclusive privilege of deciding who makes valid points and who does not.

I added the disputed tag because there's not even a shred of consensus for that section. Last I checked, Wikipedia:Consensus didn't mention vote stacking, sockpuppets, or majority rule as legitimate methods of generating policy. In fact, I think it said something alone the lines of "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day."

But I guess Greg L "never lets himself be hemmed in by piss-poor rules". If only we were all so unencumbered... — Omegatron (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a neutral point of view there. On the talk page several editors asked if there are any substantive reasons for the oppose and everytime nothing substantive was provided.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from all accusations flying about, how can one seriously state that there is consensus, when someone else places a "disputed" tag? The fact of the tag proves the dispute. Stating that someone else's arguments are not substantive does not really help to discussion along. From the talk page I definitely never got the impression that consensus was building. −Woodstone (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not all editors in 100% happy agreement, and never has been. It only takes one editor, refusing to abide by consensus, to post a "disputed" tag. How, then, can such a tag prove that there is no consensus? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not all editors agreeing. On the MOSNUM talk page have a read of the village pump consensus related thread. The oppose votes do not have substantive reasons, see the comments from Francis and others on the talk page by searchmg for the word substantive. So the weak oppose votes are blocking progress. Informal mediation failed so we need to look at formal mediation now. I'm not familiar with the process of getting it started as I'm a newbie so Greg can you get it started?DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Omegatron. Why don’t you dig yourself a deeper hole for yourself? In my opinion, your entire argument above only demonstrates how you were totally invested in the “Follow current literature” issue and went ahead and intervened as an involved administrator anyway.

  You were the lead proponent of a policy to use the IEC prefixes (256 “kibibit” memory chip) two years ago and now Wikipedia is all alone on this. The manufacturers of computer equipment don’t advertise that way nor use such language in their owners manuals. No other general-interest computer magazine in the world nor any general-interest encyclopedia uses such terminology and that’s why the typical Wikipedia reader is unfamiliar with such terminology. Spell checkers don’t even recognize “kibibit”; mine just flagged that (again). And here you are, in the thick of it, battling a guideline that would discontinue this practice—something a clear majority of editors agree is the wise thing to do now.

  Much of your above argument simply amounts to nothing more than “the people I have a dispute with are poopy heads so I was justified in breaking a rule that governs the conduct of administrators.”  That is the garbage that immature hothead editors occasionally engage in and which administrators are supposed to take care of. How did someone with your judgment and temperament become an administrator in the first place? Greg L (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lots of personal attacks; zero evidence of misbehavior on my part. Can you please try to relate your seething hatred to something I've actually done? For instance, you could provide a quote from a policy, and then a diff showing me breaking that policy. Or you could provide a diff that shows me being uncivil, since that's what this page is for ("impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications"). — Omegatron (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• It’s not “personal attacks” to complain about an administrator abusing the power of their post. As for evidence, it’s simple: you didn’t recuse yourself from the issue on “Follow current literature” and placed a {disputed} tag on the section in question after making it clear that you opposed the measure and continued to make it clear throughout the entire debate that you opposed the measure (archives: B8, B9, B10, and B11). If that isn’t incorrect behavior that is against the rules, and if your attempts to dismiss them by falsely claiming my charges are nothing less than “personal attacks”, isn’t also improper, please do advise. Because if this is the wrong forum for addressing this sort of stuff, I’d be more than pleased to kick it up to a more suitable forum if that’s your wish. Greg L (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• And your response will be much the same. seicer | talk | contribs 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, putting a disputed tag on a disputed section is not "incorrect behavior that is against the rules". Why would it be? Please explain what you think I've done wrong here, either on policy grounds or on civility grounds.

By what logic should I "recuse" myself from adding a tag to a guideline? Should you also recuse yourself from removing the tag or editing the guideline because you've previously expressed opinions about it? Your statements make no sense to me. — Omegatron (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

TE by History2007

1. After edits being reverted,[4] I repeatedly asked for discussion from History2007. I discussed content of article:Blessed Virgin Mary with anyone, such as ‎John Carter, who was asked for help at one point.
2. After many tries without History2007 posting objections to the content and without giving particular objections, I have added back in my content, hoping for a WP:BRD cycle, at least.
3. History2007 then reverted all content--- without reading or keeping one bit of it.
4. Repeat step one.

Mediation were also requested but the feedback was that History2007's are issues are "not very clear..." --Carlaude (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that debate has now ended. But the facts are not as such and for the record:

1. I (History 2007) requested the mediation and while it was ongoing kept the page within the limits of the consensus achieved by several votes. In each case user Carlaude failed in his attempts to change consensus, as documented on the talk page and as confirmed by administrator JohnCarter's summary of the votes.

2. I had previously requested help from administrators on their notice board and here were their comments:

• SANTA MARIA! That page history is a mess. Honestly. Not sure what to do with that, but it appears as though Carlaude's edits are against consensus, and he is trying everything he can to dodge that consensus... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Holy crap! (pun fully intended) That page, as edited by Carlaude fails NPOV by a long shot. Instead of discussing the dogmas, he edits the page to be a litany about the holiness of the subject. He's clearly interested in continuing to push his religiously motivated version of the page against consensus, and should be blocked and/or topic banned for it. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

These were their words, not mine (as can be confirmed) and I think their views as expressed above, as well as the other 8 users on that talk page speak volumes about the facts. The last comment was from user WikiCats again warning and admonishing Carlaude. He said: Carlaude you are facing being blocked or banned over this (his words) as he reverted Carlaude's edits. Although the debate is over, I think the TE should apply to the user admonished by the administrators above, as well as the other users on the page. The cyclic discussion there was never ending, so along wiith another user, we worked on it all day and found a better way to avoid all the debates anyway, as indicated on that page. But as Jayron32 said: "Santa Maria!" that was a mess. I am so glad it is over. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole thing seems to be a content dispute. Is there a civility problem in all of this? This page (Wikiquette Alerts) is for resolution of interpersonal matters, such as not assuming good faith, personal attacks, uncivil behavior, etc. If all this is is a content dispute, I would recommend you try a different forum, such as Requests for Comment or Third Opinion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

TE by Carlaude

Please see the discussion just above. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Insults and other misconduct by newcomer to discussion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Hogenakkal Falls regarding the location of the falls relative to the border. A party who was recently entered the discussion, User:Sarvagnya, has since he entered the discussion acted as follows. He belittled others for treating an editor with a few months experience the same way he himself treated an editor with not even that much experience when that editor was new, the editor in question being one of the participants in the current discussion. He has not apparently bothered to familiarize himself with any of the discussion which took place before his arrival, as is indicated by his appearing to produce the same arguments that had been made and dismissed earlier. He has also regularly insulted virtually everyone else involved in the discussion, often in ways which have little if any bearing on the discussion itself, and, basically, acted outside the rules of conduct. I do not believe this is the first time this party has engaged in such conduct. I believe it would be a good idea if this party were told by an uninvolved party that his behavior in this matter is less than acceptable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with what John Carter has said. A skim-through of the article Talk page, searching for "Sarvagnya", should verify this quite quickly. (Of course, any editor wishing to carry out a more complete read-through is most welcome to do so.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He's had repeated trouble with civility ever since he was a newbie himself. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, it is an ongoing problem. But I suggest an Rfc (user conduct) might be more effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My observations as an editor of Hogenakkal Falls. User:John Carter (came on board under solicitation by Wikiality123) and User:SheffieldSteel (accidentally joined while trying to prematurely settle AN/I issue against Wikiality123 as an Admn though he is not an admn) are newer (appeared to had no knowledge about the topic) to the Hogenakkal Falls than many other editors including Sarvagnya (see archived discussions). Looks like they joined just with an intension of supporting user:Wikiality123 and repeatedly/deliberately ignored views of others. The language by user:wikiality123, User:John Carter and User:SheffieldSteel is quite intimidating and often offensive towards anyone who try to correct current mistake in the lead. One of them had gone to the extent of using BS. They have fueled into escalation in heated arguments Sr editors including an Admn involved have not made any efforts to keep discussions cool. It is requested to keep discussions calm and move forward towards a consensus than foot dragging. Naadapriya (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Naadapriya was repeatedly told directly that the material he sought to add was not in fact supported by the evidence he provided. He repeatedly, and at least once expressly, ignored any and all such comments. He also repeatedly tried to introduce POV material, stating that it was NPOV. His own abject failure to respond to the valid points he was repeatedly advised about could hardly be said to have helped the situation. It has been repeatedly noted that Naadapriya is a comparatively new user. However, I do not think that his misunderstandings of the policies, guidelines, and processes of wikipedia are the responsibility of anyone but himself. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another ongoing problem. Again, I suggest Rfc (conduct) - 2 separate ones - 1 for each of them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC was initiated, but Naadapriya and Sarvangya chose not to take part in them. As for the use of BS by me I have repeatedly pointed to Naadapriya that I was talking about WP:BULLSHIT. If he wants I can show him diffs of his guru Sarvagnya himself using it several times!! Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW can Naadapriya point out a single edit that he would have made to the Hogenekkal falls article other than about the jurisdiction? The intention of this editor and what interests him to this article is well explicite. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Correction: There was a request for Mediation involving Naadapriya, who disagreed with the proposal. As far as I know, no request for Comment has been filed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case, I strongly recommend going straight to Rfc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure is SheffieldSteel is aware that Sarvagnya did visit the previous RfC, which was obviously of the same issue. He left message on the talk page saying that my RfC was filled with total bad faith, whereas the user could have joined the RfC if he really intended to. I would support an RfC if initiated, but nevertheless, I won't be too optimistic about the outcome. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any objections to filing an RfCU when an alert here is still not completed? Having minimal knowledge of this particular process, I welcome any informed input. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No there isn't - RfCU can be opened at any time. I think it is preferrable in this case too. But, it does require an amount of time and effort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see Ncmvocalist, Wikiality123 and John Carter getting together here. Something common I found from all three about me.

1. were more interested to block me than answering my comments
2. tend to get offensive when facts are shown that contradict your POV
3. lobby to get others involved just to oppose
4. Try to taint with false accusations

To John Carter : It is a puzzle to see that you refuse acknowledge seeing an WP:RS I pointed out from the existing article which even Wikiality123 has acknowledged (see discussion on rejected mediation page). Editors need not have to invent a new RS if there is one already in the article. Also I was under the impression that you were mostly helping towards reaching a consensus. Now you sound different by going back to already settled discussions. Is this an action as an Editor or Admn?. To understand your role better still you owe an answer in open for my inquiry posted on your talk page To Wikiality123; As usual looks like you forgot about discussions on speculative water project section To Ncmvocalist : Surprise to see you here (hope voluntary not by solicitation as other editor did) all of a sudden but I am lost on what you are talking about now.

BTW : Team efforts are good when they are constructive Naadapriya (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have worked extensively with Sarvagnya over the last two years on dozens and dozens of articles. IMO, he is a very pleasant and high quality editor and has several invaluable contributions to wikipedia over the last two years. After a quick survey of both Sarvagnya's and the Carter's contribs, I must say that this wikiquette alert seems to be motivated by content issues in which the Carter and Wikiality seem to be involved in against Sarvagnya. It would be better if Carter sorted out content issues on the talk page instead of taking barbs at his opponent here. I also see no need here for a RFC or any such thing. It would almost a violation of WP:POINT. Thanks, KNM ^Talk 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Sarvagnya is easily one of the most amazing editors I've come across. He's one of our best defenders of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and also a content-editor of high quality. Thanks to him, scores of articles have improved from using sources like tamilnation.com and blogs to using better, more academic sources. This here is mob lynching and nothing else. A very quick look at your recent histories shows that you guys got your bluff called on a certain talk page. And you decide to get even by filing this dishonest alert. I completely and emphatically disagree with this ganging up against and attempt to browbeat one of our best. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya is easily one of the most amazing editors I've come across?? Really?? Crikey you haven't looked around have you. Addressing POV and writing article neutrally is a very important issue but can anybody say he goes about what he does in a respectable fashion and treats other editors civilly?

Why is that I always see Lahiru_k and KNM when it comes to articles against Tamils? Please keep your personal preferences outside Wiki. Sarvagnya is someone who delibrately selectively quotes to demonise TN or Tamils [5]. When Sarvagnya talks about me in his intepretation as iltreating a novice Naadapriya, Sarvagnya himself was the one who hit me with questions when I was a very much new user, with less than 20 edits on wikipedia. There is no way Sarvagnya could have not realised that am novice, because it was he who posted the first ever message on my talk page. Whereas Naadapriya knows wiki rules well. In his own words, you can see him quoting (or misquoting) wiki rules and policies. Sarvagnya would freely ask me in his own rude way about references, but when his mate Naadapriya is asked to provide references, it becomes iltreating a novice. I know a few more people other than KNM and Lahiru_k who would come here in support of Sarbagnya, including a fruity admin. I think I will email a few admins with the list of members who I expect to come in support of Sarvagnya and with reasons why, so that I can build my case easily on them. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Neither of the editors above seems to have noticed that several people had commented that virtually every comment Sarvagnya had made on the page prior to this posting here was at best a violation of civility, often worse. While I welcome informed discussion, I have to say that I don't see anything here, other than perhaps an attempt to whitewash the comments of Sarvagnya which were adjudged by virtually everyone involved as being clearly unacceptable. The RfCU may well go ahead in any event, when this discussion is closed, as even several other editors, including Relata above, who I believe tends not to be involved in these subjects often, seem to disagree with both of the last two editors above rather markedly. John Carter (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Having continued to read the above, some of those commenting here also seem to fail to understand the difference between content issues and conduct issues - but this can be clarified elsewhere. RfCU is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with user John Carter. Sarvagnya does have a long history of being rude, abusive and insulting. A quick look at his talk pages should provide ample proof. --Madhu (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Now an RfC awaiting activation at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Wow Wikiality. I wonder if the secret cabal of anti-Tamilian Kannadiga/Sinhala ethnonationalists has anything else up its sleeve. Here's a novel solution: find RS's and debate that instead of forum shopping.Bakaman 01:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems spreading outward from AfD

Resolved

 – to the original poster's satisfaction SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The debate over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy got even more heated when User:Sur_de_Filadelfia suddenly turned up from Philadelphia, where the creator and chief defender of "epicaricacy" is an active Wikipedian. This new participant, who agrees with his co-Philadelphian on every point regarding both epicaricacy and schadenfreude, has combined defense of the article with some angry personal attacks. [6], e.g. "What the hell is wrong with Betsy Devine? ... Somebody should slap Betsy Devine's hands for abusing process."

User:Dhartung kindly intervened, leaving a template uw-npa1 on User_talk:Sur_de_Filadelfia plus the personal comment "You may want to reconsider whether this edit summary really qualifies as "snide". As an uninvolved editor, I don't see it. Take a deep breath and step back a bit." Instead of calming things down, as the rest of us have been trying to do, s/he last night broadened his efforts into 1) nominating Betsy Devine for AfD, 2) accusing other Wikipedians of copyvio because there is material in common between the two articles epicaricacy and schadenfreude. Several editors tried to explain Wikipedia practice, but this morning he has now blanked the latter and filed a different copyvio claim, asserting that its one paragraph description of material from a much longer NYT article is a copyvio. [7] I am a great believer in WP:FAITH, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this behavior is aimed more at distressing the editors who disagree with him than it is at improving Wikipedia. Can someone help? betsythedevine (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Because of your edits to epicaricacy. I saw the vanity Bio. Sorry, but I call them like I see them. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2008

(UTC)

• When I filed this alert, I was worried that you were just starting a wider attack on Wikipedians who disagreed with you. But now I see you have come under investigation as a sock puppet of a banned account South Philly, an account that was previously investigated as a sockpuppet of Evrik, the user whose position in this AfD you have so very angrily been defending. So I am hopeful that problems will no longer be spreading outward from this AfD. Thanks to the admins and others who responded. Somebody can mark this closed, as far as I'm concerned. betsythedevine (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Derek.cashman's edit summary

Resolved

A GA (New York State Route 308) that I had contributed to recently got delisted by Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), on the grounds that it wasn't complete and comprehensive. Being a fairly short route, the article contains as much information as it can. Anyway, I brought it to GAR, and in the nomination statement I accidentally misspelled his name. Thus, he proceeded to violate WP:CIVIL in an edit summary to fix the typo. Aside from that, he edited my comment, which is not allowed. If somebody can help me out with this, it'd be great. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I took a look at it. The editing of other's comments is generally frowned upon, that is true. However, I do note that the GAR tends to be going in your favor. Also, there may be a chance that he was merely making a good faith edit to your comment and was not trying to offend you--who knows? Lazulilasher (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Oops, I just saw the edit summary...that is disappointing. Well, again, it does seem like the GAR is leaning towards re-listing, maybe it would be good to just ignore his comment? Lazulilasher (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It may have been in GF, but his edit summary certainly wasn't. It does appear that the GAR is going well, but again, I feel such comments shouldn't be taken lightly. Thanks for taking a look, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya, the edit summary was a bit rough. I warned him with the no personal attacks template and left a message. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I just hope this doesn't escalate too much. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I removed the nasty template message I'd originally placed and left the note as it is more polite and personal. Id just leave the situatuon be- he may have meant it lighty. lazulilasher (editing from mobile device...cannot find tilda key...)

Very well, I'll try to leave the situation alone. Thank you for your help, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

After re-reviewing the article in question, I have closed the GAR and relisted the article. I apologize about the confusion. As for the edit comments, I didn't think people even read those stupid things anyway, so the comment was more just reflecting my own thoughts about everyone constantly misspelling my name and not really directed at any particular user. Sorry about that. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you so much for being civil and understanding! The thing with edit summaries is that many people look at their watchlists--and the only thing that shows is the edit summary--not the actual edit. So, it can easily be miscontrued. I had a feeling that that was what had happened. No worries and again, thank you for your civility and happy editing! Lazulilasher (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

insulting behavior

Wiki editor User:Tool2Die4 has engaged in rude and insulting behavior. He/she has used an insulting tone in our discussions and called me a "d-bag" (douche-bag) in their edit history on multiple occasions. This child-like behavior is unacceptable to me. I am not trying to be overly sensitive, yet I feel this behavior needs to be addressed. Any help will be appreciated. Thank you. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are being overly sensitive, and childish. You got called out for not knowing the Wikipedia MoS, and now you are getting defensive. Grow up. Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I said for you you to revert my edit since the award info was mentioned in the next paragraph. This is about your insults. Thanks.--DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So long as you stay away from my talk page, the matter is closed. Is this understood? There is literally no reason for you to ever edit my talk page again. Hopefully I have spelled this out clearly. This discussion is over. Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on your talk page is not prohibited, however, I will not post on there anymore. This matter is not closed since you totally avoid the actual issue. This has nothing to do with MoS. It is about your rudeness. Thanks. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the argument, calling people names is not acceptable. Using edit summaries to repeatedly abuse another user is clearly a lot more childish than objecting to being abused. Wikpedia is not about winning arguments or calling people out in a puerile fashion, neither is it about addressing other users in a patronising manner, as shown here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet thank you for taking the time to address this minor issue. I know this is not one of the more pressing issues at the moment, but I feel it needed to be addressed. I would like an apology, but I don't have any illusions. Without further input I consider this issue resolved. Thanks again for your time. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kmweber and Rfas

Hello User:Kmweber aka "Kurt Weber" Has Opposed all the Rfas Based on the sole Fact they are Self-noms.

• Guest9999
• Fordmadoxfraud
• Bluegoblin7
• Vivio Testarossa
• Zinder
• Kumioko

Sincerely,

Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree} 23:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussed 1000 times, said they're okay 1000 times, nothing to see here, move along. Wizardman 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• This has already been an RFC and been supported, not as to content but as to a right to oppose,--Cube lurker (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed the warning from Kurt's talkpage and issued extremely strong words of advice to User:Trees Rock, as this is the second time today they've made spurious allegations of "incivility" without bothering to read any of the relevant policy or discussion. — iridescent 23:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Refer you to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#An_idea_that_might_make_all_sides_happy_-_self_noms. Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree} 00:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean the discussion where editor after editor is telling you to stop being disruptive, given that this has already been discussed ad nauseam. Please stop being disruptive. — iridescent 00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the appropriate tag for this discussion is {{Round In Circles}}. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wetman

Stuck

I recently wrote a message to Wetman about his comments towards me on the talk page of Amazons [here], where he implied that I wasn't a competent adult and stated that we couldn't have sensible discussion when I disagreed with him on the issue. When I wrote back to him, he replied [here] and again called me incompetent, accused me of having "misplaced self-confidence", implied that my educational background was inferior to his, and compared me to an "aggressive class clown". It is not for my sake that I'm putting in this wikiquette alert, it is for the sake of others. Another editor has told me that Wetman has been rude to him on occasion as well, and I fear that his behavior will start driving away new editors. Asarelah (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman has avoided direct personal attacks here, and has tried to make his inflammatory comments non-specific. However, at the root, he is being quite incivil and needs to stop. Mangojuice^talk 04:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble which I tried to discuss with him here but he was less than civil. There's more at this location with additional information from User:Polaron. - Denimadept (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, having made some 52,000 edits since September 2003, whose resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply, has surely raised some resentment, particularly by inappropriate laughter and frank, often sharp remarks in response to various dishonesties, pettiness, aggressive behavior, attacks with the WP:CIVILITY club, disinfopage pushing, list-making and other coxcombry. His Talkpage archives will show the nature of his habitual discourse quite plainly, and may be thumbed in order to select out further disgraceful examples of his "inflammatory though non-specific" comments:

User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004

User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004

User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005

User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005

User talk:Wetman/archive23Jun2005

User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005

User talk:Wetman/archive1Dec2005

User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006

User talk:Wetman/archive3July2006

User talk:Wetman/archive15Oct2006

User talk:Wetman/archive7Feb2007

User talk:Wetman/archive25Jun2007

User talk:Wetman/archive10Aug2007

User talk:Wetman/archive28Dec2007

User talk:Wetman/archive16April2008

Remarks concerning competency in the field of Greek mythology belong at Talk:Amazons, where the complainant deleted a commonplace statement in July 2007, but did not have sufficient interest in the subject to have it on his Watchlist. Rather than make defensive retorts to individual complaints, Wetman prefers to let the record speak for itself, and to reserve the option of perhaps making some general remarks with broad applications— or perhaps not— once everyone has fully expressed themselves. Wetman (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your record does speak for itself. Here are three people who you've annoyed. I suggest you try harder to be less annoying, as repelling people from Wikipedia is not productive. And I can't believe you are totally ignorant of your effect, given, as you say, your record. - Denimadept (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I had kept the Amazons page on my watchlist, I simply didn't notice the remark that you made until recently, which I stated in my initial note to you on the talk page. I am also a woman, not a man, just so you know. I would also like to point out that a neutral third party, MangoJuice, also believes that your behavior has been inappropriate and incivil. Asarelah (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also had a disagreement with him about an addition he made to History of Chester, where he saw no need to add a reference to some material he had added, commenting that the article was mediocre. Of course, it would always remain mediocre if people had this attitude. A reply from him suggested that since the wikilink he had used contained a reference, that would suffice, but recent discussions on WP:Reliable sources confirms that I was correct in stating that this was insufficient. He then ended the discussion by making a statement: "What very high standards for such a mediocre article! Wetman never keeps articles on his Watchlist that are so distinctly "owned", so, that will be all from me at this article." The accusation of ownership was totally unjustified, and a comment by one of the leading contributors to UK articles: User:Jza84 supported the view that his comments were highly uncivil. (diff of exchange on History of Chester page.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A spat I had with him yesterday at Talk:Dorian invasion over my changing a word involved quite a bit of personal attacks and insulting language. He does not play well with others. Too bad, as I actually value his contributions. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, don't mean to imply that he's useless or anything like that, but that he needs to play with others better than he has been doing. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wetman is indeed a very dedicated and obviously intelligent editor, he simply needs to learn to handle disagreements with civility. Asarelah (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with this viewpoint. He needs to be able to deal with disagreements better and accept that others can be correct and he can be wrong occasionally.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So how should this issue be resolved? Asarelah (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were easy, we wouldn't have brought it here. However, perhaps it's time to get more active. I feel he needs a apollogist following him around to try to reduce his negative effects, but I doubt anyone would apply for the position. I'd appreciate it if he'd try to consider his words first, forego his attempts at humor in such situations, and assume good faith in all situations other than blatant vandalism. - Denimadept (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but what's the next step here? Just how do we get him to listen to us? Asarelah (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we send him a pretty woman to soften him up a bit? If anyone has a spare pretty woman around, have her come by my place afterwards. :-D No, wait, before! Denimadept (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant more in terms of protocol for Wikiquette alerts than anything else. We have reached a consensus that he needs to change his behavior, but through what channel? Does an admin have to talk to him or something? I'm just unclear on what we do now. Asarelah (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I left Wetman a note on his talk page to let him know that we have reached a consensus here. Whether or not he chooses to add more input to this discussion remains to be seen. Asarelah (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WQA is non-binding - this page exists to try to help you guys resolve your dispute and to give advice on how to deal with civility issues. If you find that the conflict is still going on after you've come to a consensus on this page, you'd probably need to escalate to a WP:RFC/USER, WP:MEDCAB or other forum on WP:DR. Those forums have varying levels of formality. If you see gross incivility and direct violations of policies, you can file a report at WP:ANI if your attempts to curb the problem are unsuccessful. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wetman has been specifically invited to contribute a few further words, though his sense has been that introducing any exchanges of pert ripostes here would more likely add heat than illumination to this forum with a jury of three. TEven the most casual observer will detect an unusual lack of collegiality in the above posts: collegiality is the substance of which civility is the surface. Civility without collegiality is often taken for irony, sometimes correctly, for irony naturally arises from a perception of the difference between things as they are and things as they might rightfully be expected.

Wetman would regret ever making any sharp remark that didn't have a point. The tempest spilling onto the present saucer arose from hostile and less than adult reactive responses defending two uninformed deletions, and from the insistent insertion of a disinfobox with incorrect dates for Ponte Vecchio, which Wetman answered with unforgivable wit and class. Concerning Asarelah's deletion of a perfectly neutral mainstream statement concerning creation of individual names for Amazons in later Antiquity, see Talk:Amazons#Amazon names and to Asarelah's offended remarks— months later— at Wetman's Talkpage. Concerning User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 's response to learning the new word "relict" having mis"corrected" it to "relic", see User talk:Wetman#relic vs. relict and Talk:Dorian invasion.

Where do the greater incivilities lie in these three cases? Do they really lie in a sharp word of well-deserved reproof? Wetman knows how to apologize when an apology is required, as a look through the Talkpage archives he has listed above will show. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit is by its very definition a compromise with mediocre information: Wetman is under no illusions, but strives for fewer inaccuracies, no matter how aggressively they may be insisted upon. Wetman's negative encounters at Wikipedia are commonly with over-confident assertions of misinformation, but are rarely met with such toxic reactions as these present ones. --Wetman (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So even when treated with all possible civility and given accurate references, he's still holding onto his position. I'm darned if I know why, since it's clear he's not an idiot. I suggest that Wetman return to the scene of the skirmish and re-read what happened there. Perhaps he will feel enlightened when he realizes his error, but I'm not holding my breath. - Denimadept (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, I have no idea how you can possibly interpret this thread as having a lack of collegiality on our part. We respect your contributions and dedication, we've even stated so. The problem here is that you seem to think that its perfectly okay to insult people and to call them ignorant when they happen to disagree with you or question you on some point where you are convinced that you are correct. You say that you would regret ever making any "sharp" remark that didn't have a point. Well Wetman, you're obviously an intelligent man, and if you wanted to, you could make your points without resorting to "sharp" remarks which antagonize other people. I'm baffled as to why someone as dedicated to the encyclopedia as you are would choose to alienate his fellow editors in such a fashion. Asarelah (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A key point, Asarelah. - Denimadept (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about lack of collegiality, but Denimadept's "spare pretty woman" comment doesn't strike me as a demonstration of "all possible civility", nor does it give "accurate references", nor is it a serious attempt to resolve any dispute. In addition, depending on one's cultural background, that comment could be seen as offensive, patronizing, sexist, disgusting, or simply idiotic. Do you see my point? Please "unstick" and archive this thread immediately, I find it disgraceful to the purpose of this page and a waste of time. Wetman is an excellent and respected editor. Occasional mild condescension and hurt sensitivities don't justify this hullabaloo. Look at how this thread started ... we need to move on! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to change the subject will not fix the situation, Sluzzelin. Wetman has a tendancy to piss editors off, and that is not helpful. - Denimadept (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Making gratuitous misogynist remarks while looking for reasons to get pissed off won't fix anything either. I don't know what you expect. Obviously Wetman won't perform like a circus seal to your satisfaction. Fine, continue this thread if you truly believe it will "fix" anything. I don't see anything that needs to get fixed, except perhaps the hypersensitivity of a couple of editors. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Deninadept was merely attempting to lighten the obvious tension here with joke (for the record, I'm a woman and I didn't find his comment sexist or offensive). Perhaps it was inappropriate, but I doubt that he meant anything by it. Anyway, Wetman's personal attacks against myself and others hardly strike me as mere "mild condescension". His attitude has been extremely supercilious. I certainly agree that Wetman is an excellent and respected editor, nobody can deny that, but that hardly gives him the right to disparage and insult fellow editors simply because he has a disagreement with them. I don't appreciate you calling my attempts to resolve this dispute with him in a reasonable manner "disgraceful" and "a waste of time", nor would I call myself hypersensitive, as I have been editing Wikipedia steadily since 2005, and I have never met an editor anywhere near as abrasive as Wetman has been. I am doing my very best to handle this uncomfortable issue in a civilized and reasonable way, and I think everything that I've posted reflects that. I'm not sure what to expect here either Sluzzelin, but I'm not feeling very optimistic, given the way this thread is going. Asarelah (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sluzzelin writes: "I don't see anything that needs to get fixed, except perhaps the hypersensitivity of a couple of editors." So, complaining about a gratuitous accusation of ownership of an article when I (quite rightly as it turned out) asked for a reference to back up a fact he had added is all right, and is hypersensitivity on my part? Similarly, trying to state that a link to another wikipedia article is a sufficient reference for that fact, when this violates official wikipedia policy is also all right, and it is hypersensitivity on my part to request this? I suggest that it is not. I also suggest that Wetman's reaction to this last issue is the hypersensitivity brought about by me asking him to correct an error of omission. The reaction seems almost to be brought about by a sense of affrontery that I should have dared to question him on this matter. It is not under dispute that he makes very good contributions, but that does not absolve him from behaving in a way which demonstrates the collaborative nature of wikipedia, and it is quite wrong of you to suggest that very good contributors should not reasonably have matters raised about their behaviour in dealing with felllow editoirs who make reasonable requests of them, or that in so doing they are attacked for raising them about an editor who makes otherwise good contributions.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The first instance of offense, the one that started the thread, was a reaction to a post by Wetman which was nine months old. The offended user did not first continue a discussion on that talk page, nor seek "dispute resolution" on Wetman's talk page. Instead the nine-month old issue was raised directly here. <Untrue account of order of events struck out by Sluzzelin. Apologies to Asarelah and misled readers. The fact remains that it was a reaction to a nine-month old post. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)>

That is simply not true at all! If you read this thread from the top, you will see that I did indeed seek dispute resolution on Wetman's talk page, as can be seen right here, where he handled it by calling me incompetent, accused me of having "misplaced self-confidence", implied that my educational background was inferior to his, and compared me to an "aggressive class clown". That is why I filed this alert! Asarelah (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your admission that you were mistaken. Anyway, the reason that I didn't go talk to Wetman right away is because I generally use my watchlist to keep an eye on the articles themselves rather than the talk pages, and I was also heavily preoccupied with various other articles that I was working on. I simply hadn't noticed Wetman's edit until recently. Anyway, the time lapse is irrelevant. The fact remains is that Wetman was very much out of line, and I don't see how you (or anybody) can possibly defend his behavior towards me on his talk page. Asarelah (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

<Continuation of original, now amended post by Sluzzelin> The only personal attacks I see in the second instance, here, are those accusing Wetman of "being patently offensive" and the statement "Wetman doesn't seem interested in doing anything but being offensive". Wow. This comment would have offended me, but Wetman chose not to react.

The thread linked by DDStretch does show civility on his part, but "If you are at all unsure how to do this, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:References will provide some guidance." could easily be interpreted as patronizing when addressed to a regular editor.

You see, it's often possible to take offense from what we see as violations of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and so forth. (This was my point regarding the "spare pretty woman" remark) It regularly happens when we argue as if we ourselves, as projected into online space, were involved, not the articles, not the words. The easiest solution, in my opinion, is to focus on the topic and ignore the rest. That is my advice, and I have nothing more to offer. I doubt very much that I, one completely insignificant non-admin with no clout or personality, will be able to persuade anyone who takes offense and the path of personal interference. Continue this thread, if you think it is going to improve the encyclopedia. I don't think it will improve anything, but merely exacerbate the grudges. I may be wrong. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If Wetman found my response patronising, he was quite at liberty and intelligent enough to say so, in which case, I would have readily apologised to him. However, it is never appropriate to react to perceived incivility or patronising comments with uncivil or unjustified accusations, as he did. Your hypothesis, if it were found to describe what Wetman thought, provides an explanation for his actions, but it does not excuse them in this case. I agree that the easiest solution is to stay focused on the topic, and I hope you will point this out to Wetman yourself in advising him or her that it was inappropriate to react to any perceived patronisation in the manner he or she did, since your comments could equally well be directed at him or her as they were at me. For my part, if your hypothesis were found to be an accurate description of how he or she took my comments which provoked his or her reaction, I will apologise. I hope Wetman would do the same, but only his or her behaviour, rather than hopes and desires and hypotheses about his or her interpretations and actions, can decide the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As an afterthought: if the complaint made is that I was patronising in reminding Wetman, an established editor, of the policy regarding the need for verification, then the complaint clearly fails: Wetman did not apparently know the relevant policy which is that other wikipedia articles should not be used to verify information in different articles. In this case, pointing out the policy seemed quite reasonable, and it is difficult to see how a justified interpretation of this could be viewed as patronising, though if Wetman says that is how it was interpreted by him or her, then of course I will apologise. People have slips and minor errors from time to time, and perhaps one should pay attention to the reaction they have when these are pointed out.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference between DDstretch and Wetman is that DDstretch pointed out what he percieved as an error on Wetman's part in a civil, gentle manner, and did not berate Wetman at all. Wetman chose to point out an error that he percieved me as making by belittling my background. Why you would complain about DDstretch's remark and yet dismiss my taking offense at Wetman's insults towards me as hypersensitivity on my part is extremely puzzling to me. It strikes me as a double standard on your part, Sluzzelin. Asarelah (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who has never talked to Wetman before, his behaviour often seems rude. Maybe there are other circumstances but, for example, with AllGloryToHypnotoad, he insulted his choice of dictionary, suggested he should edit Simple English wikipedia because of his limited vocabulary, called him ignorant, used the word "irregardless" and then said he would refuse to further discuss it. I would tend to agree with him about his use of the word relict but he needs to realise that politeness is an important part of getting people to agree --Tombomp (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say that politeness is essential for getting people to agree. Nobody wants to work with an editor who treats them this way. Asarelah (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

← My one and only interaction with Wetman some months ago left me with a decidedly low opinion of his ability to play well with others. —Travis^talk 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think this is getting anywhere obvious. However, I've not heard anything new of or from Wetman, so maybe he's taken this discussion to heart without publically declaring enlightenment. As long as he does better in the future, that should be sufficient. Otherwise, this discussion will be available in some archive, I expect... - Denimadept (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, his edits to this discussion haven't exactly been conciliatory, but it is clear that this as far as we're going to get with him. I suppose we should let the matter drop. If he starts to be abrasive again, then I'd consider going to Wikipedia:Mediation, but for now, I think we should just let it go. Asarelah (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. - Denimadept (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Art4em

Stuck

The user Art4em (talk) is edit warring over the article Rat Bastard Protective Association. Currently he has spoofed a protected tag on the article (the article is not protected) and has reverted my disputed tag on several occasions. He has also posted inflammatory comments to the WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area project page. In truth, the user has already been counselled several times regarding his posts at User_talk:Art4em and also User_talk:Jonny-mt/Archive_4, but I'm not sure if this is now significant enough to take to a higher level of dispute resolution. For some of the gory history to this, you can see the full details at User_talk:Art4em and some further commentary on my talk page. Some friendly guidance would be much appreciated, in particular whether this is the appropriate forum to raise this. Debate (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the article Rat Bastard Protective Association has since been full protected, which is fine as far as it goes, but in hindsight I probably wasn't clear enough in my last comment. Ultimately the problem is a user who insists on creating articles and adding content to articles based almost entirely on one single source, most likely his own personal website, and that unreliable material is still sitting there. Debate (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to addressing the deletion of my articles, however, since User:Debate has not speedily deleted this article Rat Bastard Protective Association as my other two (to my dismay and formal/wiki objections), I would like to review to the Party Down Scandal first, since it was deleted despite my and other wiki protocol requests. Moreover, I would like to review how other editor's supportive comments in the Discussion Room were deleted without being addressed or contested by Debate. I would like them to be included in the record. Respectfully --Art4em (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

When articles are deleted, their talk pages are also routinely deleted. A single user talk page (usually the creator's) or a deletion review is the place to continue discussion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How convenient. So you are telling me that you support the speed deletion of pages without debate? Moreover, you are inferring that you condone, and that I (or another sole entity) can go around and speedily delete pages summarily, as was the case with my two pages, despite protocol objections / and other editors refutation of the deletion???? -- I find it amazing how you believe that deletion of pages done without / against protocol is proper procedure??? --Art4em (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. From my interactions with this user, I am of the opinion that he is either unwilling or unable to distinguish between content discussions and personal attacks/incivility. He repeatedly takes personal offense and lambasts other editors personally for their editing practices connected to his articles of interest. Debate even gave an exhaustive review of the references used by Art4em in House where the Bottom Fell out, explaining his positions on each one and why he felt they did not meet Wikipedia's expectations, and Art4em accused him of 'ignorance and errors beyond belief, and later accused Debate of 'stupidity or some philistine agenda, again accusing him of "ignorance beyond belief.". The only conclusion I can come to is that Art4em's concerns could only be addressed by taking his side in the notability discussion of his articles of interest and officially criticize Debate's actions in connection with the same. He does not seem to acknowledge the legitimacy of others' arguments, or does not want to accept that he may be in a very slim minority opinion group. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments: unfortunately, as I said to you earlier, you appear to have the cart in front of the horse...Moreover, my 'contextual' comments again and again, (and see above) have gone went unheeded, thank you. I would love to discuss my first deleted page, namely, Party Down Scandal. Why is that so incredibly difficult, why not discuss the content of my complaints, and ensuing frustration with such inability to engage the content?????? Sincerely --Art4em (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because your attitude here detracts from your efforts and ours, and you refuse to acknowledge this fact. The "horse" in your analogy is really the user; the "cart" is the content. When the horse starts bucking and thrashing, the "content" becomes unstable and won't make it to its destination. We all work with each other in discussing and resolving content disputes, but no one wants to work with someone who calls other users ignorant philistines. When you lose the attitude, and dare I say, apologize, then we can get to the task of addressing your content-related concerns. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, I strongly object to the comment that I do NOT accept the legimitacy of others comments. However, such aired objections and comments by SOLE complainant (as were deleted) that the San Francisco Chronicle, et al, is NOT a legitimate news source would be considered bizarre to many in the wiki community, too, not just myself...--Art4em (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly beg to differ, since you came late into the discussion, let me outline my grievence in the first instance:

1. My Party Down Scandal was tagged for deletion. Fine, I have no problem with that. 2. I and others posted our claim to examine the tag...and we deserved a fair hearing in the Discussion Page (re: not the deleted forum). This is standard/proper proceedure. 3. There was strong support in FAVOR of the article. 4. The article was deleted, period. I have a problem with that. No debate ensured -- only injustice and unfair practice / against wiki protocol. 5. Now then, I have asked you many times to instill justice and protocol against the harsh treatment. Hence my frustration at your suppport against wiki protocol and editorial injustices. 6. Now you ask me to apologize for having my pages deleted against wiki protocol? You gotta be kidding? You want me to say, "Geez, I am sorry my pages got instantly deleted!" I gotta send Andrew Kean a copy of this request....

--Art4em (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All involved: This is Wikiquette Alerts. The purpose of this page is to help resolve personal disputes and matters of civility through informal mediation. This is not a noticeboard for resolving content disputes, requesting deletion reviews, or otherwise dealing with non-civility matters. If you want to resolve a civility issue, please keep the discussion on this page focused on that - we cannot help you with the content discussion. To discuss and resolve matters of deleted pages, please request a deletion review in the appropriate forum.

Art4em: The above comments include several diffs of statements made by you that (a) blatantly assume bad faith and (b) are personal attacks against other editors. You have been asked to apologize for those specific statements, not necessarily any related content issues. Please go read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and make sure you are familiar with them - there are plenty of ways to conduct a content discussion without resorting to personal attacks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: this comment documents Art4em's uncivil response to content discussion, the issue at hand. Art4em: Please read carefully. Debate 's concerns were specific, that "Art Issues, San Francisco e-Mail, Mark Van Proyen, Sept - Oct 1999, Vol. 59, Los Angeles, CA" was not found, and that a "received email" section in any paper would be "unlikely to contain a particularly rigorous independent overview"; and that "Kenneth Baker, San Francisco Chronicle, "LG Williams at Wirtz", July 17, 1999", in its entirety was neither "a particularly rigorous independent overview". Just because a name appears in a notable media outlet does not mean that such constitutes significant (nontrivial) coverage, per WP:NOTE#General_notability_guideline. That is Debate 's argument, not the notability or reliability of the source. You really need to review carefully his objections and ask questions before lashing out. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Tony, I appreciate your time. You just do not know the facts, I am sorry. I don't blame you, Debate speedily deleted the commentary from the article, too. For your information, the primary Party Down Scandal citation was not deemed a credible print source offhand by Debate, despite its being on the front page of Daily Californian. That important and vital resource to the East Bay was deemed 'ridiculous' off hand by said editor -- despite it being in Wiki-pedia's Top 5 ranking of journalism schools in the country. Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I fully appreciate your time. After many attempts to get my case and grievance understood and addressed, I will concede that consideration a total loss. Now then, I must admit, that I am at a total loss as to what you are referring to? The Party Down Scandal primary content consisted in a front-page article and review of the Party Down incident. There may have been additional/supplemental material to support the primary citation, therefore, am I to assume you want me to defend the secondary supplemental sources first?

Please let me know how you want to address Party Down Scandal, Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think some of Art4em's WP:CIVIL] and WP:NPA violations have already extended to the point where a block might be in order. Forget about whether these articles belong or not, you can't go around calling other good-faith editors "morons" and "ignorant". --Jaysweet (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweet...at least everyone is consistent. --Art4em (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Art4em, you seem to be missing the point. Let me put it plainly and simply: The WAY you responded to having your articles deleted was out of line. It broke several policies stemming from WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Your request to have the deletions reviewed, and your complaints about the way in which the articles were deleted - those are fine, and nobody has an issue with you voicing your concerns about them. But the fact that you basically called other editors "philistines" and "morons", and accused them of "ignorance and errors beyond belief", is not acceptable behavior. It will get you blocked for being disruptive. You need to separate your behavior from the content issue - they are two separate problems. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kiefer, thank you for your comment, I appreciate the time.

No, I am not missing any points (my and many other editors many points and objections were quickly deleted to hide my polite behavior and requests to adhere to wiki protocol); and yes, you are correct.

My adverse reaction to the speedy deletion of several of my pages which 'broke several wiki' policies against my and other requests -- including the discussion pages where I and many others were engaged in 'fair' discussion -- was unnecessary. Truly, I have better things to do like making excellent, erudite wiki pages like Wally Hedrick and House Where The Bottom Fell Out.

Unfortunately, the next time common sense, 'fair play' and wiki policies are thrown to the wind and my pages are summarily deleted against wiki policy, it now appears that I do have a few interested 'fair play' editors that I can contact immediately to monitor any rouge acting editors. I hope I can count you as one. Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured, I won't be taking sides. I trust that you've read WP:CSD by now, but in case you haven't, there's the link. It describes the reasons why an article may be speedily-deleted. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I am resting much easily now. And you can trust that I have read your link...as well as the others, provided. All of them did not pertain to my deleted pages, unfortunately: as you can see in my "discussion pages".

Moreover, I trust that you have read the links for the proper protocol for suspending speedy deletions until 'fair claim' disputes have been resolved? If not, I can supply you with the links. Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but please do provide links. I've never heard of 'fair claim' disputes and I am always willing to learn more about Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thank you [SheffieldSteel]:

"Where reasonable doubt exists for a potential deleted article, discussion using (A) another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. (B) If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted". The deletion of my pages occurred despite (A) and (B). Of course, the record of this has been deleted.

Additonally:

"If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page." I was never "encouraged" to fix any problems, ever. Of course, the record of this has been deleted.

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

"These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. (THERE WAS NO CONCENSUS IN MY DELETED PAGES PERIOD -- NOR WAS MY PAGES GIVEN FIVE DAYS.) [MOST IMPORTANTLY: ]If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. (THIS LAST SENTENCE IS MOST PERTINENT TO MY CASE...)

Wiki policy was clearly thrown to the wind in my case, on every count of the above...hence my absolute frustration on all counts. I am asking a 'fair minded' administrator to reinstate my pages to let protocol rule the day in fairness and fair practice. So consensus and fair practice may rule the day. Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Art4em is confusing (I think) an AfD discussion with discussion across various talkpages about the the existence/notability of the Party Down scandal. Restoring the Party Down scandal article and submitting it to AfD would I think address the frustration that Art4em feels about the article's deletion. If this happens, I'm sure Art4em would be able to accept the final decision and show himself to be a constructive editor.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words on my behalf...the first honest ones during this trying process...--72.253.115.109 (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think Art4em has conflated CSD with prod with AfD. These are three separate processes. The "five days" he/she refers to are only for AfD discussions (and even then WP:SNOWBALL provides an exception to that). The "any user can remove this tag" refers only to the prod process -- removing a CSD tag can be done, but not by the original user; and nobody should remove an AfD tag except the closing admin. The "encouraged to fix" language means that if an article is tagged, you should fix it; it does not mean that other users are under a compulsion to encourage you to fix it (although I think we all agree the project would be better off if that were standard practice).

As far as all of these "The record was deleted" assertions, that should not be the case if the article went through the AfD process. Most of the policy you quote, particularly that regarding consensus, refers to the AfD process. If there is no record, there is no AfD.

You may also want to check the WP:Deletion Review policy.

In any case, I think that all transcends the scope of this page, which is specifically about etiquette. The only breach of etiquette I see here was Art4em's remarks about other editors being "ignorant" "pharisees," and he has apologized for that and understands it is not acceptable. If he does it again, he should be blocked for incivility; otherwise, there are better places to continue this discussion (e.g. WP:Deletion Review) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, let me spell it out to you in black and white, again and again: I am addressing the whole lack of wiki protocol on every level of my deleted pages. From bizarre beginning to horrific ending..and I will address your 'conflations' and confusions when I get a moment...Thank you...--72.253.115.109 (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE REINSTATE MY DELETED PAGES

I have addressed all concerns and I have waited for over a week for a well-meaning, fair-minded administrator to undo the wrong that has been clearly demonstrated -- and reinstate my pages, so that proper protocol can be followed and the wrongs addressed in the proper place -- in the articles and its discussion page -- I will be happy to wait till Friday....

Need I remind all concerned,

"Discussion: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user."

The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

How many times do I need to demonstrate that my pages have been deleted AGAINST WIKI POLICY: 1-2-3-4-5-100 times?

Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Art4em, unfortunately this is not the appropriate forum to discuss this issue. This page is for discussing breaches of etiquette and civility, which I believe have been resolved.

Where you want to try is WP:Deletion review. When you go there, provide your evidence, say you were unhappy that the CSD process was used even though you asserted you had valid sources, and say you would at least like to see an AfD. Please see my message on your talk page for an explanation of the relevant policies, and suggestions on what you can do next. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:Deletion review. That is the proper process. Further comments about whether or not the articles should have been deleted or not on this page will be considered vandalism and will be reverted as such. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WalterMitty

Stale

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WalterMitty has resisted changes to the article on Stephen Hendry, which I have put forward and provided extensive citations for. During the discussion he has expressed considerably incivility, instructing me to 'grow up', claiming aribraily that I 'clearly do not know very much' and not engaging in proper discussion. He has also, rather than discussing or moving alterations, deleted citations that I provided. When an administrator (gwernol) intervened, he was less than civil to him also, and in a continued dicussion on Gwernol's talk page, claimed that I was 'obviously a fan trying to bias the article', which I am not and he chose to throw as an accusation with no basis. Before being banned for 24 hours for breaching 3RR, he chose to simply continue to revert edits and stopped engaging in any justification on the discussion page, despite my arguments responding to his claims and requesting he offer new explanation if he reverted again. I have been advised by gwernol to seek dispute resolution, which I have done. I'd appreciate any help as regards this behaviour. Jleadermaynard (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The dispute as such looks resolved, as User:WalterMitty has a 6 month block.

That said, I don't think you were well-advised, as a very new user who has only worked on a couple of articles, to rapidly escalate this dispute up to a Mediation Cabal Case. It's a pretty trivial content issue where it would have been better to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker or a Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the sport category for wider opinion (and ask for it tersely and neutrally - "Should it say X or Y?" - not as some kind of appeal for people to see it your way).

I strongly advise you not to start out with the idea that disagreements over content are best solved by quasi-legal dispute procedures. (It's a common problem - generally characterised as wikilawyering - with editors who have backgrounds in adversarial rule-based discourse, such as law or debating). It's far better to get a broad consensus than to focus on slugging it out to overpower editors who disagree.

Personally, I think User:WalterMitty was utterly wrong in conduct, but right in his view of the content issue. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon, irrespective of the content issue, to clarify, I'm not a very new user - this is just a new account, though I certainly wouldn't put myself up as an expert at this kind of thing as my writings and ammendements haven't been causes of controversy before. As for refering to Mediation Cabal, I did so because I was advised to by an administrator, who as I understand it acted properly given WalterMitty's behaviour to him, myself, and as regards Wikipedia rules. The point of the dispute is WalterMitty is, in my eyes, attempting to block an accurate assesment of the snooker world, a statement of the kind that has been applied without contention to other sports pages on wikipedia, to figures whose applicability to that status is if anything more contentious than Hendry's. WalterMitty's opposition to this has been without sourced backing and contrary to consensus snooker opinion I've provided evidence for. I appreciate your points but I don't see how that's not something worth raising as a problem. Jleadermaynard (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a very new user - this is just a new account

Fair enough, but my comments still stand. To take it to Mediation looks to me overkill when the options of just getting more input hadn't been used. As does posting it near-simultaneously to Editor assistance/Requests, Wikiquette alerts and Mediation Cabal. One at a time... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooljuno411

Resolved

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooljuno411 has been making insulting comments towards others over at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, under the California Same-Sex Marriage section.

His most recent comments on the board were: "BITCH PLEASE, Don't y'all give me that shit. You were all bitch'n in page lengths about why it shouldn't be there, how it effects you, and blah blah blah. Now i guess when he going gets ruff, all you can say is "why do you care?". Your a fuck'n ignorant and hypocritical peace of shit. Go fuck'n vandalize a page or something, your low-life-ness is not need on this talk page."

I, for one, do not appeciate the comments. I have asked him to stop, though I admit not in the best possible way, but he continues to make these rude comments. --PlasmaTwa2 23:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While those comments were clearly inappropriate, the controversy appears to have blown over. Plasma, are you okay with just letting this go, since the aberrant behavior appears to have stopped? --Jaysweet (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, though I think it is appropraite to mention he has since recieved a warning from User:Grant.Alpaugh and User:Stephen (Though over disruptive edits). --PlasmaTwa2 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, hopefully it's resolved then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse by Scheinwerfermann

Stale

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Scheinwerfermann has twice referred to ongoing discussion at Talk:Fuel_injection as "a pissing contest" with me. On that page he also directs the following surprising prose to me:

....As to competitive urination, invitation doesn't enter into it. It's sort of like a spontaneous orgy: Nobody's invited, everyone just knows to come! Here, have some loo roll. You appear to need it. Friendly greetings from someplace that is not America! --Scheinwerfermann 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I am about to propose new improvements to the fuel injection page in a spirit of seeking consensus with other editors, it would be valuable to get guidance first from others about the civility of the discussion to date. (I expect that Scheinwerfermann will want to comment on what I shall propose, and that user may need firm reminding of WP:NPA policy, even after he was explicitly alerted to the WP:RPA essay last year.)Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not certain why Cuddlyable3 is dredging up a carefully-selected bit of year-old text, but here on his talk page is the rest of the context, including several administrative warnings to Cuddlyable3 regarding inappropriate behaviour. I invite scrutiny of my own talk page, on which no such warnings exist.

That said, while I do find Cuddlyable3's behaviour perhaps overly strident and belligerent, I have no substantial beef with him. As I stated on Talk:Fuel injection, I do not intend or desire to get in any kind of a squabble with him. I also have no intention of attempting to interfere in any way with the consensus-building process at Fuel injection or anywhere else. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann must be the only reader who is "not certain why" the above (in bold) example of gross personal insult has been brought to WPA. The scrutiny he now invites can usefully extend to [8] and[9]. I can not think of a better example for consideration of a "strict application of WP:RPA" than the one he has provided. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the comment from Scheinwerfermann is like nine months old, I don't see any purpose of imposing sanctions right now. There is no apparent pattern of abuse, at least not that I can see from here.

Here are more current examples:

“he seems to be what is known in Canada as a "shit disturber". It means exactly what it sounds like it means. -- Scheinwerfermann. 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

“Please note that Scheinwerfermann refuses to discuss changing his viewpoint on the matter. It is my fault, and now apparently your fault. He has made, in this long-winded reply, no real compromise, nor shown a willingness to discuss the article that started this dispute. He does not own up to his abusive editing and stalking of me across two other articles. In short, it really is “his way or no way”. 12.73.221.60 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signed: Raokman 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That said, the comment in question was clearly inappropriate, so: Schwinwefermann, please remember to be civil and to refrain from personal attacks.

Similarly, Cuddlyable3, in an unrelated report today, you accuse Scheinwerfermann of wikilawyering after the discussion was already marked as resolved, and all involved parties were apparently satisfied with the outcome. Please try harder to assume good faith -- I see no compelling evidence to suggest that Scheinwerfermann was not asking a legitimate question. Was it necessary for him to escalate the question to WP:WQA? Probably not, but he didn't violate any policies, he was polite and civil throughout, and not for nothing, but there are serious problems with the American Specialty Cars article (I just removed nearly 4k of copyright violating material from that article!) so I think his nomination was very reasonable.

Are there any specific actions that you are requesting? If not, there's not much more to say than to remind each of you of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, looking over the Talk:Fuel injection page, I see at least as many borderline uncivil comments coming from Cuddlyable3 as from Scheinwerfermann. I can't quite point to a diff where you go way over the line, but seriously, you guys both need to chill out about that page. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We should distinguish between the tolerance of abuse on user talk pages and article talk pages. Much can be tolerated on a user talk page because the user can set their own standards and generally delete or archive material as they see fit, and whatever they broadcast is not automatically seen by a Wikipedia user. Article talk pages differ in that they are readily accessed by ordinary Wikipedia users, their content is (usually) never reduced but instead accumulates as editors old and new work together on article content, and they broadcast by example the way wikipedians cooperate. It is here that policy demands, and a newbie SHOULD find, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL practised. I can delete an incivil remark on my own talk page with a click with no harm done whereas the persistance of an abusive posting on an article talk page causes Wikipedia collateral damage to its reputation, future discussion and willingness of users even to join our work. Consider, if you please, yourself as a newbie who reads the inappropriate post from Scheinwerfermann and ask whether you want such expressions directed at you.

I thank and commend Jaysweet for sensible and helpful response to this Wikiquette alert. I am prepared to clear up if possible any postings of my own that Jaysweet has found to be borderline uncivil. May I receive specifics on my talk page? This WPA was a request for guidance which Jaysweet has given. It would be good for all if we can mark it as resolved and move on.

Comment from me on the on-going debate about American Specialty Cars would be misplaced here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin potentially dictating policy

Resolved

I nominated an article for speedy deletion. Wknight94 (talk · contribs) cancelled the nomination — which of course anyone can do for legitimate reasons. I've no issue with the cancellation per se. What I find problematic is that Wknight94's edit summary read Article has been like this for over a year so "speedy" is impossible at this point. In response to my polite request for clarification as to how the latter follows from the former, Wknight94 gave an explanation that seems not to agree with the official speedy deletion protocol criteria, the first paragraph of which states In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created. What's more, I'm not finding anything about requiring a previous revision to revert to. Thinking perhaps my understanding of policy is incomplete or flawed, I politely requested elaboration. No response was forthcoming. I waited awhile, knowing that my request is not the only thing Wknight94 has on his docket; after seeing his active participation in other discussions on the talk page I politely renewed my request. This, too, has gone unanswered.

I have no interest in making a federal case (or any other kind of issue) out of whether the article I nominated should or shouldn't be deleted, speedily or otherwise. Nor do I have any desire for vengeance, public shaming or any such thing for Wknight94. I'm here because Wknight94 seems unwilling to talk with me on his talk page, and I've got three issues:

• I want to understand the speedy-deletion regulations completely and correctly, and it's my understanding admins are meant to help others understand policy, even if just with a quickie pointer at the relevant page.

• I find it disturbing that an administrator would seemingly act according to rules apparently of his own making, rather than according to official policy.

• I find it troublesome that an administrator would seemingly disregard good-faith requests for clarification or explanation of his or her actions. If his/her actions are, in fact, according to policy, wouldn't the most reasonable action be to point at the relevant provision?

Am I off-base here...? Assistance and perspectives welcome; thanks in advance. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is: You're interpretation of CSD is mostly correct, but your application of it in this case is not. Wknight could have articulated his reasons better, but as you say it's probably nothing worth making a federal case over.

The long answer requires answering a number of different questions separately:

Can CSD be used on articles that have existed for a long period of time? Yes. You are correct in that sense. If a clearly speedy-able article sat for a year before nobody noticed it, you can still CSD it just like any other article.

Is CSD appropriate for this article? Definitely not. It's not how long it's been around; it's the number of edits made to the article, and from many different accounts. A lot of people have put work into this article, which makes speedy-delete undesirable for two reasons: First of all, you'd hate to make a mistake and waste all that work if the article is legit. Secondly, the fact that so many people have edited it shows at least some editors believe it should exist.

I think that's what Wknight was getting at in his initial reply, although I admit even though I was expecting this answer, I had to read his reply twice to understand it. He gives a third reason not to use speedy, particularly the G11 criterion, on this article: With so many edits, there may be a revision that is not advertisement-like, and would qualify to be an article. With an edit history that long, this is not something you can just glance at and say, "oh, it's an ad and it's always been an ad -- delete!" Wknight is exactly correct that CSD#G11 is not intended for articles with a long edit history. So I think he's in the right there.

Is Wknight changing the rules? No. CSD#G11 does not apply to this article. Wknight's edit summary in canceling the speedy was just vague enough to give the impression he was changing the rules, but I don't think that is the case.

Should Wknight have responded to your request for further clarification? Probably. In his defense, it appears he believes he adequately explained it to you, and didn't want to spend more time beating a dead horse. I happen to think he could have explained it a little better, and in a perfect world all of our admins would be willing to spend an extra couple of minutes explaining policy misunderstandings. But that just didn't happen in this case. I know Wknight is usually pretty busy, so I'm inclined to just shrug it off.

I hope this helps! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked to be pointed to the specific policy, the one Wknight was referring to can be found here. It states that admins should check the revision history to see if there is a version of the page that is salvageable. With a revision history that long, it really needs to go for consensus.

Now that I look at it, that clause is sort of buried! I might suggest over at WT:CSD that it should be made explicit that pages with a lot of revision history are generally not speedy candidates, except for copyvio and attack pages and such. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, thanks very much for taking the time to write this detailed explanation. I understand all your points, and (more importantly) I better understand SD policy and Wknight94's reasoning. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD is under debate at [10]. where there is no consensus for deletion. Wknight94 acted correctly when he advised "Try WP:AFD or, better yet, fix it." I see no justification for Scheinwerfermann's pestering Wikilawyering in pursuit of speedy deletion here and [11] which wastes editor's time. Scheinwerfermann's repeated assurances of his own politeness can be weighed against his other posts such as [12]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't seem that he was wikilawyering at all, or pushing hard for a speedy deletion. Not understanding a policy completely is not deliberately wasting other editor's time. Please assume good faith about this, especially as it seems to have been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombomp (talk • contribs) 08:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk page

Resolved

 – Handled at WP:ANI -- FN agreed to voluntarily remove the comments in question from his talk page

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) has refused to remove unsupported personal attacks against me from his talk page. This came to be due to a disagreement over the "famous player" sections of national football team articles, which is being discussed at WT:FOOTY. The problem is that Fasach Nua won't even engage in discussion with me, and immediately reverts any edit I make to his talk page, even the many I made yesterday simply trying to start a dialogue. That's fine, if he doesn't want to talk it is frustrating, but whatever, but what I won't stand for is the addition of unsupported personal attacks against me anywhere on WP, even on his talk page, nor do I think I should have to. If someone could intervene I would very much appreciate it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What specifically do you find objectionable? I see some discussion with other editors about perceived problems between you and him, but I don't see anything that rises to the level of a "personal attack." --Jaysweet (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant, "personal attack" does not mean "anything I disagree with". Friday (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to get removed. But this, this, this, this (after he placed a 3rr/edit-war warning on my talk page), this, this (where The Rambling Man agreed that the warnings were abusive), this, this, and so on are examples of what was immediately removed from his talk page for no good reason other than to silence me. If he doesn't want to talk, that's fine, but I shouldn't have to have personal attacks in the form of unsupported allegations of trolling and abuse against me anywhere on the WP, even his talk page. I no longer want to engage in a discussion with this user, but I do want the attacks removed. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He's more than welcome to say that he's found me difficult to work with, but to say that I'm "trollish" and "abusive" is over the line. This whole issue would have been avoided if Fasach Nua had been willing to engage in a productive discussion with me, or, preferably, abided by the consensus that formed the last time he started mass tagging national football team articles. Since he has shown himself to be unwilling to do either, the very least he can do is refrain from slandering me on his talk page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:AtonX versus User:CoolKoon

User:CoolKoon (sk:User:CoolKoon) repeatedly posts attacking comments following his ban on the Slovak wikipedia due to his vandalising and aggressive behaviour. He has been banned by me for 2 hours for aggressive and threatening comments, to which he responded with more aggressive and attacking comments against me and other editors and administrators. This resulted in his repeated banning by another administrator on sk:Wikipedia. Now he posts abusive comments on my talk page on the en:Wikipedia. I have removed his first attack from my talk page, which he immediately reverted for the abusive comment to reappear. His personal attacks have been dealt with on the Slovak Wikipedia and I seek that this recurrent issue be addressed on the English-language Wikipedia as well. --AtonX (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never attacked AtonX on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately the Slovak Wikipedia has many administrators which seem to have an anti-Hungarian POV and view any of their moves as a personal attack. I was treated with hostility on the Slovak Wikipedia ever since I came there despite the fact that I've been trying to discuss my difference of opinions with MarkBA in an objective and calm manner. CoolKoon (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It will difficult to find someone who can help mediate here, since the comments in question are not in English, heh... One suggestion I might have: If the problem is restricted to comments left on AtonX's talk page, might I suggest that you two agree to just not edit each other's talk pages? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Agreed. CoolKoon (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

CoolKoon' ban on the Slovak wikipedia is classifying AtonX as Slovakian administrator.CoolKoon has done lots of valuable works here and on the Slovakian wiki. But I am thinking of AtonX that He is an ultra agressive vandal and his prejudiced complain is an Hungarian ethnic slander. Otherwise the Slovakian wiki is a very low standard website.Nmate (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not muddy the waters. CoolKoon has agreed not to leave comments on AtonX's talk page. I am just waiting for AtonX to respond, and if he says that's okay, then this is resolved, and there is no need for further finger-pointing. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never edited CoolKoon's talk page, except notifying him of this alert as required by the procedure. I also do not intend to edit his talk page in the future and I wish that he himself removes his last comment from my talk page. I have never participated in any discussion with him or with Nmate on any other talk page on any other subject either, and hence I strongly object to Nmate's blatant accusations. (As for valuable work of CoolKoon on the Slovak wiki, let it speak for itself - sk:Special:Contributions/CoolKoon: 33 edits total, 3 in main namespace, 1 in talk, 3 in user, 21 user talk, 5 template, 2 moves, and two bans for threats and extremely rude personal comments). --AtonX (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

AtonX, you have control over your talkpage here. Feel free to delete anything that you want, at any time (the only exception is if an administrator places an official message of some type). If CoolKoon reverts you again, his account access will be blocked. --Elonka 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

CoolKoon posted his attacks while he was under editing restrictions from ArbCom's Digwuren case. He was put under restrictions by User:Elonka on April 18, 2008[13]. The restrictions explicitly say: "The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." CoolKoon comment was not exactly civil. He called another editor a "pussy" and two editors "stupid" (see [14] for his original comment in Slovak). Another possible breach of the Wikiquette happened on this very page, when User:Nmate called User:AtonX "an ultra agressive vandal" and his legitimate complaint here a "Hungarian ethnic slander".[15] Nmate is also under editing restrictions from ArbCom's Digwuren case[16] and he is not supposed to post uncivil comments. Tankred (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A thread on this has also been started at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#CoolKoon. --Elonka 16:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, please do remove the thread about this Wikiquette alert from your User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment page. CoolKoon has been banned by me for two hours and by another administrator for six months on Slovak wikipedia for his threats and extremely rude personal comments. Nobody ever investigated the nationality or ethnicity of the persons involved and this has nothing to do with ethnic debates whatsoever. --AtonX (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the page isn't just about ethnic disputes, it's also about "situations of interest to both Hungarians and Slovakians". So it has elements of being a Cooperation Board or WikiProject. And you are very welcome to join. It would be very useful to have another Slovak viewpoint, especially of someone who's an admin at SK. :) --Elonka 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, many people on the Slovak Wikipedia (including some administrators) openly agree with the views of the extremist far-right party SNS and it's leader Jan Slota's "doctrine" who famously said "Hungarians are a tumour on the body of the Slovak nation, which must be removed without delay." (See this: [17] although my translation is more accurate. The original quote in Slovak: [18]). Had I known this before going to the Slovak Wikipedia I would never set my "feet" there. It was a mistake I've utterly regretted. I won't write to the talk page of AtonX or anybody else who is in connection with him anymore. I want to end this for now and forever. Period. CoolKoon (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If the two editors will voluntarily stay out of each others' way, I think we should allow User:CoolKoon to continue editing here. Knowing that someone has been blocked on sk.wiki is not the same as knowing the grounds for the block or being able to follow discussion threads (in Slovak) that led to the block. I hope they will avoid addressing remarks to each other in Slovak on enwiki, to be sure that there are no insults we can't understand. I agree that CoolKoon may be blocked if he addresses AtonX in any way. If CoolKoon finds himself needing to edit an article that AtonX has visited, it would be helpful if he would lave a note at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment so that any negative interaction can be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: Firstly—This is not, and it has never been, a debate on article content. I have never had any content dispute, not even any content debate with CoolKoon. Secondly—This is not an ethnic conflict; the nationality or ethnicity of anybody involved is irrelevant and has never been investigated, brought forward or even mentioned by me or any other admin at the Slovak wikipedia. This is purely an attempt to redress his repeated, extremely rude personal attacks which appeared on my talk page. CoolKoon's agreement not to edit my talk page is sufficient for me and for my side I consider this closed. Whether he by his rude comment on my page (as translated above) and Nmate by his comment against me on this page, violated their restrictions, that I leave for the admins to judge. --AtonX (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as demanding that CoolKoon needs to avoid all contact with AtonX. For example, if he were to post a conciliatory message or apology, that would be fine. But I do agree that he needs to cease any incivility. And I would also like everyone to focus on using English-language on the English Wikipedia. If someone's speaking in another language just to mask some rudeness, that's still a violation of WP:CIVIL. --Elonka 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks, lack of Good Faith

User:GoatDoomOcculta recently made an edit to an article's talk page [19] in which he made a thinly veiled accusation towards me editing with a conflict of interest (accusing me of being Tim Buckley, the author of the website the article pertains to). Seeing he was a new editor, I responded to his points, as well as asking him politely to refrain from making WP:AGF personal attacks against me both on the article talk page [20] and on the user's personal talk page [21]. GoatDoomOcculta then responded by not only making a more blatant, direct and clearly intentional personal attack against me on his talk page [22] (which I was ready to simply ignore), but also copy/pasting that attack to the article's talk page [23]. These accusations are unfounded, and I don't appreciate his attempts to damage my credibility as an editor.

(I had posted this on ANI due to the repeated nature [24] of these accusations (albeit from different users), and the vandalism I've had to endure as a result, however after further consideration, perhaps WQA is a better place to start)--Thrindel (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

Resolved

 – Among themselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently, this user seems to have breached AGF/CIV/NPA a few times. Here he accused me of bad faith in an AfD that garnered a fair amount of support. Here he attacked my beliefs rather needlessly. And here, just today, he both accused me of bad faith (where none was present) and pointed to the fact that I'm a monarchist, which has nothing to do with the AfD in question, and even if it did, WP:NPA prohibits "using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views".

Additionally, also today, he made these remarks, accusing another established user who made an AfD nomination that drew a range of reactions of a "Bad faith nom by pro-America POV pushers... Wikipedia is not the place for pro-America misinformation mongering". While the user is entitled to his beliefs, such remarks are quite corrosive in their effect. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In this AfD, calling the nom "bad faith" was a mistake. My bad. I have changed the wording and strikethough the monarchist comment. [25], [26]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I don't make frivolous nominations either, but thank you for your apology. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yuz Asaf

Stale

I posted worries about this page at fringe theories noticeboard. User:Dougweller came to help. Now a newly-created account User:NewYork10021 is throwing accusations at him. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links of where he has made such accusations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Daimerej

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Daimerej appears to be User:Ewenss, who was banned for sock puppetry (he basically conceded it in the talk page of Trinity United Church of Christ. He is back again, and appears to be editing under that name and 74.233.86.145, as well as possibly 64.66.192.62. They're making identical edits, giving identical reasons. He has also behaved uncivilly on the AfD page of Joshua Packwood‎. Trilemma (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Any concerns you have about sockpuppetry should be voiced at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, or to the administrator's noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:OhanaUnited uncivility

In this post User:OhanaUnited , who is administrator on Wikipedia writes about me "The image he attempted to replace with the already-featured is his own creation. Although there's no rule against being the nominator of your own image, but my gut feeling tells me he's trying to discredit someone else's picture so that his can showcase his image here. Also, at that time, his reason for demotion is "because I like this image better." These statements are false to say the least. I possibly could not try to discredit someone else's picture because both pictures in question were taken by me and I believe I have the right of the creator of the images like one on my own pictures better than the other of my own pictures. Let's say that User:OhanaUnited has missed the point. Anybody could be mistaken. Well user:catch-22 pointed his mistake out to User:OhanaUnited , but User:OhanaUnited has never bothered to remove his false accusations and never responded to user:catch-22. At that point I assume that comments made by User:OhanaUnited were made in a bad faith. I'd also like to point out that administrator OhanaUnited has deleted my polite message from his talk page with the edit summary: cleaning out some garbage, which IMO is more than uncivil and more than impolite. IMO administrator OhanaUnited should remove his false accusations from this post, should be issued a warning about his uncivilty and should be considered for de-adminship. BTW I would have notified OhanaUnited about me filing this alert, but I am afraid I cannot do it because he told me that he that his "gut feeling" told him he should "ignore me from now on".He even protected his talk page for few days. It seems to me that OhanaUnited relies on his "gut feeling" instead of relaing on the common sense. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything incivil or impolite here, and certainly nothing to suggest that his adminship is in question. He's within his rights to remove comments from his talk page, so you shouldn't be upset by that. It was polite of him to state that he has an intention of ignoring you, and gave a reason, rather than ignoring you entirely. While you may disagree, it's his choice. I'm not clear about the initial dispute concerning some image, so I won't comment on that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your respond, Ncmvocalist. I'm afraid it was not helpful at all and I'm afraid you are not clear in anything from my initial post. Would you agree, if I say that removing message with edit summary cleaning out some garbage does not consider to be civil or/and polite? Would you agree, if I say that admin, who's protecting his own talk page uses his admin rights with the wrong purpose? Would you agree that, if he falsely blamed me in "trying to discredit someone else's picture" while talking about my own picture should at least remove his false statement from post? I also doubt that an admin, who could say he would ignore a user with absolutely no reason could be a good admin. Oh and btw IMO calling my post noise does not consider to be civil and polite either. May I please ask you,Ncmvocalist, if you are sure you are in the right place? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• When I made the post at that page I hoped for the understanding. Instead I found harassment, and what was even much worse - stupidity. Indeed as Euripides said: "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish" or like Martin Luther King Jr said: "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."I guess "Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege". Do you like the quote, User:Ncmvocalist. Sorry,I forgot you were going to ignore me. As Jewish Proverb says: "Don't approach a goat from the front, a horse from the back, or a fool from any side." I guess I'll let it go now. I am really tiered (=_=) to fight with windmills (read "to fight for the common sense on Wikipedia") --Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, at last you've got something right (cannot believe it), Ncmvocalist,I want to get blocked. By the way may I please wish you and a friend of yours OhanaUnited to continue ignoring me. You're doing just great with that so far! And this was my last post here. From now on I am going to ignore both of you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – referred to AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has been difficult, disruptive, and agressive in many cases. This includes deletion debates and talk page discussions. He also pushes his own point-of-view as fact that everyone should follow. Plus, he chooses to ignore policies he doesn't agree with. Also, this essay: User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy has been quoted by him in various deletion debates. He acts as if it's something people must follow, but it's an editor's opinion and the tag at the top of it clearly states: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Also note: I was told to stay away from Le Grand, however it's a bit hard to do, when we edit and post in the same deletion debates. I don't see why I should personally stop editing many places, just because he started to take an interest in them. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Weapons... and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mammoth Tank (2nd nomination) are great recent examples of his poor attitude. He is anti-deletion, which would be fine in any other case. However he's pushing it to the extreme, and choosing to ignore all rules just to attempt to keep just about every article he has interest in. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion would be relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

While my viewpoints are the opposite to LGR's, I think he is rather courteous and is certainly not worthy of a WQA report. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I feel that the discussion in the VGProj Guidelines talk page has been crossing over into tendentious editing, but I have not seen evidence of him breaking any civility policies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I'd have to say I am finding it hard to see this thread as anything other than harassment [User_talk:Randomran#What_do_you_think.3F] as per [Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/RobJ1981#Future_Note this]. I am not uninvolved so recuse myself form action. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it easy to take that at face value. RobJ1981 contacted me because he wanted to put in a wikiquette alert, and now I'm participating in good faith. Randomran (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-wikiquette problem

I cannot say this is a civility or wikiquette issue either. The only thing I can say is that RobJ1981 contacted me to add my comment, and so I'll offer it here even if it is not the appropriate forum. Le Grand has repeatedly dragged AFD debates off topic. The two most common off topic discussions is whether deletion should ever be used except for articles created in bad faith, and whether the notability requirement has enough consensus to actually be a valid requirement.

These aren't wikiquette issues, and I'm not sure an administrator should be concerned with them. But they are vexatious and make it difficult for other AFD participants to have an on-topic discussion. I frequently try to correct him and put him back on topic, but it ultimately just derails the discussion further. I'm sure Le Grand just thinks he's having a logical discussion about whether to delete, but more often than not it becomes an off topic debate about fundamental wikipedia policy that should take place at actual policy pages like WP:N, WP:deletion policy, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and so on.

I honestly don't know if these disruptions constitute a violation of wikiquette. But I know that they are disruptive, even if these disruptions are grounded in Le Grand's good faith beliefs that the notability requirement is unjust and his strong belief against deletion even when articles breach fundamental policy, except for articles made in bad faith. While these are beliefs held in good faith, they are as disruptive as an American communist arguing against the constitutional right to property every chance he gets (or, if you prefer, a Soviet democrat arguing for democratic elections every chance he gets). He's entitled to his opinion, but his repeated choice to use the wrong forum is extremely disruptive for the dozens of editors who do agree with fundamental policy, and the hundreds more who are trying to learn and understand it. Randomran (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I too certainly can't act on this--as a friend of GRC though not always a supporter. GRC has opened a discussion at AN/I, [27], and that will be the place to continue the discussion. But it does look as if Rob has tried & may have succeeded in driving GRC off WP because he does not want to follow the injunction to stay away from him. And Im puzzled that Rr thinks AfD is not the place to discuss questions about keeping articles. DGG (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my complaint. I have had many AFD disagreements. But Le Grand has caused disruptions by going off topic:

• to explain that the notability requirement is invalid and should be ignored
• that deletion is only acceptable for articles made in bad faith, not for articles that are non-notable or based on unreliable sources

These are disruptive because they (1) mislead others about fundamental policy and (2) drag a debate about an individual article into a debate about fundamental policy such as WP:N, WP:SPS, or WP:RS. I know his lack of respect for policy is grounded in good faith, but it does not change that it is disruptive. (And has nothing to do with RobJ1981.) Randomran (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• As much as I wish to walk away, I have to say that calling disagreements "disruptions" is not merely uncalled for, but an unfortunate way of disagreeing with editors, if not insulting. Defending articles in AfDs that a good deal of editors created and edited in good faith, and that as the article traffic statistics indicate thousands of readers check monthly, is hardly "disruptive," especially because I have been consistent with closers plenty of times as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and as admins who can see deleted contribs know, when I argue to keep articles, I usually make some effort to find sources and improve the articles as well. Should we call your delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattrick (2nd nomination) and defense of it even though it closed as a keep "disruptive" and against policies? Should your argument of "Strong delete and merge" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Mesa Research Facility, which closed as no consensus, be considered a "disruptive" refusal to abide by the GFDL per Wikipedia:Merge and delete? What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space trading and combat simulation games? You nominated it and it closed as keep, so does that make it a "disruptive" nomination? Because you made multiple edits to it, is that "unconstructive" participation or "harassment" of those who disagreed with you in the discussion? How about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Block kuzushi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand strategy game, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escape the room, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First-person adventure, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tactical realism, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenogears Perfect Works? Those closed as keep or merge, so does that mean you keep nominating articles for deletion or argue to delete articles in defiance of policies and consensus? Should I take you to Wikiquette because you generally do not notify the creators of articles that they are nominated for deletion, because it is not "efficient"? What if I chastised your for not using edit summaries? The truth is I strongly disagree with you in many AfDs and you strongly disagree with me, but in some cases, they have closed as you argued and in some cases they have closed as I argued. Does that mean either of us is acting in bad faith or disruptively, not necessarily. Plus, if you really do not enjoy discussing with me, then why reply to me over and over as well? Discussions work two ways and I could not continue to discuss with someone if they just stop discussing with me. But that shouldn't matter as AfDs are a discussion and not a vote and I have any intent there it's to encourage editors to actually work through the issues concerning the article rather than to just make a list of deletes and keeps, which just looks like a vote and not a discussion. My hope was that by discussing with you we would come to some understanding and maybe even find a middle ground in which we could work together in a friendly fashion. I have tried that approach with others on the deletionist side of things and I usually engage editors in discussion when I respect them enough that I think it is worth discussing with them. I am deeply disheartened by what I see above as I thought maybe we would reach a point of understanding and end up finding somewhere we could agree and help each other out. I hate to say "never," so maybe that hope still remains even if I do think it necessary to leave for an idefinite, maybe permanent amount of time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not every disagreement that we have had has been disruptive. Far from it: people are allowed to be wrong and go against the grain on an AFD. But on several occasions, you have gone off topic of the AFD itself and began trashing the deletion process in general, and you've ignored my (misguided) efforts to get you back on topic. Regardless, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this discussion anyway, since your disruptions are in good faith and cannot be considered a wikiquette issue. Randomran (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, please do not mischaracterize things as "disruptions" when under the same rubric that term could be applied to your own edits. In other words, either neither of us are disruptive or we both are. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Saying something once is an opinion. Saying something wrong is a mistake. But going off topic over and over even after repeated warnings cannot be seen as mere opinion or mistake. It is a disruption. I've been wrong and I've made mistakes, but I haven't been disruptive... with the possible exception of when I've been dragged into your disruptions, and I take my share of responsibility for that. Randomran (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what you do in those discussions as well and again, so what? We are supposed to discuss. We will move into much more proactive and constructive territory if we avoid the false claim of calling anyone "disruptive". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with disagreement, which I do quite often. My issue is the off topic information about abstract deletion policy that has repeatedly derailed AFD discussions about specific articles. Off topic information is disruptive, even if done in good faith. And this discussion is the furthest thing from productive. This complaint has already been dismissed as outside the scope of wikiquette, and I have no plans on initiating any further complaint against you. I really doubt you'll be able to stay away from wikipedia anyway. Randomran (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussions are hardly derailed. Anyway, if my health does not improve and if I am harassed on and off wiki, I think I will have no choice but to stay away. It's not because I want to, but because I have seen someone fixate on me for nearly a year to the point of trying to inspire dissent about me on IRC and emails and given some of what others have experienced on this project, such signs of escalation are a real concern as to spiraling into a realm that is outside wiki and simply unacceptable, especially when I see cyrptic comments made against me like "... if he truely wants to be left alone." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Whatever happened to AGF? This is just a bunch of AFD discussions gone bad. You'll be back. I'd put money on it. Randomran (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly all I want, i.e. people to indeed assume good faith and to not take discussions in AfD as anything more than discussion. My health is always a who knows, so, we'll see there, but it is important that if I do ever return after tonight, I know it is worthwhile and that disagreements are not going to escalate into something for which I have to be concerned beyond Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See you on the AFDs in a few days. Randomran (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I explained the non-cryptic remark at ANI already. I have the right to discuss things off wiki with people. If you must know: I didn't want to discuss things, as I knew certain things I said would get twisted around. And guess what? They did, with many of your comments in ANI (as well as here). I don't think there is any policy saying "talk about Wikipedia on Wikipedia only". Calm down, and stop assuming bad faith. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is merit in this report, this still does not fall under WQA - take it to AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Attacks

Resolved

 – User blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to page archives - WQA does not remove content. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a formal written request to delete the entire content of the disussion at WT:MATH entitled "More help needed with logic articles." Almost the entire content of the discussion is attcks on myself. It is my contention these attacks on myself are not deserved, not productive, and should not be allowed to stand. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, no. You've made attacks as well. But it should be archived sometime soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to delete it. I made the request in good faith. I would have preferred it if I could get some help rather than another swipe. I do not deserve the beating that I get from this group. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your action has been reverted - you are not allowed to remove or modify other people's comments under any circumstances, except if specifically authorized to do so. As advised, you'll need to wait for it to be archived. The comments made may be used in future proceedings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have reverted the section now three times. I understand that this is a violation of the 3rr. I believe it consists of my first and only actual intentional policy violation. I fully expect now that the individuals who I have offended, and who have attacked me will now institute a block on me. It will be my only sanction of that type. I fully accept the consequences in the WP community, and I hope it will be interpreted as a protest. As with any act of civil disobedience, I fully accept any consequences levied in the WP community. However, I hope I can be forgiven. Basically, I think I the culture of attack has gotten out of hand in this case.

I think in the final analysis, it will be shown that the offenses which have engendered the attacks were trivial, and the attacks against me were largely a function of sensitivity levels and therefore exaggerated.

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring is disruptive and unacceptable. Typically, such cases aren't handled here, but it seems you need to understand - you are not authorized to remove other people's comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuous personal attacks

Resolved

 – IP address blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been a target of continuous personal attacks by anon despite repeated warning.

User:24.180.3.127: Keeps making edits despite my pleas to discuss. And when he finally agreed, he wrote this. Made statements like "this guy thinks he is God here", "I think this is turning into too much falsehood", "Get off, do something else, write a book or something if you want to speak". Look at this edit summary: "undoing above the law user AI009 here who is trying to make this his webpage, stop your police state and go to college" making repeated taunts on my age. Repeatedly uses argumentative tone making it extremely difficult to continue discussion. Called me a Nazi, and this comment almost made me lose my cool as he resorted to all sought of lies. Goes on to make statements like "The threat is this guy", a 18 year old kid, and a a big fat liar. Also vandalized my talkpage and my userpage. Highly un-civil behavior making it very difficult to discuss. Let me also add, I've never resorted to name calling and tried to make all efforts to discuss the topic in as civil manner as possible. --AI009 (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire's disruptive behavior

Resolved

 – Editor reminded of civility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire has been editing in a disruptive, tendentious manner over at Orthomolecular medicine, including removing large amounts of well-sourced material after being reverted (diff), holding inconsistent views about policies (SYNTH: diff), and RS, see his revert of my use of Nutrition J, PNAS, ect.), accusing editors of being meatpuppets (diff), and in general refusing to dialogue while preventing people from making constructive edits. On his talk page he just baldly stated that he's "not interested in the topic and thus "not going to do research" or read scientific articles on the topic he's editing (diff), showing that he's not actually interested in creating a balanced article. Most recently, he reverted my edit on cancer prevention and possible treatment sourced to Nutritional Journal, PNAS, and CMAJ, (diff) sources reliably used in the article currently. I don't want to waste people's time over at RS/N by questioning whether PNAS is a reliable soruce. This is another attempt to resolve things with Jefffire before I initiate a RfC on his behavior, or whatever I can do to reduce disruption. If he prefers, we can do a Mediation or something. I'm just tired of this neener-neener attitude. If Jefffire is not willing to research a topic, and admits to not knowing about it, he should not be editing it. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from your 'neener' remarks, I don't see any evidence of incivility. However, from the diffs, it's very clear that Jefffire understands policy, while you don't. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You find none of the above troublesome, hmm? If you'd be willing to elaborate, I'd love to hear it. If you'd prefer not to, that's fine, but I would like another opinion. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What is clear from the (diff) is that Jefffire will delete well sourced material wholesale without investigation and then insist that other people (but not himself) be more selective.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a genuine difference of opinion on this article's talkpage on what counts as synthesis and OR on this rather poorly-defined topic. Describing somebody as disruptive because they do not share your views in this debate does not appear to be a particularly constructive attitude. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to hear non-circular arguments for these difference of opinions. And when Jefffire claim that PNAS is an unreliable source, he should back up that assertion. Jefffire consistently asserts rather than argues. We can't have a discussion based on circular arguments. He says SYNTH, I say not -- we get nowhere. Since he hasn't backed up his assertions, I'm liable to go forward, but I know that if I will, he will just revert me, and I don't want to edit war. I'm a little disappointed that you've withheld comment on the issue entirely. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the SYNTH assertion. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors are not required to becomes experts on the subjects they edit. I am only involved here to remove egregious violations of Wikipedia policy. As the admin commenting on your alert points out, I understand policy and how it applies to articles such as this, a specific expertise which has been sorely lacking. To build an authoritative article it is essential that these policies be followed. Jefffire (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Jefffire's response from the OM talk page. My response: Editors are not required to become experts, but in order to contribute to a complex article you must read about it. You were asked if you'd read mainstream research on the topic -- you responded that you had not and would not. You use circular arguments to back up your assertions. You reverted my edit sourcing Nutrition J, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, and the Canadian Medical Association Journal as using unreliable sources. You need to back up these sorts of assertions with arguments. Further, it's very difficult to understand how you can say that using mainstream nutrition research in this article is SYNTH, but categorize an AMA statement which attacks nutritional therapies (not orthomolecular medicine) as not SYNTH in the article. Now, in order to move forward, you need to provide some arguments for these assertions; not circular assertions. Refusing to do so is uncivil and disruptive. I'm afraid that there may not be any good arguments for these assertions; in that case, you should be willing to admit that. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is very similar to a current arbcom case about homeopathy involving Dana Ullman, who has complained about editors lacking expertise, and removing sourced content. However, arbcom has proposed to ban Dana, due to advocacy of homeopathy. I think you could end up banned for OM advocacy. Also, Jefffire is under no obligation to provide the arguments you suggest - you don't own this article. I suggest you have a look at the arbcom case, and stop making accusations of incivility. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you directly reference some of your claims, as I asked you to? Instead, you're going to slander me. Serious allegations like yours deserve to be backed up. You haven't demonstrated any similarities to myself and Dana. Plus, there is no current consensus on OM; there's only five people really editing it at the moment, and only 4 who are doing any research (Vickers, myself, TheNautilus, and Alterrabe). Jefffire seems to be disrupting the consensus of all of us, although I can only imply that from the fact that Vickers has not attempted to do the same things, nor backed up Jefffire in his SYNTH assertion (WP:SILENCE), which is disputed by myself, Ward20, TheNautilus, Michael Price, and Alterrabe. Also, it seems rather curious that someone alleging a policy breach is not obligated to back up their allegations. Asking someone to back up their assertions is not asserting ownership of an article; I only began editing this article a week ago. Running around yelling assertions without backing them up is highly uncivil. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what is meant by 'uncivil'. You appear to be using the term to describe anyone who doesn't agree with you. I suggest you cool down, and then carefully review the arbcom case. PhilKnight (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite cool; maybe it's just hard to tell that from words on a screen. Might I suggest that you calm down and try to read what I've actually written? I use uncivil to describe the behavior of people who refuse to explain their assertions or address counterarguments, just as you are doing right now. As far as the ArbCom case: since the Evidence page has been deleted, there's not much to review on the case. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither Jefffire or myself is being uncivil - disagreeing with you doesn't equate to incivility. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeffire calling everything in sight, "pseudoscience" or similar, while ignoring clear, RS, V clinical and scientific support for various positions and treatments is uncivil and POV. Supposedly "mainstream" outlook seems to be to shout down various editors with some technically illiterate or incomplete position that assumes obsolete and / or selective, highly biased information. The way attitudes and counterfactual statements here radiate from certain "skeptical", scientifically unreliable sites to spread misrepresentation and attacks needs to change, before Wikipeida becomes better know as "Skeptidramatica", a publication for inquisitional ignorance.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

<--Jeffire's deletionist "policies" are highly selective and inadequately discussed on content that he apparently doesn't agree[28] or read. Jefffire's eagerness for deletions[29] & edits (and those of another editor) have huge double standards for NPOV, OR, SYNTH, and basically ignore WEIGHT, inadequately discussing or acknowledging points, a thin tissue for "IDONTLIKEIT" e.g.[30]. [ deleting well referenced material like fish oil as SYNTH] for OMM, ignoring obvious references[ JOM (1987)] He's constantly throwing that "pseudoscience"[] word and 'tude around for material where I am constantly biting my tongue over his ignorance, bias and outright denialism on mainstream science & medical references, claiming everything in OMM, apparently including PNAS & NIH references, as FRINGE[].

He deletes commonplace OMM points that are or were previously referenced in the OMM article or other parts, e.g. before conventional medical treatments are available. Especially since his edits (and deletes) repeatedly show no knowledge or understanding about OMM practices and origins, he should use {(cn}} before deleting massive parts of the article on policy pretexts. Now missing the last week or so, Orthomolecular treatments typically have been experimentally or empirically introduced by physicians or researchers when conventional medical treatments offered neither solution nor hope., I had earlier referenced four dramatic examples. In one, the early use (ca 1977) of lipoic acid by Burton Berkson (PhD-MD), demonstrates an OMM approach, to stop and reverse the lethal course of deadly mushroom poisoning at death's doorstep when the conventional medicine was to watch 'em die under supportive care, very painfully & slowly. The NIH chief of endocrinology, Frederick Bartter, became Berkson's immediate collaborator on lipoc acid for the rest of Bartter's NIH career, publishing several papers together, and lipoic acid slowly took off in the 1980's in other areas. Berkson became a principal investigator for FDA and consultant for CDC on IV lipoic acid, but I am not sure that lipoic acid is FDA approved for mushroom poisoning, but OMM approves of it... My WP:V, RS references keep getting whacked at, "lost" and/or by POV references that are far less substantial.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

To emphasize your point, I will act as you say is civil: I'm right, you're wrong. You're uncivil, I'm civil. Plus, even if you have lots of people on your side, those people are meatpuppets and their consensus doesn't matter (one of Jefffire's meatpuppet assertions). ImpIn | (t - c) 01:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WQA is for incivility mainly, and there isn't sufficient evidence here to suggest that this is a problem. I have reminded the editor to be civil, and noted that loosely using the term meatpuppets is considered highly incivil. Other issues of disruption should be brought up through mediation or RFC. There's nothing else to see here - move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Attack based on falsehood from Guettarda

Resolved

 – taken to AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Guettarda recently claimed that I've "gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good" in an unspecified post at Wikipedia Review. [31] The problem is that it isn't remotely true. I have made no such post, nor do I believe anything I've posted could be interpreted in such a way. As a result, I'm left with the conclusion that Guettarda's statement was a lie, and responded based on that. [32]

The problem is, Guettarda has refused to retract the statement or prove it, and only removed the "observation" because it made me more than a little angry, which was "distracting from its purpose." [33] I find the allegation extremely offensive, and do not want it to become a "fact" simply because Guettarda stated it and refused to retract the claim.

I was unfortunately not able to submit this earlier, as I was away for the holiday weekend. Does anyone have any suggestions? Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have tried discussing this with the subject of this Wikiquette, but I'm afraid I already know what he's capable of. Try AN/I - but be clear about what you want (he be warned or asked to retract the statement or whatever it is). Keep the length roughly the same as this, if not slightly shorter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems like that may be necessary. I would like to get some more input before doing that, but I guess I'll probably submit it later today. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've posted the issue over at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Guettarda refuses to retract offensive personal attack Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing civility, lag of AGF, PA, etc

Resolved

4d-don: [[34]]

I have asked, begged, pointed to links, warned, etc., and this user continues to make every discussion about contributors. Everyone who disagrees with him is a "member of an organization" trying to hide information.

A quick look at the Sahaj Marg talk page will show you what I mean. I have warned numerous times on his talk page, however, it doesn't seem to do much good... mainly since I am part of "the cabal." [[35]]

And now he his invited meat puppets to come and "vote" for his position. [[36]] One has shown up, hopefully the warnings have stopped the others.

I have tried to be civil with this user over a period of a year, and have for the most part succeeded, but the behaviors are the exact same as a year ago.

Help. Sethie (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sethie.. I have looked at the talk page and it does seem we have a problem here. Regarding the meatpuppet accusation, I don't understand; the diff you provided links to an edit by 4d-don himself. Regarding the general problems with discussion, it is hard to know what to do. I see a lot of conflict, but I have not yet noticed a personal attack. In the diff you provided, it is not clear to me whether 4d-don was serious or not about the "cabal" thing.

Do you have more specific diffs, perhaps? From reading the talk page and looking at the diffs you provided, I can see 4d-don may be difficult to work with, but I am having trouble finding anything actionable.

Also, have you let 4d-don know about this report yet? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response.

The meatpuppet thing is that he has invited meats (as the link I shows provided) and then says all of us are meapuppets. Nothing big, just part of the larger picture. The cabal thing- is just again, one small piece of a larger picture.

There are two PA's I have noticed, which I warned and linked to on his talk page.

That is kind of the thing- Don doesn't really break any hard rules, he just makes things really unfun. I have pointed him to the links for COI, meats, socks, etc., instead of taking actions, he just posts about how we're all meats, socks, have COI, etc.

On his talk page I have linked to AGF, SOAP, PA, etc issues.

No I haven't informed him, and I will. Sethie (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean about the "meatpuppet" diff. heh, well, I really only would consider it meatpuppetry if somebody actually listened, ha ha ha, but in any case the comment by 4d-don was a little inappropriate, and definitely very silly.

Hmmm, well I'll put the page on my watchlist and we'll see what comes of htis.. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we've had two meats show up, one an hour after he posted his "instructions."

Your perspective it helpful.... this isn't a big deal. It's an annoyance. Thank you for agreeing to watch the page. Sethie (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet...

What we have here is group from a faction of SRCM, who, not being accepted by the original SRCM (Shahjahanpur), after charges of forgery of the "succession papers", re-registered the SRCM in California, USA, in 1997, and placed themselves on the board of all the SRCM Societies in other countries. This "break-away group", patented the words "Sahaj Marg" in the US. Sahaj Marg is the Practice of this factionalized SRCM who just received a judgement from the [Supreme Court of India]. There have been accusations of violence (2 neswspaper articles with photos) between these two factions. Many of the Group trying to re-write the Sahaj Marg WIKI article are members of the break-away group, SRCM (California), headquartered in Chennai, India. Many of the ones reading only and not editing are from the original SRCM (Shahjahanpur), registered in India, in 1945.

Now the reason for the "personal" attacks on editors who disagree, and the "blocking" of an editor with the help of an admin, has soured the waters for me, and keeps other potential contributors at bay, not wanting to "play this silly game" they claim. This article had been Deleted before and was just recently revived by Sethie. Even though I try and be civil, they take turns at personal attacks and then run to "the teacher" to tattle...doing nothing about the original "bullying" by one or the other of the GROUP. It's like a bunch of kids in the schoolyard. lol Mostly they try and control and don't used "COMMON SENSE" as per WIKI. There is no concensus possible and I am trying to see what the concensus is to go to MEDIATION (Formal I think)...one issue at a time... and that draws more "scorn" and attacks.

If you check my bio, you will see that I am not the kind of person this person tries to paint me to be, and I am a team player, having sat on many government committees, having chaired many "NGO's", charities, Municipal committees, Chamber of Commerce committees, and been recognized for my work for the country and the planet by our Governor General, Prime Minister, the Premiers of two Provinces (Canada), and many mayors..... the attempts here, at the risk of sounding "conspiratorial" is to have me blocked also. I am trying to write a balanced article for Sahaj Marg, but it is impossible to reach a concensus on any point with this "cabal" (meat-puppets?...I just found out what that was...lol) from SRCM (California), who want to give credibility to their questionable business practices, and using WIKI as a PR vehicle... I don't favour the original SRCM (Shahjahanpur) but I also don't like the tactics used to control WIKI by this group.

You gotta laugh, b'cause it's not funny...;-))

Don--don (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I could not have provided a better example of what we are up against, pretty much in every post. A user who doesn't show a clear understanding of how wiki-works, has a clear agenda, talks a lot about other users and not the article and sees everyone who disagrees with him, as part of a cabal. Sethie (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:4d-don is a single-purpose account (see contribs) with a strong COI. Here he lists his anti-Sahaj Marg blog (at the end of this post). He has been warned repeatedly against soapboxing and incivility by an admin (see this, this, this, and this), as well as editors (see this, this and this) but continues to label all editors who disagree with him members of a cabal or faction (total assumptions on his part, btw). When he's not accusing people as being members of this or that group, he's namecalling others, here he called Sethie a "donkey." So, any help provided by neutral editors is greatly appreciated. Renee (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is clear this user doesn't "get it". I am doing my best, but soon sanctions may be our only recourse. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted from Talk:Sahaj Marg:

I am not educated enough in this subject to comment independently, but I think I have seen enough.

The consensus seems to be very much against Don's proposed changes. While it is always possible that one person is correct in the face of opposition from the majority, Don has not provided any sources that I find sufficient to back his claims. To take each one in detail:

Don has attacked a book on world religions using some rather roundabout logic that I'm not sure I entirely follow. I am still not sure what source is being referenced, but in any case, he is going to have to provide a more coherent reason for why it would not be considered a reliable source, particularly when consensus of the other editors here (who are all more knowledgeable than me) seems to be that it is a reliable source.

Renee has asserted that the controversy over ownership of the SMRC name has not been covered in the mainstream press. While it is impossible to definitely prove a negative assertion such as this, I think it is fair to say that the controversy should not be added to the article unless and until a mainstream news source is located which covers the controversy.

I don't have an opinion about the age limit thing, but the consensus is strongly against inclusion, so Don will just have to abide by that.

I recommend the following actions:

• The age limit thing stays out, unless consensus were to change in the future.
• The SMRC ownership controversy stays out, unless a mainstream reliable source can be found.
• The thing from the world religions book stays in, unless other editors can provide a more coherent objection to its use as a reliable source.
• Don must refrain from posting sermons to the talk page. Any further long-winded sermonizing about Sahaj Marg or the "true nature of religion" or any of that crap may be removed on sight, and if Don continues to restore it, a report to WP:ANI/3RR is in order.

Is this acceptable? --Jaysweet (talk)

Sounds very reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to wade through it all!Renee (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on the thank you!!!! A very skillful intervention. Sethie (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with an anonymous user

Resolved

I'm having some trouble with an anonymous user who has violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL at talk:United States men's national soccer team and would appreciate some intervention. The section is the one about the team's captain. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs of where you think the user has violated policy? Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

this is the most recent attack, but if you look through the conversation you'll see the overall tone of the discussion from his end has been agressive to say the least. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that the tone of that discussion is getting out of hand. I have posted a note telling people to calm down, and placed the page on my watchlist. We'll go from there. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Resolved

 – Editor already warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit to me seems very uncivil. I warned CorticoSpinal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but a neutral third party talking to him may help. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your 2 cents that accompanied your warning was provocative. Please take care not to inflame the situation. Will check some more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana has already warned the user. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theory, soap box, forum, incivility

Resolved

 – -warned editor Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was redirected here from the fringe theory notice board after posting a complaint about a certain editer who has broke about half a dozen policies not to mention the fact that he has some rather backward views. To get the full story as i have documented it please follow this link. I would appreciate your help on this, he has caused at least one editer I know well a lot of bother. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links or diffs to the incivility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant this or not, but "backward views" aren't a problem, as long as the editor doesn't introduce poorly referenced, POV material in the article space or use the talk pages as a soapbox to discuss things unrelated to improving the article. Whether or not the person's views are "backward" is, by itself, irrelevant. -kotra (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Here the editer "CadenS" is promoting a fringe theory on talk pages that is actually quite offensive. He calls it the "Homosexual Agenda", which is a right wing way of saying "gays are plotting against the world". I have listed just ten examples below, there are many many more edits like this by the user. He called one user who is a member of the LGBT community "Heterophobic" for not agreeing with him. I know that the editer was very offended by the comment. Now being conservative and christain is fine with me, but this is going too far, i see these unhealthy ideas spouted on Conservapedia and honestly its dangerous.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - im guessing "this" means homosexuality? 11 - and again, Caden has found another example of the "Homosexual Agenda", running wild in wikipedia

Sorry i couldnt get back to you sooner, my internet connection went down. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Caden has continued the dispute here. Accusing bookkeeper of starting a hate campaign against him. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Infact, this isnt a campaign against Caden, oh no, much worse. Its a campaign against heterosexuality seen here. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of "promoting a fringe theory", or of "soap boxing", or of being "anti gay", or of "prejudice" or all the other negative things you are accusing me of. I am doing no such thing. I never said "gays are plotting against the world", so please do not put words into my mouth. Please stop this nonsense of yours. I find what you are doing highly offensive and consider it a personal attack towards me. CadenS (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've given him a warning and explained what was wrong with his conduct. If it continues, or he does not agree to comply with policy, let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I will, prejudice doesnt die quickly so i dont think it will be long before i return, sadly. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. Why are you doing this to me? Do you hate me that much? You don't even know me and we have never spoken before. Please stop making these false accusations about me. I do not appreciate it. Please leave me be in peace. CadenS (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think these comments made by an administrater best sum up how tired we are with your behaviour. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 00:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Those comments were not appropriate. I found them personally offensive. As far as that religion bit, I have no idea where he's getting that from. Could you please leave me alone and please stop wiki-stalking me from one talk page to another. I don't understand what you are trying to do here. But I don't like it. CadenS (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The same comment was posted on [37] WhisperToMe (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. He also posted the same comments on User_talk:Petebertine's talk page and again on User_talk:Ncmvocalist's talk page CadenS (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted, i sent it to all the people he went complaining to, he went to a number of editers and admins moaning about me. I thought that link best summed up my side of the story. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CadenS apologized (many times) and Realist2 acknowledged some error on his/her own part, so this issue should be resolved by now. Let's not beat a dead horse here. Forgive and forget would be good advice to follow. -kotra (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!!!! user:Toobills and user:RC&RB incivility, libel and harassment

Resolved

 – The content dispute is still being worked out. In the meantime, all users have agreed to try to be more polite to each other.

Both have continually been uncivil, have posted libel/defamation of others (and myself) on Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū. Please look in the Revision history of Talk:Sōsuishi-ryū. Here:diff1; Here: diff2; Here:diff3 Here:diff4; Here: diff5 Here: diff6 And there are a few more that I am leaving out. I've tried to be as civil as possible, to no avail. This has led to continued insults and threats and it seems to be escalating. This has continued from e-mails sent to me personally at a prior date, threatening me from post user:Toobills and user:RC&RB stating that that any "posts I make at Wikipedia have to be approved by user:Toobills first". Now on here at Wikipedia, they are attempting to follow through with harassment, namecalling and general incivility. I fear it will turn into vandalism.

Jeff,

I hope I am posting, and responding in the correct place.

The incivility began when Russ Ebert posted a response to me that he himself admittedly deleted. He later admits to you: "he is responsible for a lot of what went on there, and I would have prevented it and I regret it", In addition his scolding, public post, to someone who is significantly his senior, warning them to "behave themselves" is rude, and absolutely began the deterioration of this debate. Even I was surprised at his inappropriate, and disrespectful behavior. It seems now that he realizes that he has behaved inappropriately, as evidenced by his explanation of his lazines, and censorship of the "debate". My only regret is stating outright that he is a Blowhard, and a coward. It was wrong and admittedly, I allowed my anger and frustration at his unwillingness to abide by the parameters of the discussion page. owever, my frustration began and continued because Russ is refusing to debate this topic, and acknowledge any other view contrary to his own speculative research. If he did he may have to admit he's incorrect. I apologize for my frustrations, however I believe from your initial response to this you can understand where it came from. A scholarly debate should not be edited, and the discussion shouldn't be monopolized, and deleted. I will absolutely refrain from name calling and personal attacks.

I have never threatened Russ, nor has anyone else. If you would like have him provide you evidence of my threats. His claims are outright lies. If he chooses to make these allegations he should back them up with proven facts.-Bill

Mekugi (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mekugi -- where are the personal attacks and insults? In the diffs you have provided, all I see is that the other users have written a very long discussion of the points in contention (which I don't understand at all, so you'll have to bear with me), and you reverted their changes. I think your reversion was inappropriate, unless there are personal attacks I did not see. The users in question did say several times that they thought you were incorrect, but I do not see the personal attacks. Could you help me out by saying what "insults" and "threats" you are specifically objecting to? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The first post, DIF1 & DIFF2 is about libel/defamation aimed at me.Namely incivil statements like:

"Or do you speak for a small faction in Tokyo, headed by a former low graded "student" of Shitama Sensei?"

The low graded student is my teacher in the martial art. I dunno, but calling someone low-graded when they are of a higher grade than the person posting is rather rude, and continually calling me that throughout the article has no point. How does that better the article? It seems wholly as an attack on me. Or that is to say, it is clearly an attack on me and my group in Tokyo, not about the content of the article.

Nothing in [:diff1 is about the article itself, but about me being low graded, not understanding anything he's saying. I am not sure how that contributes to civility either.

Jeff,

How is that question libel or defammatory? He made a condescending statement about "this not being an issue over here", (meaning Japan). I'm stating first hand, (then and now) that he is incorrect. His position makes an incorrect assumption based on spaeculative research conclusions. Again, he was the first to throw out the sarcasm, which I addressed in my response. rather than accept or discuss athe difference, he condescendingly chose to "assure me" that he knows better. I believe that Russ likes to attack without being attacked in return. The second part of the statement about "a group headed by a former low graded student of Shitama Sensei", is again a fact. Usuki is no longer a student of Shitama Sensei. His web page link in fact has been deleted from Shitama Sensei's web site for cause. The truth is, Russ's teacher is in fact the same grade as I am. He is not my senior, and I in fact consider myself and his teacher low graded students, however I am significantly senior, and more experienced than Russ. I'm sorry but credibility matters to a debate. Russ's speculative conclusions are inappropriate and his behavior is rude coming from a self proclaimed expert, and someone in his position as a very junior graded student. This again is NOT a personal attack but stating what should be obvious.

It's tough to sort through, I know, but if you look back it's a tyraid responses to this post: diff7 where I simply outlined the information, the rest is just an attack on my character. This was followed by a tyraid of other posts and really I am trying to be polite about it because really, this is defamation to me, my group and character. IMHO, there is no reason to get personal or make rude, incivil statements over something so small.

Jeff,

Again Russ assumes that an incorrect speculative conclusion is a small thing. he is just wrong. It's difficult for him to accept it. But more importantly it's his behavior that is inappropriate. I just stated facts that I can substantiate. he won't address them because it's has become part of his con.

Also there are statements regarding my research (pulling test out of books and authentic ancient documents and not limited to his "original research"- which is not allowed here) and arguing his points with personal research, creating a hostile environment. I am going to try to just post a few of the incivility diffs here:

diff8

"This is consistent with the behavior of your low graded group in Tokyo.

Jeff,

Russ is not the only person making these contributions that are inappropriate from such a low graded student. So in fact, his not accepting someone who is significantly his senios advice to behave appropriately is consisitent with his group in Tokyo. thier are countless other examples that have no place in your attemt to mediate.

This is why your web site has been removed from the Sekiryukan web page for cause.

Jeff,

This is a fact.

Furthermore, I'm not surprised, as I have a collection of incorrect online statements, and outright lies you have posted over the years."

Jeff,

I have numerous statements that I can present as evidence. I asked Russ if he would like to debate them. He never replied and just deleted the discussion as you know. For example, in another online forum hruss and fellow low graded student of his, who claims a higher grade than he was awarded, (that doesn't even exist in Sosuishi ryu), claim that Shitama Sense conducted Senbondori, (a ritual test of 1000 throws) in Tokyo of which they participated in and one was even injured. This never happened, as the ONLY place Senbondori has been conducted outside of Shitama Sensei's dojo in Fukuoka was in New York. I never brought it up. Russ knows it's an outright lie, I just eluded to it and many others. Again, this is another outright lie by a low graded group in Tokyo. I'm sorry, but that' not an attack, just a fact. You can see this evidenced on Shitama Sensei's web site if you doubt my correction to his lies. I'm sorry credibility, and the truth matter.

as for calling me a liar, low graded and in making false statements, etc. I am stumped to see where any of it applies to the article in question or how it betters the article, but in fact is an attack on me and my group in Tokyo.

Jeff,

It does matter because my assertion from the beginning is that his innaproppriate, speculative conclusions contradict Shitama Sensei's position on this matter. Shitama Sensei is the 16th inheritor of Sosuishi ryu. He IS Sosuishi ryu, and the discussion is about the name. Shitama Sensei has stated first hand when asked directly this question and about what Russ claims, His response was the name of the ryu is Sosuishi ryu, not any other derivation, as those are components of the ryu. My position as a higher graded student, and direct student of Shitama Sensei is to reiterate Shitama Sensei's position. How can that be disputed? His assertions are speculative, and incorrectly assume former headmasters intent as he attemts to uncover some "hidden treasure" that just isn't there. How can he correctly interpret someones intent and the context and texture of thier writings? Shitama Sensei is the only person that knows first hand his fathers intent. Shitama Sensei speaks Japanese. Why would his position be challenged by a low non- japanese graded practitioner? Without knowing anything about the discipline, doesn't this strike you as being innappropriate? I'm sure by your initial response it does, however I can assure you that his actions in this entire manner are childlike to say the least. Again, not an attack, but children brag and behave like experts in an unhumble manner. This is what russ is doing.

This stands out:

You are a fraud, and just another blow-hard coward behind a keyboard.

Being called a fraud, blow hard. I seriously fail to see how that relates to the article.

Jeff,

This was my last post, (of many) after Russ deleted not only my discussion with him numerous times, he deleted the post of another studentt who is also his senior. Conveniently he left his own post on the board. My frustration led to my violating the rules, and more importantly inappropriate name calling. I apologize for letting my frustrations get the best of my own manners. I will not make the same mistake twice.

And this, from the same Diff:

This is what happens when low graded students are left on their own, without correct guidance from a qualified Sensei.

He's talking about me.

It’s endemic in the martial arts, and it’s reflective in your inappropriate behavior.

I am not sure how my behavior is inappropriate, since he is not talking about the removal of the psosts, but to posting on Wikipedia at all.

We have allowed you to continue your childish, inappropriate, behavior to continue for years. You sit and pontificate as if you have some hidden knowledge, or expertise.

I'm childish....get the feeling that this is focused on my character, and not the article?

Jeff,

Russ's behavior here has been childish. He doesn't want to hear another side, the correct side by those who challenge his self created expertise, and he throws a tantrum and deletes the discussion, except his own post. I stated the facts in this manner. I tried, as his senior to correct him and mentor him as is my place. If children are left on thier own without proper guidance, they do the wrong thing. I believe this is the case with Russ. It's not an attack, it's a conclusion that has been evidenced by his behavior and refusal to accept another opinion. If he accepted my opinion, he would have to assume his conclusion is incorrect. I don't think Russ can admit that there is a possibility he doesn't understand as much as he thinks he does. His behavior is relevant to the article. The article is innacurate in several places. His character won't allow him to discuss a contrary opinion. I'm sorry, again the truth, and character and credibility matter in research.

You post video demonstrations of yourself that look ridiculous, and display the waza consistent with a beginner, while trying to pass yourself off as some sort of highly graded expert. We have attempted to correct you privately on numerous occasions.

Again, this is about me, not the article.

Jeff,

This is the truth. he is a beginner as is evidenced by his physical technique, his grade, and the speculative conclusions his biased research has resulted in. He is trying to pass himself off as an expert, of which I can assure you he is not.

Sorry to sound like a broken record here(skipping DVD nowadays) but I am unceratin of how any of this pertains to the article in question. They are talking specifically about me, my character and re-iterating threats/demands sent to me in private emails just keep me from writing here. This is all because I have information they do not, resources they do not, all from third or second party sources (as per wiki guidelines).

Jeff,

Again I am merely stating Shitama Sensei's position, the 16th Headmaster. Does he assert that he's such an expert that he knows more than Shitam Sensei? I think he is. In addition where are the threats we are making?

So, I this is the gist of it: I try to post a response to the wording of the name, with reasoning. I then get a tyraid aimed at my legitimacy, not the legitimacy of the argument, but aimed at me.

Jeff,

Incorrect, as he refuses to accept it is not his place as a low graded student to be claiming anything. That is a huge part of this debate. Thier is no argument as he continues to delete any other view, and never addresses any contrary points when they are made.

Most of the prepositions in the first DIFFS are directed at me, thus the conclusion that I come to is that I am the subject of the arguement, not the material I am posting. Then, I try to keep it civil by removing the post, which was aimed at me. Then, I re-post with more information, citing a docuemnt. Another tyraid is aimed at my character (I'm too low, I am not high enough, I need to be something special to write here).

Jeff,

Again, another incorrect conclusion. They are intertwined as it is not his place to challenge Shitama Sensei, and despite his archeological finds, he is no position to interpret context and intent of headmasters that are deceased. Does he know more than the 16th inheritor, Shitama Sensei does? I am only asserting his position on the matter as is evidenced on Shitama Sensei's own web site.

I remove it and post some guidelines to help smooth things out. Then, another post is made calling me a fraud, attacking my character AGAIN. So my conlcusion is that it seems like the posts are not about the article, or the material, by a hostile attack on my character and the belittling of my ability to research.

Jeff,

The guidleines he posted he violated first!!! This was after he altered or omitted any other view contrary to his own.

BTW Jay, thanks for you patience with me here....just learning the ropes. :) Mekugi (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. I appreciate you posting the diffs originally, but they were so long I didn't see the personal attacks. The "fraud" and "blow-hard" comments are highly inappropriate. Many of the other comments are really pushing it. I will warn the user(s) in question, and we'll go from there. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeff,

Again, if you look back he began the vitriol and the sarcasm. He wants to attack without being challenged or attacked in return. This is what promted my comment about his cowardly behavior. Again, I apologize, and will not resort to name calling again, regardless of my frustrations with his behavior.

Mekugi -- one concern I have is that you have been completely reverting comments made by these other users. I recognize that part of this is because of what you perceive as personal attacks. However, blanking the entire comment, particularly when it is several paragraphs along, is a pretty drastic measure, and may serve to stifle debate.

From reading Bill's comments in more detail, it appears that while a number of his comments have been in regards to you, he also had a number of points (the area is too specialized to know if they are legitimate or not) regarding the actual article content. You guys need to find some way to work those out... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I do realize that and will be more careful in the future, for sure. I realize that I am responsible for a lot that went on there and I would have prevented it and I regret it. That, to me is against the ideals of Wikipedia IMHO- to make the articles better for everyone. I'm starting to get the gist of debate on here on the discussion pages, so it's part of my acumen I intend to better while editing here. I originally went in with some caution and started to edit his intitial comment, but there was just so much stuff there it was impossible to sort. Without any explanation other than a "please behave yourself" comment, I erased it. On thinking about it I thought that was too rough and removed my response. Instead of re-vamping the whole thing I let laziness take over, and I just thought it would be better if I posted my info on the subject in hopes that he would rethink his position, thus start over (he did in a way, but it made him angry). I should have known better to do that but I went ahead anyway. I need to be more careful as these types of issues are touchy, and it's not right to censor anyone (I don't want that, I would not want anyone to do that to me). With the final user:RC&RB post, it was small enough to edit out the personal comments and get to the question, so I did that. But, it was too late by that point.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I appreciate your time and effort.

Jeff,

My suggestion is this. Dennis Fink Sensei is Menkyo Kaiden, and Shitama Sensei's senior representative in Sosuishi ryu. He is also fluent in english and has discussed this matter directly with Shitama Sensei. I submit that he is an expert on Sosuishi ryu and can assit you in mediating this debate since you are having a difficult time sifting through the specialized information here regarding the discipline.

Again, i apologize for reverting to the name calling when I was censored and attacked. My frustration led to bad manners and it won't happen again on this forum.

Sincerely,

Bill Williams

---

Comment by Randy Cantonwine

The incivility was started by "Mekugi" here:

"Furthermore, I feel it is safe to believe that this is regarded as a very low-brow subject of argument by Shitama sensei and a cavil of people outside of Japan

The statement is insulting, subjective and incorrect. This was followed by Mekugi deleting all opposing views. As for what is (or is not) uncivil, perhaps Mr Williams should have said that Mekugi is "academically dishonest" when he deletes opposing views instead of "cowardly" ..... changing the label doesn't make Mekugi's actions appropriate.

Mekugi has been around since the mid 80s.... I have known him since he was a teenager. However, time alone does not make someone an expert, particularly time in dissenting fringe groups and now a splinter group of a modern offshoot.

I made the comment below: Sosuishi-Ryu is a living art. One does not need to translate scrolls or conduct an archeological dig to find out what it is called. The name of the ryu is whatever Shitama Sensei decides to call it. It is HIS familial ryu. As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent. He has been asked directly about this question. He disagrees with you.

As students of Sosuishi-ryu, we are Shitama Sensei’s guests. We should act that way. Randy Cantonwine

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C5%8Dsuishi-ry%C5%AB"

Mekugi deleted it, then restored it, edited down to: "Sosuishi-Ryu is a living art. One does not need to translate scrolls or conduct an archeological dig to find out what it is called. The name of the ryu is whatever Shitama Sensei decides to call it. It is HIS familial ryu. As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent. RC&RB (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

and Mekugi added this comment "RC&RB" :-) Okay...let me get this straight. You are saying that the name "Sosuishi ryu Jujutsu" is one that Shitama chooses to use today, in the present, correct? Does the article not reflect that? "

No.... I am saying that Shitama Sensei can read old scrolls (including those that are his family heirlooms)and the book that he commissioned. He does not need a junior student like Ebert to "correct" him. The correct name is "Sosuishi-Ryu"...period.

Randy Cantonwine

---

Consistent bully-boy tactics can be found all over the TALK portion of this article by TooBills. It ranges from condescending talk downs to downright insults. The article itself is academically, flawless. The Bibliography is genuine, with various references used throughout, albeit most are written in their original Japanese.

The only thing being attacked on that article appears to be it's original author, Mekugi. It attacks him personally, his credibility and as a researcher. I see no debate on the contents of the article whatsoever. The author has studied the system since 1985. That is twenty-three years more or less. His teacher, Usuki Yoshihiko has been studying the system since 1965. With this in mind there is more than enough academic credibility.

Below are examples of inappropriate behavior that are simply not germaine to the article in any way, shape or form.

"WRONG! Like many other conclusions you have drawn you are incorrect. Like most junior graded students you have limited access and subsequent knowledge and understanding of the ryu. As you know this is my biggest problem with you making these assertions based on your limited experience. It’s why we tell children that sometimes its better keep their mouth shut and be thought of as ignorant, than open it up publicly and confirm everyone’s suspicions."

"You are a fraud, and just another blow-hard coward behind a keyboard. You refuse to even acknowledge another view, even from those who are significantly your senior and have more experience and knowledge regarding the topic. You look childish and will subsequently remain ignorant."

"Here it is...get ready to edit what you want out of it you coward."

"In a scholarly debate their usually exists another objective party so for me, it’s beginning to be like trying to reason with a four year old. I also realize my post is archived, (as is your disrespectful reply)"

To put it succinctly, there is a difference here between Mekugi's posts and TooBills' posts. One tries to be civil and debates in an academic manner. The other hurls insults and doesn't really show any academic proof, yet doesn't attack the veracity or contents of the article, only the author and his character.

Most of this article's information was drawn from researched academic resources in the bibliography, a number of which were actually sanctioned by the headmaster of this Cultural tradition. In addition to that a number of interviews with senior students of the system.

[| diff1

[| diff2

Kogusoku (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Argh, can you guys please keep your comments succinct and well-formatted, and put all new comments at the end of the discussion, so people can actually follow the conversation? Geesh...

I was able to follow some of what RC&RB said. Randy, you claim Meguki has deleted content that did not contain personal attacks. Do you have a diff you could provide which shows this behavior? I saw Meguki was a little heavy-handed in deleting comments that he felt contained personal attacks, and I warned him and he agreed. I don't see anythign more serious than that...?

Meguki, the "low-brow" comment was probably slightly out of line. Try and watch that sort of thing in the future. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Jay:

My comments below were my first ever on Wikipedia. They were deleted without comment by Mekugi. The quoted portion at the beginning is Mekugi's statement from 10/17/2007.

Snip & Paste "No one wants to be involved in an edit war. They need to be talked out....that means discussed here....." Unless you have an opposing view, in which case "Mekugi" will delete your entry. Anyone interested in this topic should go to the history tab and read the comments by Bill Williams that Russ has removed.

Russ:

You are the one who chose to have this discussion in a public forum. Apparently, your intent is that only your views should be shown. In your attempt to justify deleting Mr. Williams' post, you said that it was "angry". That is your subjective opinion. He did not insult you personally, nor did he delete your post refering to him as "low brow".

Mr Williams would never just take it upon himself to address this situation. He is an official representative of Sosuishi-Ryu. He is also your senior (by FAR). This article (and other items that you are involved in on the web) is considered to be a problem by senior members in America and over "there in Japan".

Sosuishi-Ryu is a living art. One does not need to translate scrolls or conduct an archeological dig to find out what it is called. The name of the ryu is whatever Shitama Sensei decides to call it. It is HIS familial ryu. As for your analysis of the various scrolls etc., I am confident that Shitama Sensei can read Japanese pretty well. He is also able to interpret nuance and context to determine the writer's intent. He has been asked directly about this question. He disagrees with you.

As students of Sosuishi-ryu, we are Shitama Sensei’s guests. We should act that way. Randy Cantonwine SNIP Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C5%8Dsuishi-ry%C5%AB"

Mekugi is accusing me of "harassment, namecalling and general incivility" and "HELP!!!!!......user:RC&RB incivility, libel and harassment" I don't see it. What I see is Mekugi deleting any viewpoint other than his own. The false accusation that he has charged me with is a further attempt to suppress any opposing view.

Question: Would it be considered uncivil if I were to suggest that Mekugi's false accusation amounts to "incivility, libel and harassment"? Do I need to stick to saying that Mejugi is making false accusations, or can I use the liar word? Just curious. This was my first experience with Wikipedia. It certainly wasn't good.

Best,

Randy Cantonwine RC&RB (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I reposted this at the end of the page so it won't be missed, although it appears in the middle of the above text (easy to get lost at this point).

You wrote:

Meguki, the "low-brow" comment was probably slightly out of line. Try and watch that sort of thing in the future. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't intending that comment to be aimed anyone personally...it was supposed to be regarding the subject of the discussion at that point, which was the issue of "name" of the school. I thought it was very straight-forward when I wrote it, but I guess it could be taken the wrong way. I'll be more careful to outline what I mean in the future. Sorry for all of the hassle. :(

Mekugi (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

Randy - I would indeed avoid using the word "liar" -- it just tends to escalate things. The old adage to "comment on the edits, not the editors" applies here. It is fine to say that the accusations are false (commenting on the edits), but to call the editor a liar is something you don't want to take lightly. Not to say it's always inappropriate, but it doesn't really serve to help things most of the time, and it definitely tends to make people more angry.

If it will help, I can comment on my perception of the veracity of the various accusations:

Now that I have examined the situation more closely, I definitely do not see harassment here from the Bill/Randy side. If anybody is engaging in harassment, it is Mekugi, who appears to have a pet issue that he will not let die down. I have not yet decided whether there is merit to Mekugi's issue (I will need to examine his sources first), so he may have had a reason for this campaign after all -- or maybe not. But it seems clear Randy and Bill just want to be left alone, so I see no harassment.

"Libel" is a very strong word, and I would prefer if people do not use it lightly, particularly as it can be a prelude to legal threats, which are strictly prohibited on Wikipedia under any circumstances. However, I would recommend to Randy and Bill to refrain from focusing too much on Mekugi's alleged status as a "junior student," at least on Wikipedia. Here's the problem: You two say Mekugi is a junior student, he says he's not, and there's no way for me (or other uninvolved editors) to know the difference. So it doesn't do any good to say so, and since there is disagreement it can come across as insulting and dismissive of Mekugi's opinions. For better or worse, Wikipedia has an extreme egalitarian viewpoint -- a renowned scholar and a junior high kid are, in theory, starting from the same level playing field, as long as both provide verifiable reliable sources and obey other Wikipedia rules and regulations. In any case, I already mentioned this to you guys, and you seem to be avoiding those characterizations for the time being, and I thank you for that.

As far as incivility... Well, I don't think either side has crossed the line where it is sanctionable, but I'm not really happy with the level of discourse at the talk page in question, at least not by the time I got there. Ten-paragraph diatribes that call into question the other side's capability to understand the information in question, well, those don't do anybody any favors. Again, though, it seems both sides are a bit calmer now and I commend you for that.

I am hoping to see Mekugi's sources. At this point, from the background you all have given me, it appears that Mekugi has engaged in original research and synthesized new conclusions based on primary sources -- which is not the way Wikipedia operates. I will need to understand better what is going on with this old scroll he has scanned (which, BTW, I am concerned about whether it is a copyright violation or not.. probably not, if it's old enough, I guess...). Do we need to interpret the scroll in order to show that the school was once called by a different name? Or is that pretty much clear as day in the scroll? If the latter, then Mekugi may have a point, with some caveats. (For instance, the name thing definitely does not belong in the intro paragraph, as this gives undue weight to a minor quibble) Anyway, that is all a content dispute and we will try to resolve it on the article's talk page rather than here.

So, if it makes you feel better Randy, here are my conclusions regarding the Wikiquette alert itself: I see no harassment or libel from User:Toobills and User:RC&RB. I see some civility issues from all three users in question, but nothing major. At this point, I am inclined to mark the Wikiquette alert as "Resolved" and continue to work on the content dispute via the talk page.

Any objections? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One objection.

None of my research is original. I had to show these gentlemen the kanji on website in question, and explain what it meant to them for their reserouce (it's listed in one of the deleted posts on the discussion page early on). Also, on the first line of the Wiki article the the resource is clearly listed as a footnote. If you would like a scan of the book and the article in the book (which was printed by the Sekiryukan), I can provide it. Also, I re-posted to additional resources to the name on the discussion page- written in Japanese. To say that I have been doing original research without looking at the footnote is kind of missing something, I would think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekugi (talk • contribs)

That's a content dispute issue, though. I will continue to work through that at the talk page. I will strike out the comments from my conclusion, but we should continue the discussion of that at the talk page. I think the Wikiquette alert is resolved, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One more. I would also like to add that I never attacked Bill or Randy personally. I may have deleted their posts, ones that I felt were incivil and aimed at me, although they may have been sprinkled with unsorted arguments that they were trying to get across. I had previously posted said material that addresssed those issues, but they were deleted by them and were met with attacks on my personality which had little to do with the article (IMHO). Not once did I attempt to belittle anyone there. The "Low Brow" comment mentioned above was in fact aimed at the discussion, and it can be dug up here: if you want to see it.diff

::"It is not really a subject of any debate here in Japan, I can assure you. Furthermore, I feel it is safe to believe that this is regarded as a very low-brow subject of argument by Shitama sensei and a cavil of people outside of Japan. So, there's really no argument here...just a matter of explanation. Kudos! :)"

I don't feel that is a personal attack on uncivil. I thought the smiley face was a nice touch.

Thanks for you time Jay, I really do appreciate it. Go ahead and mark the problem as 'resolved'. Mekugi (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Jay, I certainly agree that we need to stay polite. It seems that we are now, and that's great. And thanks for moderating this issue.

I have still have a little uncertainty about this.....

The only thing I can see that is possibly inappropriate about my initial post is the fact that I mentioned that Mr Williams is much senior to Mekugi (in our art). I now understand that this is not relevant in the wikipedia world. Mekugi claims that he deleted my post because it was uncivil.... (see his most recent post above) where was it uncivil? It smells like censorship to me.

The suggestion that I might have had some actual arguments "sprinkled" in an "unsorted" fashion in an uncivil tirade is condescending and insulting.

Also he says "I never attacked Bill or Randy personally" From my point of view, a false accusation of libel is a very serious personal attack. I don't expect an apology, but for Mekugi to falsely claim that it didn't happen is unacceptable.

The matter may be "resolved" but not everyone is taking ownership of their actions.

It seems to be resolved as long as we all agree that:

1) Mekugi "not once attempted to belittle anyone".

2)Mekugi "never attacked Bill or Randy personally"

3)None of Mekugi's research is original

Apparently, as long as I agree to those conditions, Mekugi is willing to drop his complaint....wonderful, what a guy!

Randy RC&RB (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI User:Nseidm1

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to WP:COIN. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that User:Nseidm1 is falling into a conflict of interest situation - but I don't see any really clear guideline that covers this specific situation in the WP:COI description. The user's real name (from his User page) is Noah Seidman and from his user page (and a Google search on "Noah Seidman water fuel") it is clear that he's heavily involved - almost certainly at a commercial level - with various 'fringe theories' about water powered cars (and the highly dubious business of "hydrogen enhanced fuel" for cars). Looking at his edit history, you'll note that he edits exclusively in a handful of articles that variously discuss these topics - and many of the articles he works on end up skewing heavily in favor of these fringe theories. Check out "Hydrogen fuel enhancement" for example - the article has literally hundreds of edits from this user and it reads like an advertisement for his technology. The lead photo is taken from research that Nseidm1 claims to have performed (look in the image description page) - which presumably amounts to a WP:NOR violation. This editor also has a propensity for uploading copyrighted images - initially without fair-use rationales - then with bogus rationales that eventually result in the images being removed. He clearly has no compunction about doing this because his own private and commercial websites employ many of the same images - almost certainly in violation of said copyrights.

I'm not sure whether this should be taken further - and because I'm one of the editors working hard to bring these articles in line with our WP:FRINGE policy, I tend to be on the opposite side of many edit debates with User:Nseidm1 - so I'm hardly a neutral party here and would not like to be accused of wielding WP:COI as a weapon in edit disputes.

But - I'm deeply concerned that there is a problem here.

So, in the interests of fairness and neutrality, I would appreciate it if someone without my inherent bias (which I freely admit) would take an independent look at Nseidm1's position here and consider whether his behavior does indeed rise to the level of a WP:COIN complaint or something else.

However, I would prefer to recuse myself from further input since I do not feel able to be entirely dispassionate about the matter.

TIA. SteveBaker (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, this is totally outside the realm of WQA, as it doesn't appear to be any sort of a civility issue. I'd recommend going ahead and asking at WP:COIN - it certainly couldn't hurt, if you believe there's really a possible COI there, the admins at the noticeboard should be able to help you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - I've posted a note on COIN. Thanks anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summary comment

Resolved

 – User warned, I see no ongoing pattern of abuse here, so let's move on

Diff. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you only bothered to check the cause of the broken references after you stamped your feet and cried on my talk page. Bradley0110 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bradley, that's enough. You need to be more careful to maintain civility, even if you feel another editor is behaving in a frustrating manner. Please try and work with the other editor constructively, and if after doing your best you find you cannot, the dispute resolution process can always be used. In any case, it is never appropriate to resort to name-calling or ridicule such as "stamped your feet and cried", or what you said in the edit summary John pointed out.

I am leaving a warning on your talk page. There is no problem with your edits per se, but you must remain civil. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the later comments on both of your talk pages about my actions. I simply requested that Wikipedia:Ref#Citation_styles "You should follow the style already established in an article" be observed. The reference format had been changed from line delimited to wrapping making them harder to read. It didn't require the whole edit to be reverted and for me to be subjected to incivility. I'm sorry if this was not the correct place to report this to - I was angry and confused about the various third opinion/admin dispute options. What should I have done bearing in mind that incivility is a WP policy issue ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked at the situation enough to say whether you did anything wrong. (I said to Bradley that if you had a habit of making frivolous reports, we could look into that, but I did not say you had been doing so, and I do not have any evidence to suggest it) Now, even bearing in mind that incivility is a WP policy issue, would I have reported someone over the edit summary in question? Probably not. Me personally, I would have ignored it unless the behavior in question continued. If I reported each and every time someone was incivil to me, heh, well, there'd be a lot more reports here ;) If that's the rudest thing anyone has said about you on Wikipedia, be thankful! (In the <1-year I've been here, I've been called a Nazi, philistine, "shockingly ignorant", a Scientologist, and even a pedophile!!! Dear me!)

The comments I left for Bradely on his talk page were meant for him, and so the words I used were the ones I thought would make the most sense to him. That said, even though I would have used different words if I were addressing you, my central point remains the same: If Bradley feels you are complaining excessively ("whining" in the pejorative), then my advice to him is to try to ignore it rather than to behave in an uncivil manner. And if he feels that he can't ignore it because it is causing a disruption, than he might consider dispute resolution, but he still should not behave in an uncivil manner, even if he thinks you are being disruptive.

FWIW, the user in question (Bradley) has been warned -- indicating he did in fact do something wrong, however minor -- while in contrast, you have not been given a warning -- indicating there is no evidence that you have done anything wrong. I personally would not have bothered to report someone over such a minor civility infraction, but you did, and now the user has been warned about civility. I consider the case closed. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be clear, you did in fact report this in the right place. So no worries there.  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - given what you've been called I'd say that you've the tolerance of a saint ! Perhaps you should be reporting them as they may go on to abuse others ? Should Wikipedia tolerate them ? Thanks for the explanation and clarification. :-) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - Jaysweet is evidently quite tolerant. :) I'd consider myself in the same boat, tho - I don't really care if people call me names, and most of the time I don't bother even replying. You know the old saying about sticks and stones, I'm sure. :) I'd like to believe that more people could be mature enough to ignore such childish behavior - often, ignoring it is the best way to get it to go away, since some people do seem to live just to cause trouble for others.

That said, gross incivility is one reason for blocking people. Bringing your concerns to WQA is a great first step toward resolving the issue, but if it continues or gets worse, you have a number of other resources at your disposal as well. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott

Stale

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott is making comments which breach our policies and guidance. [38], [39], [40], [41], I have tried to raise the matter with the user, but it is escalating the issue, User talk:Ned Scott#Civility and personal attacks. Hiding T 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologized for the edit summary one, and even stopped editing after I made it, realizing I had gotten to heated about it. The last one, [42], doesn't break Wikiquette, so I don't even know why you mention it. As for the other two, I'll agree they broke Wikiquette. I probably shouldn't have said the "fool" comment to you, Hidding, but I stand by my "bullshit" comment to Vassyana. I don't know what you think posting here will do about any of this. -- Ned Scott 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In the last one you state "Don't act stupid". That doesn't seem to assume good faith. I hope posting here will garner outside opinion on the issue. Hiding T 13:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I offer my observations and a suggestion. Vassyana is working on some policy debate which I won't get into, but which is clearly intense for several interested editors. Ned Scott I think has spoken in haste and realises it now. I am satisfied by his apology here and I think Hiding should be too, and not press this complaint further. To you Ned Scott I point out that certain words you have posted are uncivil and could be removed without any loss of the useful points you make. I suggest that you do exactly that. I don't see any policy to hinder one from applying WP:RPA to one's own posts, and to do so would certainly regain for you a high moral ground (and incidentally respect from me). Your good nature will doubtless guide you in this decision. Here is a specific list of the words that you surely can excise:

Bullshit. Thanks for making the situation worse, and sticking your nose in a situation you don't even understand.

Damn it, Pixelface, the adults would like to have a nice conversation now, could you please knock off all the nonsensical ranting.

..you guys have your panties in a bind because..

Jebus people,..

You don't go acting like a fool like you did and remove sections of policy because you're having your period.

Don't act stupid, Percy, you know full well...

It's like you're one of those typo nazis... Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cuddlyable3. These are the points I am trying to get across, but perhaps not doing so as well. I am indeed happy with the apology. All the best, Hiding T 09:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to start a thread here regarding Ned Scott's recent comments but I see this one is open already. In the past three days, Ned has made comments like:

• 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC): "If you guys want to freak out because of some recent discussions on this particular talk page, then get a grip. Wikipedia is more than this talk page, and that section doesn't suddenly lose support because a hand full of Wikipedians have their panties in a bind."[43]
• 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC): "We owe it to the project to consider things beyond this talk page, and to not be so shallow that we flip out right away because of some recent discussion where some people got all pissy."[44]
• 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC): "Your interpretation that he can't start a section heading is moronic"[45]
• 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC): "And for the love of god, the entire point of his restriction was to make him take these issues to the talk page."[46]
• 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "Jesus, what's wrong with you?" and "You have no clue about TTN, do you?"[47]
• 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "I'm sorry you guys have your panties in a bind because there's some users who don't apply things from WP:NOT correctly, and misunderstand what it says. Jebus people, that's been a problem for every single WP:NOT entry"[48]
• 11:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "I'm going to start a list of every time you say something so mind-blowingly stupid and false. Do you think the protecting admin gives a crap about the dispute?" and "Damn it, Pixelface, the adults would like to have a nice conversation now, could you please knock off all the nonsensical ranting."[49]
• 11:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "You don't go acting like a fool like you did and remove sections of policy because you're having your period."[50]
• 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC): "Let me repeat something, since you are having such a hard time understanding it" and "And on a side note, it is shameful the way you are campaigning to drive TTN off the project because of what amounts to a content dispute. Who's next? Will you be supporting a bogus block on me if it suits your needs?"[51]
• 04:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC): "You guys don't even know what you're talking about"[52]

I understand that Ned thinks TTN's recent block was completely unjustified and that Ned has a different interpretation than me of the restrictions imposed on TTN. And I understand that Ned supports keeping WP:PLOT in WP:NOT while I support its removal. I can understand it if he's frustrated. But I think comments like "I'm going to start a list of every time you say something so mind-blowingly stupid and false." and "Damn it, Pixelface, the adults would like to have a nice conversation now, could you please knock off all the nonsensical ranting."[53] are absolutely uncalled for and are a breach of the civility policy as well as the no personal attacks policy. In the past I have said I was happy to have Ned as a fellow editor and fellow human being, but he has lost all the respect I have for him with his latest remarks. --Pixelface (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note, many of these comments are already being dealt with above. I'm not sure we need to quote the full text of the remarks, I believe diffs are all that is necessary. Ned has already apologised above, so I think we can leave it there? Hiding T 09:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Apologized to whom? --Pixelface (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • To the community. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And I stand by most of those above example comments you've listed, Pixel. Most of them are examples of frustrations, but are not necessarily uncivil. Regardless if you've lost all respect for me, I still have some respect for you. Life isn't so black and white that we have to hate someone just because of a few disputes. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't hate you. I said I no longer respect you. If you don't think those comments are uncivil, I don't know what to say. And the only thing black and white about this is you acting like Jekyll and Hyde. --Pixelface (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott I represent the community that you claim to have apologised to. The Wikipedia community can tolerate an occasional expression of "bullshit". It can not tolerate the collateral damage you are causing by sustained incivility viz. the examples we see above. Your intemperate speech deters people from joining a discussion where you take part. That, and not anyone's "hate" that you may imagine, will be the reason for likely administrative action to block you for a while from tainting Wikipedia further with your "frustrations". (I am not an administrator.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean the lynch mob after User:TTN? I don't believe I would feel bad at all if I deterred someone from joining in and attacking a good editor. It really is shameful to try to drive someone off the project because of a content dispute, and that is something that should be said. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No Ned, my post is about the cause stated of this Alert. I believe it makes us all feel bad when anyone turns a content disagreement into personal attacks. Most blocks are temporary and we welcome a blocked editor to return as a good editor. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong (about me), but thank you for your concern. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Bedford

Please see the medcab case. Xavexgoem (from medcab) referred me here as he was unsure the issue fit within the scope of medcab. I have sought a third opinion and the advice of numerous users and this is my last recourse before RfC/U. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Broooooooce (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to add my support for this alert. Its clear that admin Bedford has been violating WP:NPA and WP:CIV. He as also thrown around allegations of vandalism and stalking. This is particularly disturbing and certainly warrants community attention. Bstone (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, you've attacked me on my talk page, lament lament lament on IvoShandor's talk page and continued vile and conspiracy against me at Ivo's and Ruhrfisch's page, even after Ivo had what could be called a temper tantrum. Then, you not just started being active at DYK after this broohaha, a place that I frequently maintain, but became highly active, and started critquing articles when you had no lue of the main rules. And over what? A practice I have engaged in since I've come to Wikipedia three years ago and nobody, repeat nobody, saw a big deal in, even through almost all my work regarding the War of Northern Aggression has been highly visible. Plus, just now you keep adding to a MedCab that has already been closed.--Bedford ^Pray 05:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My additions are placed on that page simply because that is what I have linked here. I had a photo featured on DYK before I ever met you and my decision to seek out new places to be active on here is hardly some sort of evidence to a conspiracy against you. Just because no one has suggested your use of the term was NPOV before does not make it untrue. I have not "attacked" you anywhere. I challenge you to find any instance where I have been less than civil with you.

Furthermore, before I made an error based on an unposted rule at DYK, I had put the OK stamp on other nominations you had made (secretly, I hoped that this would be taken as a gesture of good will). After my unintentional mistake, you said that I needed to learn to read, that I needed to go back to school, you insinuated that my intelligence wasn't of a caliber to make determinations as to the eligibility of DYK nominations, you've questioned my areas of knowledge, my pride in my heritage, you have applied sinister intentions to a plethora of my recent actions without basis, you have accused me of vandalism and even stalking. What gives you the right? What have I done to deserve this aside from ask you to explain your reasoning in the NPOV debate and make an honest mistake on the DYK page (which I apologized for even after being ridiculed for something I had no way of knowing in the first place)? Broooooooce (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to weigh in here and am providing my opinion. I think Bedford and Broooooooce both make valuable contributions to the project and sincerely hope that this can be resolved amicably. In my opinion, the root of the matter is Bedford's steadfast insistence on linking to War of Northern Aggression in his many otherwise fine articles, especially on NRHP sites. As I wrote on Bedford's talk page, I feel this is wrong for several reasons, the most important of which is that it violates WP:NPOV, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Whatever Bedford wants to call the American Civil War on his user page and even on talk pages is his business, but in articles it should be the accepted neutral name. Since Bedford is also quite successful at getting his articles on DYK (for which I congratulate him), this means that these are not POV errors in obscure and seldom seen articles (like what I write ;-) ) but are in some of our most visible work (for the day of DYK anyway). The second most important reason I feel this is wrong is that the link to War of Northern Aggression is a redirect to Naming the American Civil War, not American Civil War (and it used to be a dab). I think not making mistakes on purpose is the zeroth pillar of Wikipedia, as the idea of not putting in wrong information and wrong links is so basic it is just assumed and not stated explicitly. Now I will say that there are certainly times when it is OK to use the term "War of Northern Aggression", but not as a general name for the American Civil War.

In Bedford's defense I will say that he does not revert when others change the term and link, but since he points out he has been doing this for three years, I do not think it is stalking when his new articles get a closer inspection by those aware of the issue. I also think he was wrong to remove the MedCab template when it explicitly says not to. He certainly does not seem to be assuming good faith, and his actions border on incivility.

Since he has read my talk page (and I his) he knows I will file an RfC if he contunues to use War of Northern Agression in articles as a name for the American Civil War. I sincerely hope it does not come to that, and that this is resolved amicably. I think all of the other matters Bedford mentions are extraneous and meant to divert attention from the real problem, his year-long POV pushing which has only recently been discovered. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if Bedford goes around Wikipedia accusing me and anyone else of whatever concspriacy he has dreamed up, my only concern was that the articles he writes (which are good) adhere to WP:NPOV. I can't help but wonder though, what does Harperly Hall have to do with this? Oh, that's right nothing.IvoShandor (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)