Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive90

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Users:97.93.109.174 & 71.12.74.67

These Users are harassing me on my talk page and on Talk:Libertarianism and trying to get me to stop editing Libertarianism because they doen’t like anarchists and are under the mis-impression I am one-not that it should matter. Actually I haven’t edited the article much because a couple of these guys keep me too busy countering their constant WP:soapbox about why there should be no mention of anarchism, including because it allegedly hurts Ron Paul's credibility! This is a similar attack to one I reported at Wikiquette alerts recently by User:Ddd1600. Don’t know if it’s the same person but I would not be surprised if there was sockpuppetry going on. Relevant links/diffs:

a User: Ddd1600 more recent ambiguous personal attack here
Special:Contributions/71.12.74.67 responds with CAROL=ANARCHIST?]
User97.93.109.174 suddenly appears with a lot of questions he demand I answer at User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_V#Libertarianism_3 and

User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_V#Libertarianism_vs_Anarchism.

On Article talk page 97.93.109.174 then demands I stop editing the article because I allegedly am an anarchist.
More harassment on talk page by 97.93.109.174 about me being an anarchist who shouldn't edit the article.

Needlesstosay, this makes it difficult to focus on finding some good new sources to beef up the article and answer some legitimate objections, and to end all the WP:OR editing while both left and right libertarian editors are busy ripping up the lead. Oi Oi Oi! CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As they're anonymous IPs, I've left them both basic WP:NPA warnings on their talk pages; I'm not sure if this will help or not. If it continues, a few escalating warnings followed by an ANI report will eventually solve the problem. If you would like further discussion here, please alert the users about this thread so they can reap anything produced from a discussion. Swarm^Talk 01:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, as I mentioned on my talk page...can you please specify the instance that you felt to be a personal attack? I looked at the page on attacks and none of my comments fell under any of those categories.

The problem isn't that Carolmooredc is an Anarchist. The problem is that she doesn't realize that modern Libertarianism is not the same thing as Anarchism. According to the Britannica article...Libertarianism has its roots in Anarchism...that's it. Anarchism is a minor footnote in the history of modern Libertarianism. Yet the Wikipedia article on Libertarianism leads people to believe that Anarchism and modern Libertarianism are synonymous. Ddd1600 put it well when he said that "To conceptually overlap libertarianim and anarchism is an academic act of treason." For anybody even vaguely familiar with modern Libertarianism...her edits on the Libertarianism page are nothing short of vandalism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Misconstruing people's arguments is also bad etiquette. As I have said over and over again, some libertarians are anarchists and some are not. That is supported by so many refs on the web it seems absurd people would keep WP:Soapboxing about it. But since they do, I'm working on putting in more refs making that point clear. Dealing with constant accusations and demands I stop editing the page just ticks me off and makes me reluctant to edit at all. That's why it must stop. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

i am currently reviewing your sources Carol, "I Must Speak Out: The Best of the Voluntaryist 1982-1999 By Carl Watner p 56" here is the 3rd example you have cited which actually contradicts your argument. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Libertarianism uses some form of the word Anarchism 115 times while the Britannica article only uses some form of the word 5 times. How do you explain that discrepancy? Well, the Wikipedia article is a collection of references collected by an Anarchist while the Britannica article was written by the vice president of the CATO institute...a Libertarian think tank which is the 5th most influential think tank in the world. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This silliness continues with this and this silly harassing WP:Soapbox. At what point does one do a WP:Ani?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And more of it here, with another editor protesting it. Including by User:DarkStar1st whose been off and on with this stuff. Note that I'm not the only one blocking their agenda, just the one who ticks them off the most. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Carol, I think it's time for you to take this problem to WP:ANI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

~~Thanks. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't my imagination.~~ Given similarities of "the message," there's also probably some Sock Puppetry going on too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just realized the diff was another disgusted editor quoting their comments and not them just spewing trash again. But told them how close they came to getting an ANI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

disagree Carol has a rather large presence at the libertarian article. I have ask her to temporarily refrain from editing the article for a week, which she has refused. Her insistence of adding anarchist to the libertarian article has been met with great resistance. the standard response is "soapbox". i suggest whomever says "soapbox" the most, may actually be the guilty party. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: The article has been protected and one sockpuppet has been identified. Hopefully disruptive talk page editing will end. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 2: New editors User talk:Xerographica and User talk:TJ1976 have joined with same POV and same unrelenting WP:Soapbox modus operandi as User talk:97.93.109.174 & User talk:71.12.74.67. At this point they only engage in more general attacks on "anarchists," as opposed to attacking specific individual editors. See their August 3rd edits as an example, or I can provide diffs once they get worse. Please leave this complaint open for a while more. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

[[User talk:TJ1976] personal attacks

It didnt take long for this user, formerly one of the two IPs above (or perhaps one of the other two that briefly passed by Libertarianism, to engage in personal attacks against me. This diff] starts with: IF there is ever to be progress in any form made on this page, it shall only be made through the BARRING of Carol. She is not a shepherd, she is an anti-intellectual nuisance. etc and [1] If we decide on electing Carol as a dictator, by force of course, perhaps the rules might change. Otherwise, no. etc. Somebody besides me put up a warning template. I'd appreciate it. THANKS!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for dealing with that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st

User:Darkstar1st has engaged in endless soapbox-ing on Talk:Libertarianism The comments are mostly off-topic and sometimes simply false. The latest incident ([2]) is changing:

Some writers believe most libertarians share an opposition to equality, solidarity, and social responsibility.^[1] to
Most libertarians oppose equality, solidarity, and social responsibility.^[1]

The edit summary says "removed wordy redundant text".

This article is under strong pressure from some users who "don't like anarchism" or "want to make Ron Paul/Libertarian Party look good", and offer just these statement for demanding that references to anarchism be dropped. This has made editing the article too difficult. For some of his/her others comments check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16 (archived two days back). In particular, check [3] for a small collection of off-topic or false statements by the user.

This complain is related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Users:97.93.109.174_.26_71.12.74.67 earlier on this page. N6n (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have let him know about this mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In case the debate of relation between libertarianism and anarchism spills onto this page, let me point that the second external reference (the "in particular, check..." one) quotes an Encyclopedia making the relationship clear. (but it hasn't helped)N6n (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I probably should have two months ago. At least now the page is protected from Anon Ips with exactly the same soapbox arguments ad nauseum. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

which statement i made was false, your link is to the discussion page, but not specific? i have never used either of the quoted text you paste above. "Some writers believe" does this mean the source is dubious? if so, i am for deleting the passage entirely. the source used the word "most" Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is the statement "most libertarians oppose equality, solidarity, and social responsibility" is the opinion of the writers in that source, not a fact. Keeping "some writers believe" makes it clear it is their opinion, not a fact. A fact is a statement like "the earth's surface is 71% water". You wouldn't need to say "some scientists believe" for that statement. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification, i will add the text to the other passage from the same source. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikitiquette is for complaints about behavior. Discussion of the non-notable opinion from a non-notable source belongs on the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

understood, i will make my reply there. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Three edits by Darkstar1st after the incident I posted originally. All these statements are not supported by the source. (Discussion here--[4].)

"All Libertarians are Liberals, politically": [5](addition), [6] and [7](reverts)
"Most Libertarians are practicing liberalism."(sic) [8](addition)
"Politically, Libertarianism is identical to Liberalism."[9],[10],[11],[12].(addition and reverts)

I don't think these are in good faith. Darkstar1st first quoted "political meaning is not distinguished from liberalism" and when challenged quoted the correct "political meaning is not distinguished from liberalism, generally." (This statement cannot be constructed to mean any of the three statements by Darkstar1st--as is clear from reading the source, and is discussed on Talk:Libertarianism.) N6n (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem like a Wikiquette issue, really. If you believe it's intentional disruption (which I doubt), WP:ANI is probably the way to go. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is called "forum shopping". N6n (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"the secondary political meaning is not distinquished from liberalism generally." could someone please tell me how i can word this so it can be included? the last time i copied verbatim, that was against wp:rules also. very confused. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by annon contributor

Recently I stumbled upon a contributer who continually calls me Bolgarian, my country Bolgaria and so on. While this may sound a little too less to be seeking assistance, there are things that kind of escalate the problem. The annon in question is 94.140.88.117 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). He seems to know his way around the place (Wikipedia, that is) since he has quite some contribs, but I noticed him spelling the name wrongly ([13]). I explained to him the situation with the name ([14]). The result was him continuing to use it in that way [15]. I got the feeling that he was doing it on purpose and that it must be derogatory in Serbian. So I asked him to stop and explained that it sounds like a personal attack (since he already knows I start to find it offensive) plus that I'll treat it like one the next time he posts the word in that way([16]). To make sure he gets the message I posted on his talkpage [17]. I don't feel like being polite anymore since he's clearly doing it on purpose and it does not help discussion (not that he wants to actually participate in any). What happened is that he continued [18], using the word in the edit summary [19] and even posting it to my talkpage [20]. I start taking it as some harassment, but do not wish to escalate it to ANI still since he's obviously toying around. It really destroys any chance of a normal discussion, though. Any assistance would be much appreciated. --Laveol ^T 20:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He is obviously baiting you, and if you want to go further with it, AN/I is the place. However, since he isn't issuing any direct personal attacks, I'm not sure anything will be done. The wisest path may be to not take the bait. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:TimidGuy

Resolved

– I'm closing this discussion since there is currently and Arbitration enforcement request relating to TimidGuy. --Wackywace

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

Things in the area of Transcendental Meditation are once again getting heated. In this edit Timidguy insults my usage of source [21] which is little more than a personal attack.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about User:TimidGuy, not User:Timidguy. User:Timidguy is not registered, but if you file a report here again you must be careful about who you say has personally attacked you. Secondly, that isn't really a personal attack. Could you please explain why you found TimidGuy's remark insulting? WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 10:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are correct it is TimidGuy. Saying someone misinterprets the literature with no evidence of such is a personal attack at least in academia. It is not the first either. Will post further to ArbCom.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Goethean

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#User:Goethean, involving User:Tbsdy lives, User:FisherQueen, User:Ludwigs2, myself and others, with Goethean acknowledging the problem

From the past few days User:Goethean has been indulging in incivility, personal attacks, inappropriate tagging

He added a BLP violation on scholar Francis Xavier Clooney by associating him with roman catholic sx abuse. When he was asked to remove it, he plainly refused accusing me of wikilawyering. This was later removed by another admin, see [22]
He then attacks others as "patently dishonest Indian hooligans"[23]
Calls me "...local zamindar"[24]
Repeatedly accuses every other editor who does not agree with him of bad-faith and as some marketing from the mission, "Ramakrishna Mission marketers"[25], "pimp the Mission's latest offerings"[26] (Its important to note that the book in question was published not by the "mission" but a independent publisher, the BLP violation above was against the scholar who wrote the blurb for this book.)
In violation of WP:HUSH in userpage : Initially he added diffs from users User:Redtigerxyz, User:Ludwigs2, User:Priyanath and myself, and writes "religious people...the most dishonest people"[27] (For those interested, Relevant discussion: Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_7#Outside_opinion) When he is alerted about this, he removes few diffs and later adds : "I reserve the right to speak the truth to liars and cheats." ( Ironically, he is yet to provide the justification for the false material he had added[28] )
He is currently involved in edit warring over inappropriate tagging, using some imaginary rules ( WP:N applicable to WP:RS !? ) [29] [30], even when clearly told on talk :[31],[32] and in edit summaries:[33] [34], he does not respond on the talk page. He was also involved in 3RR violation for inappropriate tagging on the same article before. See : User_talk:Goethean/2009#3RR and User_talk:Goethean/2009#I_just_had_a_great_idea.21 . Its hard not to speculate that the tagging by Special:Contributions/76.202.231.204--[35] is also the same editor.

Would request the admins to look into it, Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Abusive editor

Rick Jens has been using highly abusive language directed personally. A subsection titled Taliban Mulla Editors-Nmkuttiady was added by him full of abusive language like calling me Taliban Mulla editor and comments like The petro dinar funded wahabis need some literature sense. To feed the illiterate who read the outfits daily. Many of his edits are purely driven by emotion without any proper reasoning, like this one. Can someone look at the discussion here? NMKuttiady (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I notified him for you. --Phoon (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience with this editor (here) I did not find him particularly uncivil, but he certainly did a lot of POV pushing (and accusing others of POV pushing while not admitting that he is POV pushing himself. His original story was filled with biases and factual inaccuracies, coupled with lack of experience with Wikipedia. An uninvolved editor should come and give this article a thorough POV edit, and Rick should stop trying to further his position. I would also have some copyright questions about his additions. It seems to me that Rick may not be a native English speaker, and this is hampering communication. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. But my main point is that a talk page subsection is named with a personal attack on me. It certainly doesn't meet Wikiquette . Shouldn't that be changed? NMKuttiady (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick Jens found vandalizing article Talk:Popular Front of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.119.66 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been a little while, but this user has not responded to the problems posed here, despite the fact that he has been active. I will leave a note again at his talk. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This user is found vandalising articles and he use vandalizing and POV pushing words[36]. He is found most intolerant during the discussions. He has requested for protecting the article once he found his POV are not being accepted.He is not responding to the discussions now!. It looks he is playing sockpuppetry of a banned user -- Indiashines (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fiftytwo thirty for the comments. Being a novice in Wikipedia has its own problems as you mentioned. It is not my intention to develop a personal battle. I am only interested in improving the articles where I have good/ through knowledge.

Here, NMKuttiady has taken some of my comments out of context and quoted it as a personal attack against him.

In the said section I was only referring to the generic edits done by few editors including NMKuttiady. I had also given example about the style of editing . The introduction was changed to for committing blasphemy. NMKuttiady claims he has not done that. But the fact is he was editing at that time and the said edit is done by IP address which I have no means to verify where it is from.

Popular Front of India is a notorious organization. A neutral article on Popular Front of India and their activities should capture their violent nature. I humbly request that this effort should not be considered as a POV pushing. Rick jens (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rick, thanks for posting your reply. when you title a subsection as Taliban Mulla editor-Nmkuttiady I don't think there's any scope for it being out of context. It's a clear personal abuse.Period.

All my edits are regularly done in my account and I don't use any sort of anonymity here. Wiki administrators can easily verify it for u upon request. I don't edit anything unless sourced properly and I've been editing the wikipedia for quite some time now. Each of my edits were properly explained in the talk page also.

You and I may have difference of opinions but as long as we stick to the proper sources, there's nothing preventing a good article here. Most of your accusations are of propaganda, publicity stunt etc while you haven't disputed the sources and none of them belong to any particular organization. If you feel the incidents that are properly sourced from standard references are publicity stunts thats your personal opinion and does not make it acceptable for inclusion in the article and not acceptable for being a criterion to decide what should be retained in the article. If your opinion is shared by any major news analyst or expert on a properly referable source, you can append the opinion to the article as an addition. Wherever the article sticks to the references cited, I've retained the content and where they've not I've removed them clearly mentioning the reason. The discussion on the article needn't be dragged on here. The only reason I brought up this here, if external members identify wikiquette violations in your language, it may be rectified in our future discussions so as to maintain a more healthy discussion on this encyclopedia. NMKuttiady (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

First -- a disclaimer -- that I know little about the articles in question, but I do have a few more notes regarding POV. I recommend that all parties look at WP:NPOV and WP:COOL as valuable resources regarding editing civility when in conflict. It appears that all people are talking on the talk page, which is the first step in dispute resolution. It is not going to help facilitate discussion no matter who you are directing attacks to, or who you claim that the people involved are affiliated with, but it will facilitate discussion to just state the facts. For example on the current introduction (Popular front of India), it would not be appropriate to say that "User XXX should not edit this article because they are affiliated with YYY," but instead "The intro seems like it is ripped from the organization's website and is therefore inherently POV." (Which it does) Another example with rick's proposed intro: Not "Rick is obviously against this organization" but instead "Rick's proposal seems like it shifts, but does not fix the POV problems that this article is plagued with." The intro should probobly be none of the above starting with an objective statement, something like "The Popular front of India is a political movement to (Insert five word or less description of goal here, something like "decrease poverty" "eliminate corruption," or "Decrease government spending") in India. Then go on to describe ties to other organizations, and then a brief summary of allegations, "Extremist," "radical" and then discuss the further implications in a later section. My final suggestion would be that all references be in {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, or {{cite book}} templates so that it is easier to identify which sources are reliable. Few statements should be referenced to the group itself, with the exception of History and purpose (and those should be paraphrased, some parts look like WP:COPYVIO.) Overall -- remove personal affiliatons and accusations thereof and focus discussions objectively on the content issues. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator John Kenney

As much as I hate doing it, I must register my protest about the unprofessional and uncivilized behavior of the administrator John Kenney

List of cities proper by population is a contentious article. Many of the list entries do not comply with the definition and scope given in the intro of this list. I had tried to bring certain list items in accordance with the intro. This has been frustrated. This complaint is not about this.

I have engaged in a discussion on the talk page. Lately, John Kenney, who is not an active editor of this article, has taken part in this discussion.

In Talk:List of cities proper by population, John Kenney, who is an Administrator

(There is more, I just gave you the worst ones so far.)

It is trying to remain civil under such a barrage of invectives, but I try. If it would be a regular user, you would not hear from me. An administrator should be held to a somewhat higher standard. An administrator should at least understand the basics of civility. Please let me know whether such a behavior is within Wikipedia policy. If it is, then I will accept it. If it is not, then I respectfully ask that the appropriate action is taken. Thank you. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It is likely you know perfectly well that such behavior is not within Wikipedia policy, but there is no value from taking sides in a wikiquette issue when infrequent, robust language is used. A very quick look at the article talk page makes me think that this is a content dispute and that any WQA issue is minor, and is taking place between experienced editors who should accept that robust discussions will sometimes involve harsh assessments. If terms like "verbal diarrhea" were repeated over a number of days, there would be a WQA problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User in question has been notified.--Phoon (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If the claims posted here by BsBsBs are true then John Kenney is practising more than mere robust language. However, the post by BsBsBs is not yet complete. BsBsBs must provide us with WP:DIFFs that take us to the alleged offences by John Kenney. To find out about harvesting diffs see WP:D&L#How to harvest a diff. It is in everyone's interests for BsBsBs to provide evidence to support the claims so the allegations against John Kenney can be resolved satisfactorily, one way or the other. Dolphin (t) 23:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never done this and am unpracticed. Diffs added. It seems as if the situation escalated. See below. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think BsBsBs and I have made up our wikiquette-related differences (although not our content-related differences) since he posted this here - I apologized for my incivility, and he accepted the apology, so I hope this can be resolved without further action. john k (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to see whether BsBsBs accepts John Kenney’s explanation. John Kenney's apology is HERE. BsBsBs’s response is HERE. Dolphin (t) 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone apologizes sincerely, I'll be the first one to accept it and to make peace, as I did. However, if the apology is insincere and followed by further attacks, my acceptance of the apology is off the table. Today, John Kenney vandalized List of cities proper by population by removing the core definition for the scope of the list. This definition is a United Nations definition and was accompanied by three references. This definition had been there for many months and was never edited out. John Kenney also removed a quote from and a reference to another United Nation publication. The diff is here. The removal was accompanied by a note that says "If I remove the UN definition, does that mean this article is no longer a fraud?"

This appears to refer to falsified and unsourced data which had been introduced in List of cities proper by population. I had made various efforts to bring the data in accordance with the proper sources. These attempts were reverted. After my pleas of WP:SOURCES and WP:OR remained fruitless, I subsequently called the entries "fraudulent" on the talk page of the article. This accusation was never refuted. My main concern is that the uncivil language and the vandalism comes from an administrator. I can handle "robust language" and the occasional vandalism without complaints. I am old enough.

However, we are dealing with an administrator. An administrator should be held to somewhat higher standards. At the very least, he should know the basics of Wikipedia.

This removal of a well referenced core section of the article was not accompanied by a discussion, nor had the definition been discussed at all lately. This makes it vandalism.

As this matter has escalated, this informal forum is most likely the wrong venue to discuss this matter. I would appreciate input on how and where I can report this matter so that it receives its proper resolution. FYI, I put a vandalism tag on Kenney's talk page, mentioned the matter in Talk:List of cities proper by population, however, I did not revert the vandalism. I am concerned that this would further escalate the already untenable situation. Thank you for your assistance. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to follow the long argument on the article talk page, but I have added a comment indicating that I regard a list like this as dubious in terms of synthesis and lack of precision. Normally I would have some internal opinion on who is likely to be "right" on an issue like this, but in this case I cannot even work out what the core of the dispute is. Technically, it is not correct to call the edit you mentioned "vandalism" (see WP:VAND). I know that it is frustrating when material is substantially altered against what one regards as good arguments, but vandalism has a technical meaning on Wikipedia, and the term is not appropriate in this case. Also, the edit summary is not obviously civil or uncivil. The summary should probably not have been phrased in what may be a jocular manner given the tension on the talk page, but given that the talk page appears to characterize some positons as "fraud", the edit summary may be appropriate (I would need at least an hour to study the details to form an opinion). Re the issues: there is a WP:Content noticeboard that you could try. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion that entries in this list are dubious, derived by synthesis, and lack precision (if "precision" is a term to be used in demography.) I had noted this very fact several times. As you said, this is not a civility matter anymore. It has become a matter for another venue. I remain disturbed by the fact that there are administrators who use abusive language and practices to promote their POV. If you consult John Kenney's talk page, you will note that this would not be the first time someone had take issue with the uncivil behavior of this administrator, something which he sometimes even openly admits. Thank you for your help. -- BsBsBs (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea that BsBsBS is in a position to accuse anyone of incivility is outrageous, given that he has been spending the last several days accusing other users of fraud, vandalism, and much else besides. I may have gone over the line at points, but since the original incident and apology (which BsBsBs accepted) I don't think I have made any personal attacks on BsBsBs. I continue to think that he is wrong about this article, but I don't think I've said anything uncivil or made any personal attacks since BsBsBs accepted my apology on August 4. The worst I've done is once saying that BsBsBs was making a pedantic argument and then making a slightly cheeky edit summary when I removed the UN definition from the article. Compare that to BsBsBs, who has repeatedly been incredibly rude not just to me but to other users who have been far more patient than me in their dealings with him. This entire complaint is absurd, given this context. People living in glass houses, and so forth. john k (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks

Resolved

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

On 15 July 2010, User:LouisPhilippeCharles called User:FactStraight arrogant[37] and ignorant.[38] I gave him a friendly warning.[39][40] I urged him to apologize to FactStraight, but all I see he did was assuming bad faith.[41] On 5 August, he called me a hypocrite.[42] I don't seem to be able to explain to him what personal attacks are;[43][44] could someone more pedagogic explain that to him? Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified user involved. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am highly offended! Fair enough I am aware I come across rude sometimes but you have to admit that I am the one that blame falls on if something goes wrong even if I have not done anything! I am always the one who is moaned at for writing something (i.e Mademoiselle de Montpensier) in good faith! Anything I do I have Factstraight or Surtsicna on my back finding fault with the littlest thing! I have every right to defend myself (be it not in the most polite way)! This is so unfair, as well as insulting =[ HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they have been perfectly civil with you, but you called one of them "arrogant", and another a "hypocrite". Perhaps they are getting you for the littlest thing—but attacking them won't help anything at all. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I know! I am one of those people that says things out of anger, It is not meant to be as offensive as they find it! I don't mean it really HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact is, whether you mean what you're saying or not, it is not appropriate to attack other editors like that. I know you're not someone who acts in bad faith. You have reviewer rights. You have created 150 articles. But saying that you are "one of those people that says things out of anger" is not a reason to do so. If you are having an issue with an editor, discuss it with them—they are almost always acting in good faith. I reccomend that you have a read of Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:How to be civil, and, if you mean what you say, you should apologise to both FactStraight and Surtsicna. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 17:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

~~Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one here unable to explain to him that he is not entitled to call people arrogant and hypocritical.[45] Surtsicna (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)~~

Firstly, that post was not particularly helpful. The idea of this noticeboard is to inform editors that what they are doing is wrong, and persuade them to cease their innapropriate actions before it becomes a major issue. Saying that I am not helping LouisPhilippeCharles to stop attacking other editors is counter-productive, and will likely scare him away from here and he will likely continue attacking editors. Secondly, it's not appropriate to say that one can call someone a hypocrite because "everyone is entitled to their opinions", but he wrote that before the issue was raised here. I reccomend that you do not sumbit further evidence of LouisPhilippeCharles's actions before this report was filed unless they are particularly serious. If he continues to attack editors, please do post it here. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 13:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that you were not helping LouisPhilippeCharles to stop attacking other editors. I am sorry if that's what you think my post meant. I wanted to say that he did not understand your advice just like he did not understand mine. Anyway, I made a mistake posting the last message. I did not notice that he sent me that message four minutes before I filed this report. I only noticed it today. Sorry. Surtsicna (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I just hope he will apologise to you and FactStraight, and I hope he learns a valuable lesson from this. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I resent this attack word it is rather OTT I think! Being rude is one thing, attacking is another, I have been the former and I will admit that, but two wrongs do not make a right and the above proves this on both parts! I will apologise in due course HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether you are 'attacking' FactStraight and Surtsicna or not, your behaviour is disruptive to the Wikipedia community. I am glad that you plan to apologise "in due course", but please do it as soon as possible, since I will not close this discussion until you have done so. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry! I will apologise to Surtsicna, myself and him have been conversing outside of this anyway regarding various pages :) As for the other person, I will not; he has accused me of various injustices and had me blocked – so he can politely leave me be tbh HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well then. I've decided to close this Wikiquette alert, as the user has apologised to Surtsicna, and Surtsicna has accepted that apology. In closing this discussion, LouisPhilippeCharles, I would advise you once again to read through the pages I suggested if you have not yet done so, and continue to keep in mind what is unnaceptable conduct when conversing with other users on Wikipedia. Most importantly, you refuse to apologize to FactStraight. This I have no real problem with, as long as you two manage to either avoid one and other or accept each other. I would not like to see either of you here here or at AIV for the same reasons again. If you cannot work together, fine—but it would be a real shame for you two to spend your Wikipedia lives warring and feuding with each other. Equally, it would be ideal for you two to mutually accept each other, but if that is not going to happen, try to avoid hostile language towards each other, or if that doesn't work, talking to each other at all. But please, please, do not continue to make a bad relationship worse. Regards, WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 16:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Incivility by WoodchuckRevenge

I have had several incidences with WoodchuckRevenge. It started with his vandalism of the American Pickers page. The following is the dialog on his user page following that incidence.

American Pickers

Please stop vandalizing this page. The two characters are not a homosexual couple and if they are they have not released any infor saying otherwise. The next time you change this I will report you to an administrator.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC). Are you Frank Fritz or something? How about getting a username. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC) How about you change your smart ass attitude that you are using around here? I don't want a username, nor do I have to get one.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Glad to see your a classy user who's only been blocked multiple times and curses on his user page. Grow up, Clown! --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC) And you call the things you do classy? I can't help what someone does on an ip address. IP's change you know. IMO you should have been blocked along time ago for uncivil activity.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC). I have reported you to Jpgordon for uncivil remarks and libelous comments on the American Pickers page.76.177.47.225 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Oh no! I'm so scared! >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The following is the dialog from Jpgordon's page:

Hi, I and others have reverted WoodchuckRevenge twice for libelous comments on the American Pickers page. He has accused the show's two cast members as being a homosexual couple. I made a comment on his page about this and warned him that I would report him. Of course, I receive a very uncivil comment back. Could somebody please cools this guy's heals.76.177.47.225 (talk) "Accuse" implies a suggestion that one is guilty of some wrongdoing. Since I think most people agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay, you might want to rethink your wording. However, you are correct that the statement does not belong in the article unless it is germane and verifiable per the notions contained in WP:BLP. x-posted to User talk:76.177.47.225. Taroaldo (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with being gay and that wasn't my intent. I love the show and they have made many hints that they are a homosexual couple. I will wait till a source presents itself before editing that page again. But if we want to talk about being uncivil. Take a look at his comments to me on User_talk:WoodchuckRevenge#American_Pickers and comments he's left on his own talk page User_talk:76.177.47.225. >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) First of all, I'd rather edit by IP than user name. I picked that IP up the day that this started. I did not make those other comments. Second, it is accuse since he is saying they are something they that have not verified as being. Frank has mentioned his girlfriend in several episodes, has been photographed hosting wet t-shirt contests, and both are life long friends since childhood. When you say that they are a homosexual couple without proof you are being accusatory. Why? Because this has everything to do with their careers. This has nothing to do with gay being a bad word as Taroaldo implies. If they lost their tv show over an implication such as this, then in the court of law you could be held liable for making this libelous statements. Third, your snarky attitude is what has started this. I simply ask you not to do this and you come back with a smart ass answer. I ask you to stop again and I get accused of this and that and another smart ass comment. The proof is on your page. I am getting closer to believing that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to hook somebody into a disagreement with you. I have notice intently how you seem to choose your words carefully, snare someone, then double back and make yourself look like gold. I am also starting to wonder if you and Taroaldo are sockpuppets.76.177.47.225 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) If you review my comment, you will note that I support your position that the material should be exlcuded. Taroaldo (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Hi. There's no reason for this conversation to be on this page. Bye. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Who is the one starting the argument? I really don't care what an "IP" thinks. Get a username and then we could tell if those were your comments or not. And if History dropped their show because they were gay, they would sue the History channel for discrimination and win big dollars. Especially if they used Wikipedia as their source. Every 2nd grader should know not to source Wiki. So please, just scram. I have a great history of edits. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

My concerns are as follows:

1. I tried to resolve the issue only to be told basically to scram. 2. I tried to alert an administrator to no avail. 3. I am being told by an editor I have no valid complaint since I am using an IP address to edit. Yes, my IP has been blocked, however, I am on an open network so I have been caught in the misdeeds of others. 4. Woodchuck has demonstrated uncivil actions to others as is evident on his user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.47.225 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Are "the misdeeds of others" total garbage "edits" like this and this? So many atrocious edits - were these made by others on your open network, and not you? I don't see how you can call another user a "vandal" with your editing history. WoodchuckRevenge seems like no angel, but his history looks "slightly" better than yours. What would you like to see happen with this thread? Doc9871 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - This IP has been tossing the term "libel" around (including, "If they lost their tv show over an implication such as this, then in the court of law you could be held liable for making this libelous statements.") Also, see this edit summary[46]. Yet, perversely, the IP has no problem replacing Michelle Rhee's name with "Absolute Bitch"[47], defending his action with "That bitch is destroying lives for her own personal gain." See: Libel. This IP has clearly demonstrated that he or she is more trouble than they are worth. I think this thread should be closed as "ill-conceived", and a closer look be taken at 76.177.47.225. Jus' sayin'. Oh, and Woodchuck really should stop telling editors they "smell" in edit summaries[48][49]; not good practice. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, being that I didn't personally make those edits I don't think I can personally be held accountable. However, as far as the libel, I just made a general statement to Woodchuck concerning what he was doing. In fact I have gone so far to make a username in order to appease everyone. I just want his heels cooled. I was being nice to him until he started verbally abusing me.76.177.47.225 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't make the edits? Who did? Better yet: which edits are "yours", and which are those of "others" from this IP? Doc9871 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Being that I am on an open server, I have no clue. I can tell you the edits that I made in the last two weeks that were mine, since that is the time that I have apparently been editing from it. I made an edit on The Unit, KnightsoftheWhiteCamelia, KuKluxKlicken, whom both I found when one edited a comment I made, apparently they had utilized this same IP at during the week because my IP got blockd after I reported those two users and KuKluxKleagle on JimboWales user page, and edits I made on American Pickers, WoodchuckRevenge and Jpgordon.

I am honestly not trying to cause trouble. I have made many ip edits over the last 4 years. I just find Woodchuck's behavior a bit repulsive and he seems to be playing the field. He get's snarky with me, then makes a sweet smelling comment to established editors and admins about how he regrets his behavior and will not vandalize again, then comes right back at me with something snarky. I find that a bit ingenious.76.177.47.225 (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So, all prior edits to this were someone else? This same IP made six previous comments on Jimbo's page before then, you know. Your geolocate shows Georgetown, Kentucky. Do you edit from a school or library, perhaps? Doc9871 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am taking the geo locate info down out of privacy. As far as where I edit from, I will only say that I am using a wireless connection and others have access to it and it is not a schools or library.76.177.47.225 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Every computer has it's own IP address even if they are all used on the same wireless. >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the geolocate data. Wikimedia privacy policy warns that if you don't register an account, information may be derived from your IP regarding your location and possibly your identity. It recommends registering an account if you wish to avoid this. In case you didn't know, there's a geolocate link at the bottom of every IP editors contribs page. Any editor can find out where you are if they are curious. Yworo (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@76.177.47.225 - You shouldn't refactor another editor's comment ~~- I'm not going to undo it, though~~. So only the last two weeks are you, with all prior edits being other users, correct? It's worth checking out, as the history of this IP's edits before this point are clearly terrible. I appreciate that it is very possibly not you prior to August, and if it isn't: I sincerely apologize. With 85 total edits to the account, I'm not seeing the pattern you describe concerning WoodchuckRevenge's behavior towards you, admins, etc., BTW. One recent disagreement, and no "sweet smelling" comments that I see. You need to provide some diffs to show specific examples of possible misconduct... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How can we really know what edits are "his" and what aren't? I urge this user to create a user name and then we'll know if he's legit or not. That IP has a really bad history. I've never come close to doing anything like that. But about this case. My first comment to him on my talk page was a joke and he snarls back saying "how bout you change that smart ass attitude?". Quite frankly, I could have taken him to wikiquette, but I don't tattle tail over silly stuff. However, based on his profanity there, how can we believe that he hasn't made all those vandalistic edits he claims someone else did. I believe he's hiding behind his IP. >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure of the "new username" mentioned above might help clarify things, as well as any of the IP's used over the last 4 years of "many edits". I guess it's not always required: but it's certainly "nice". 76.177.47.225? Little help? Doc9871 (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that he is the sole editor on that IP. Look at the response I got after my Frank Fritz comment. User_talk:WoodchuckRevenge#American_Pickers Still using profanity, not being civil himself. Furthermore, this editor has a hard time signing his comments. Sometimes he doesn't sign his comments at all. Notice the last comment on my talk page was unsigned. Now look at his talk page and notice the "bitch" comment is unsigned as well. I don't buy this multi-user explanation. I'm sorry, I just don't. The proof is in the pudding. The continued profanity, the continued sassiness, the continued issues being able to sign posts properly. However, if 76 creates a username and creates a good record on Wiki, then I will give him the benefit of the doubt. If he doesn't and he continues to harass me or if I see him harassing others, I will bring a case against his much worse actions. Do the right thing 76! Thanks! >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Systematic personal attacks from User:Gun Powder Ma

Resolved

– for now at least. Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) blocked 48 hours for continued hounding of Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs). Details on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Gun Powder Ma has been systematically engaging in personal attacks against me and other editors. Against me (this is counting only recent attacks): 1 2 3. Older examples of attacks: [1 Against other editors: 1 2 3 4 I request admin intervention for this editor to stop making personal attacks.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is only a lame attempt at retorting. Teeninvestor is currently object of a RFC/Teeninvestor in which his continuing incivility and immature use of language has been criticized by many users. Specifically, he is noted for Unfounded accusations of personal attacks.

However, he himself likes to dish out mightily: "hypocrisy" and "lying". The user's odd perception of things has been aptly summarized by Nev1 here. I am all for civility and mutual respect, so I too request admin intervention for this editor to stop making personal attacks against other users. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, because we know an off comment about hypocrisy is equal to claiming another editor is an ethnic propagandist/mental problems, right...Teeninvestor (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

While I've seen civility problems in the past with GPM (and taken administrative action as a result) these latest diffs don't seem to be too much of a cause for concern. Aside from these two editors sniping at each-other, edit warring and wiki-hounding each-other (which really needs to stop), I don't see a continuing civility problem based on these diffs. Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to resolve a dispute with said editor 1 have been completely ignored and have invited just further attacks. I for one have tried to resolve or minimize the dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: I've accepted the olive branch with open arms (1) until you started the next round of allegations (2). There are many users who think that you have been systematically edit-warring and bullying others over an array of articles. This unconstructive behaviour is actually at the core of the problems. Canvassing selectively other users is another. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the users I "canvassed" were editors who were previously involved in the discussion. And when I stated "hypocrisy", I wasn't aware that GPM was the editor involved. However, it was an off remark in an edit summary; it is not as if it was a vast series of personal attacks trying to discredit another editor. If said editor was really respecting the petition and not just trying to find a reason to break it, this would be nowhere enough to start another wave of personal attacks.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, you only notified a single user, Intranetusa, who happened to share your view, but 'forgot' to notify the other users which also took part in the discussion on Talk:Roman metallurgy: User:Peterkingiron, User:Peterlewis and User:SteveMcCluskey. Such a move may be appropiately called either dishonest or uninformed, but in either case this disregard for WP procedure, which you have shown over and over again, is problematic. PS: I notified these other users. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What a lowball attack, it's clear I notified User:Peterkingiron as shown here. 1. Caught lying, GPM? The 2 other editors made 1 comment on the talk page and I barely noticed them. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not see that, my notification which predates your immature comment above, shows this ([50]). As for your failure to notify the other two editors, it is not up to you to make a selection. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So are you going to admit your claim above that I failed to notify user:Peterkingiron is completely and utterly wrong?Teeninvestor (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, I have no problem admitting a mistake. That leaves you, however, still "completely and utterly wrong" to not notify User:Peterkingiron and User:SteveMcCluskey. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I just show you above that I did notify User:Peterkingiron? GPM, behaving wrong is one thing, lying in front of black and white evidence is another. I've shown above that I did notify User:Peterkingiron. Do you dispute that? If you do, we can take this to any uninvolved admin, I can show him the diff where I notified him, and we'll see what happens.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeez, so you notified User:Peterkingiron, but you still failed to notify User:Peterlewis and User:SteveMcCluskey... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

both of you seem like reasonable, productive editors to me. would it be possible to write this off as no fault on either side? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps avoiding each-other would be good for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have proposed to GPM to renew the olive branch petition. I hope he accepts.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Allegedly abusive administrator Dougweller

I am Jeremy Main, former editor Jel, and a part-time researcher in history working alongside Professor Laura Smoller of Arkansas University, the world's leading expert in mediaeval cosmology, particularly focusing on the work of Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly. Cardinal d'Ailly's cosmology was a principal inspiration of Christopher Columbus, who used d'Ailly's Imago Mundi as a planning document for the Indies expeditions. He was also a chief inspiration for Pope Eugenius IV's views on the Eucharist, which were a signficant influence in his commissioning of Prince Henry the Navigator's exploration of the African coasts, and through his follower Cusanus, "Eugenius' Hercules", of Kepler and modern astronomy. As I wanted to discover more about Prince Henry's relationship with the Pope, to reconcile an ostensible contradiction with other positions the Pope took, I enquired in the area of the Portuguese School of Navigation and discovered the question of Columbus' ancestry is an open question in Portuguese academic circles. It suggests a further relationship between the Order of Christ and Columbus, coherent in the alacrity he took to d'Ailly's collected works when they were published in the 1480s. As this was somewhat ground-breaking, I looked at the Wiki page on Columbus for a quick reference check, and onwards to the Orign Theories page, in search of details of his education, which appears to have been minimal as a child, but was extensive in his later life, at least sufficiently to be able to follow the cosmological thinking which through Cusanus inspired Kepler, coming to a similar conclusion. The balance between the two memes is, or should be, that the main page should display the orthodox history, and the subordinate page should address the quandry. However, on examining the [page], I discovered a bad-tempered dispute between administrator/ajudicatorDougweller and a new editor, Colon-el-Nuevo, who was presenting a fairly central version of the Portuguese theories as his own work. I do not know his identity, but I do know that what he has been saying is representative of a school of thought in Portugal, not simply that of one man, whether or not he is at the root of the school. The root of Dougweller's position is the same which caused Larry Sanger to depart, an administrator who knows nothing about the subject attempting to overrule experts. I therefore attempted to call the disputing parties to order, even providing a discussion area where the protagonists can debate their cases without making a mess all over the discussion page, but Dougweller turned on me and has become insulting to me as well, in public to boot when I asked him to talk to me in private. He refuses to see past his disdain of Colon-el-Nuevo and to hear that others appear to share his opinions to greater or lesser extents, which after all is the object of the meme, Origin theories. I am therefore referring Dougweller's behaviour to this meme with the request that he be banned from moderating historical subjects, that an independant authority be appointed to tidy up the mess and that Colon-el-Nuevo be corrected in his thinking. I do not feel I should take that task on, because I have posted what amounts to OR in the domain as a possible reconciliation of both schools of thought, and because I am not sufficiently authoritative in the main subject to form a definitive position: I am and remain open to guidance on the question, if properly documented.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? SnottyWong ^speak 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of informing User:Dougweller about your comments here, which you neglected to do (and it is required). SnottyWong ^babble 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I had already notified him that I would formalise a complaint if he did not seek an amicable resolution in my earlier posting on the Debate page. I was in the process of doing so when you went straight down my throat within three minutes of my posting the complaint. If this is the standard you use, you're inhuman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, three minutes is the time it took for SnottyWong to post "Huh" above, notify Dougweller, and post here to inform you of that. The time it took you to not post a notification on Doug's page was actually 30 minutes, not 3. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And the time it took me to review the discussion and find no personal attacks or civility issues (other than the use of "inhuman" above) was.... oops, 4 minutes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I have taken a look at the page in question and I don't find any evidence of "bad temper" or "abusiveness". Dougweller made reasonable efforts to draw the attention of other editors to appropriate areas of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or dissemination of bits of academic research/writings/findings which lack the appropriate verifiability. The ramblings of some individuals in the talk page also seem indicative of an attempted POV push. I find this claim of "abusiveness" against User:Dougweller to be spurious. Taroaldo (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Tara then, pointless exercise, the talk about a mafia is correct. Another academic will now join the list of rubbishers of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, bye. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I find this a bit bizarre. I certainly don't think I insulted him, and claiming he's been insulted and then calling me a muck-raker, as he does at WP:Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, is ironic, don't you think? (I'd appreciate it if someone would clean up the last bit of the talk page, which doesn't help the article at all). I'll also note that the 'new editor' is a recent account but has been around for about 2 years as an IP continually trying to add their OR. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There seem to be a lot of odd things about the edits from those IP addresses.

To Mr Jeremy Main: Are you sure that Jel (talk · contribs) was the account you used to edit from?
That account has been used to edit Wikipedia, somewhat sporadically, from 2004 until early June this year. There is no indication on either the user page or the talk page of the account that its owner has retired from editing Wikipedia, or that he or she is anything other than an editor in good standing.

A notice on the user page of the account says that its owner is Northern Irish, whereas you have said (here) that you're English.

You have a fairly distinctive writing style which seems to me to differ substantially from that in the edits made from the account Jel (talk · contribs).

I have left a note on editor Jel's talk page suggesting that if they are not responsible for your edits, then they might like to make that fact known here. On the other hand, if that account is yours, you should still be able to log on to it and confirm that it is. Assuming that it is, could you please do this, or at least explain why you can't.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. It would appear that Mr Main is not "the former editor Jel (talk · contribs)" but the former editor Jelmain (talk · contribs) who used to use the signature "Jel".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This guy has a screw loose. Check out the message he left on my talk page. It seems like he's trying to invite me to collaborate with him off-wiki in an attempt to overthrow tyrannical admins. SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks by User:98.108.211.71

Resolved

– Warning issued. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

While possibly a well-intentioned attempt to encourage other editors to address policy, this IP user communicates in a string of put-downs: "your comment is extraordinarily stupid", "nitwit" and "what a stupid assertion", "gits", "stop being a dick", "clueless", "clueless morons"[51]. The vast majority of this editor's comments include some kind of personal attack.

Even the comments without outright insults are often gratuitous condescension in context. E.g. weeks after an innocuous comment from a new editor 98.108.211.71 jumps in to bellttle him/her. At best such behavior accomplishes nothing; at worst it provokes a fight; in most cases it will probably just foster animosity.

In short, 98.108.211.71 needs to stop framing his/her contributions as though he/she is spoiling for a fight. 129.67.151.47 (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone who contributes to Wikipedia should be aware of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. The fourth of these is Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. This is non-negotiable and is binding on all who contribute to the encyclopedia. The person at IP 98.108.211.71 is not observing the fourth of our five pillars. He (or she) is resorting to name calling and other potentially offensive language - the diffs have been provided above. Dolphin (t) 12:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

Resolved

– complainant withdrew

Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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

MickMacNee (talk · contribs · block user) has been carrying a debate with several other editors concerning the naming of 2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash on Monday's crash of a small airplane which killed a former Senator.

The root of the problem appears to be his disagreement with Wikiproject Aviation's naming conventions which resulted in some comments which are less than civil at best and outright hostile at worst: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. It's pretty clear that this editor knows he is being incivil and doesn't' care: [61]. This editor already has an impressive block logs and this username is scattered across this and other administrative notice boards. A recent reminder about assuming good faith on his talk page was placed and was quickly and dismissed by this editor.--RadioFan (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what your problem is here, and neither do I see any incivility, just a normal disagreement about the proper name for an article, which seems to have been resolved now anyway Have you come here to demand some kind of a punishment for an editor you've disagreed with? Malleus Fatuorum 12:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. MickMacNee is pointlessly abrasive, but there is no real incivility going on. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Normal, civil discussions dont involve labeling other editors contributions as "bollocks" or "crap". This beyond abrasive. For the record, all this occurred before I joined the discussion in question. To answer Malleus's question, I brought this here only after leaving a stern reminder about civility and tone on MickMacNee's talk page which he dismissed. Other editors in the discussion in question see this as incivil, MickMacNee himself seems to acknowledge that he's being incivil but frankly doesn't care.--RadioFan (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The diffs provided do not show "outright hostility", really. Even, "The general consensus seems to be, if you don't know what a Turbo Otter is, you are a stupid moron." is generic, and not remotely a personal attack to a specific editor... Doc9871 (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. I just trawled through each and every diff and I struggled in most of them to even find the specific part that I'm supposed to take exception to. The best I could say about the other few would be: "no: that diff isn't sanctionable." TFOWR 13:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What you actually did was to send an automated Twinkle vandalism warning to an established editor with over 20,000 edits. Now that's what I call incivility. It is not your place to issue "stern reminders" to anyone, and quite frankly I think that MickMacNee's response was no less than your posting deserved. Malleus Fatuorum 13:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing the notice to MickMacNee that you've opened a discussion on this board? I could be, but I'm not seeing it.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'm wrong. Looks like the editors here approve of how MickMacNee is conducting himself in discussions. Consider this resolved then.--RadioFan (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of what I said. In my view the diffs you provided do not show incivility or anything warranting sanctions of any kind. That's really not the same as "approving" someone's conduct. TFOWR 13:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, the consensus here seems to be that MickMacNee's interactions with other editors on the talk page in question was civil and no further action is appropriate. I and other editors dont agree. We'll leave it at that.--RadioFan (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Gonads3, where did he gone wrong?

Resolved

– Thanks for the positive and contructive comments. I shall act earlier in future and try not to just continually ignore. Thanks again. gonads³ 17:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Gonads3, that's me. I'm involved in something that should never have happened. I seek advice as to how I can avoid this kind of confrontation in future. I guess I'm reporting myself for allowing this happen.

Initial discussions started here.
as well as here.
and here.

It's a lengthy discussion, but it should be considered as a whole to make any sense of it.

I've tried to put my point across but failed dismally. Whenever the chance to move on arises, the same issues keep arising.

I'm troubled by the outcome, especially as my actions were, I believe, in good faith.

Any help would be greatly appreciated as I do not want to get into a dispute of this type ever again. It's too much. Thank you. gonads³ 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Gonads3, what exactly do you want to happen here? I see plenty of "tit-for-tat" spatting between you two. By reporting yourself, you've apparently offered yourself up as a "martyr"; this rarely "flies". Please respond, as this thread should be closed pretty soon as "Stale"... Doc9871 (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Gonads3: See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. For feedback on your own actions, you can try Wikipedia:Editor review, although you might not get any feedback. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reponse - I'm only seeking suggestions as to how to avoid getting involved in a dispute like this again. I'm relatively new, it's my first dispute and I want it to be my last. I've no desire to be a martyr, just to understand how better to avoid this type of thing. As for what happened, essentially I tried to engage the editor in a discussion on the article's talk pages. The user didn't seem to want to do this ,for reasons I do not know, and things just escalated. I was under the impression that this was part of the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution process. Perhaps Wikipedia:Editor review is the way forward but will I just be ignored. gonads³ 19:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't avoid getting into disputes - they just happen. Civility and compromise are usually the best things to consider, no matter who you're dealing with. It's tough sometimes, but it's part of "the deal". Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WQA *is* a part of the dispute resolution process for incivility. But step one of it is "Ignore it". Try that. :-) Don't get angry, don't bite back. If it persists, *then* bring him up to WQA, but still don't bite back. And don't bring it up until he actually is calling you names. Just being uncivil and making ad hominems will be ignored because it's starting to get borderline and nobody wants to be involved with that. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I should have done that earlier. They were being uncivil by using insults and the like. I did ignore, perhaps for too long. gonads³ 07:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think rather that the suggestion was you ignore it longer, but as you didn't include diffs, but just linked to the discussions as a whole, perhaps there are thing I have missed. Also, you should probably stop trying to act like a martyr, it isn't helping. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you feel I'm acting like a martyr, who's persecuting me? It isn't helping what exactly? Answer please to my talk page. Thanks. gonads³ 18:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Newbie biting and incivility by Kintetsubuffalo

Resolved

– I asked Kintetsubuffalo to stop biting newbies. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo seems to resent participation in Wikipedia by persons who are knowledgeable in the topics of the articles that they edit. In this edit, he could have explained that edits should cite sources that can be independently verified and why articles should not be written in first-person. Instead he characterized as "vandalism" a contribution from a reader with knowledge of the topic.

In this edit, he rudely dismissed a comment from a person with expertise in the topic of the article he edited that had been falsely characterized as "vandalism" by another user. That user has not returned; Wikipedia lost a conscientious contributor.

Once I asked him why he had put a "personal essay" hatnote on an article on a topic in my field of expertise. He responded only that it looked like a personal essay. Since it didn't look that way to me, I asked on his talk page specifically what in the article look that way to him. He deleted my question from his talk page with an edit summary that said "deleting the putz edits".

At the top of his talk page he has a notice that says he is often taken to task for his malefactions but one should "cut him some slack" because he is an experienced editor, and tries to attribute that to Jimmy Wales. The context in which such a comment can make sense does not include planning months in advance to behave badly before one knows in what situation one will do that.

He expresses the view, at the top of his talk page, that one's "talkpage which is [one's] own playground to do exactly what [one] wishes". That does not make sense. If I have a concern or question about someone's editing practices, I will post it to their talk page without asking permission, and so does everyone, and that is as it should be. They're not private property; the idea that they are conflicts with their purpose. I am a far more experienced editor than he is, but I don't claim exemption from norms because of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

He is biting newcomers, and he shouldn't. He also should explain why he does reverts. Unexplained reverts is only OK for obvious vandalism which definitely is not the case in what you mention here. He does do a lot of edits, so mistakes in some of them are understandable, though, but I think he should be more careful. Probably he should take it easier and not be so hasty in his edits. He comes over as lacking in respect for others, but I don't see any actual incivility, and I don't think any action is needed. It would be good if Kintetsubuffalo would agree to improve on these points. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it not uncivil to accuse someone of vandalism merely because the person so accused has exceptional knowledge of the subject matter of the article? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not the reason. You are misrepresenting what happened, and failing to assume good faith. I stand by what I said above. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

He did in fact accuse two newbies of vandalism when there was no valid reason to do so. Is there something you take to be the reason he so accused them, that conflicts with what I said above? If not that they are knowledgeable about the subject matter of the articles they edit, could it be just because they are newbies? If so, that is also uncivil. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

He did in fact accuse two newbies of vandalism when there was no valid reason to do so. - Correct.
Is there something you take to be the reason he so accused them, that conflicts with what I said above? - Yes. You *gave* a reason. A reason that is obviously incorrect.
If not that they are knowledgeable about the subject matter of the articles they edit, - There is no reason to believe that this influenced him, nor in fact any proof that they *are* knowledgeable outside their own claims of being so. And that's not how Wikipedia works.

Kintetsubuffalo's reverts were perfectly fine. But instead of explaining to the newbies, who doesn't know what they are doing is wrong, he just slaps a template on there, and calls it vandalism. That's wrong. He should stop that. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, we agree that he should stop biting newbies. I don't see how my hypothesis is "obviously incorrect".

I think he should have accompanied his reverts with edits summaries saying an independently checkable source should be cited and use of first-person pronouns is inappropriate rather than merely the boilerplate "revert" summary, and he should have explained those two points to the two newbies rather than making false accusations against them. Both apparently left Wikipedia after those dishonest accusations were made. Both could have made valuable contributions.

In fact, it is likely that instead of just reverting, some editing to alter pronouns and some "citation needed" tags would have been a better way to proceed.

Indeed there is no evidence that those two newbies were knowledgeable in those areas, except the quite substantial and credible evidence that you mention. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

except the quite substantial and credible evidence that you mention. - Which is exactly none whatsoever. You won. I would recommend you to drop the WP:STICK. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do think the fact that they appeared to have special knowledge of the subjects is relevant here. The evidence is that they both asserted as much with considerable specificity. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

...but I agree that this was properly resolved. One may hope that that user will pay some attention. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"The evidence is that they both asserted as much with considerable specificity." - You need to read WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael, you've already brought up many of these points just a few days ago at this ANI discussion. You keep rehashing the same infomation and accusations and it gives the appearance of holding a grudge. Instead of shopping your concerns from one board to another, perhaps you should consolidate all of your grievances at RFC/U and see if others believe it is a problem also? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It had been suggested in that earlier discussion that this page rather than that one was the appropriate place for those concerns to be discussed; that is why some of the issues raised here are the same ones raised there. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Consistent incivility and personal attacks by User:Unomi

Resolved

– User blocked indefinitely --OpenFuture (talk) 07:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, Unomi (talk · contribs) has a problem with me, and apparently feels the need to express that problem with incivility and personal attacks. I don't know if the problem extends to his interactions with other users, but his interactions with me are always disruptive. He occasionally shows up at discussions I'm involved in and makes pointed comments, although I don't think it would be fair to characterize his behavior as wikihounding at this point. I also can't say that my reactions to his incivility have always been exemplary, however for what it's worth, I can say that any perceived incivility on my part has always been in reaction to a blatant insult that I did not deserve. I think Unomi needs to learn to hold his tongue, or if that is not possible, he needs to avoid contributing to discussions in which I'm already involved. I think I need to learn to just ignore his comments, and not take the bait. We've actually had very little interaction overall, but all of the interaction has resulted in some kind of unnecessary insult. Here are some examples I've found of his comments towards me:

I would appreciate any comments the community has about this situation, as well as any advice on how to proceed. Thanks. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Unomi is clearly frustrated and as a result has resorted to some intemperate language, even though the intemperate language will achieve nothing except make Unomi feel a little better. However, in my view Unomi has not breached Wikipedia's Code of Conduct to the extent that disciplinary action needs to be contemplated.

I think the best way forward is for Snottywong to recognise that Unomi's conduct has not been unreasonable (although it hasn't been perfect either.) There are some other Users who would be much more abusive in the same circumstances. It would be good if Snottywong recognised that his contributions to Wikipedia are sometimes frustrating other Users. He should attempt to comprehend what it is that is frustrating others, and should try to contribute in a way that is entirely constructive and compatible with the style and objectives of the other Users. Dolphin (t) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fire back and annoy him more, simple enough. --A3RO (mailbox) 00:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree, I think Unomi's conduct *has* been unreasonable, and needs to be told to calm down by some person with authority. The diffs above are all angry rands full of personal attacks. Obviously anyone can get angry, but it still isn't acceptable behavior. The personal attacks are not just uncivil, but clearly in the "name calling" category. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The user in question has been notified of this discussion, but has decided to delete this notification from his user talk page. SnottyWong ^speak 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

..which he is perfectly entitled to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed he is. I just didn't want anyone mistakenly thinking that I failed to notify him about the discussion. SnottyWong ^confer 17:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take Unomi's lack of response to this discussion as an admission of guilt. If the behavior continues in the future, I will take it to ANI. SnottyWong ^confess 15:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I am not involved in this issue, but I found this edit summary by User:Unomi on Recent Changes. Given the sensitivity the issue of suicide may have to some editors, I find this to be a particularly egregious violation of WP:CIVIL. Taroaldo (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that one was a little too much, I agree. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef, and told to request unblock when he figured out _why_ he was blocked indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerzeykydd

Resolved

– User has been warned; if further problems arise, consider taking the issue to ANI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Recently an editor posted a request for assistance at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Issue over election Infobox which related to a content dispute at the article United States Senate election in Georgia, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I offered a third opinion at the article talk page, which was met with this comment by User:Jerzeykydd, which I consider to be completely uncalled for. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Totally uncalled for. But one insult is not likely to get anyones attention. Best thing to do is to ignore it. If you don't want that you can ask him to stop on his talk page, and in fact User:Hysteria18 already done so after that insult. So nothing to do here.--OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre for defamatory and offensive comments

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

At 06:05, 14 August 2010 The user Sceptre was blocked for 24 hours for calling me "Nazi Scum" after being previously told to curb personal attacks.

Even after getting a block he continued to make very offensive and defamatory comments against me.

At 06:47, 14 August 2010 this editor made the following two extremely offensive and defamatory comments against me

1] "an editor with a demonstrably anti-Semitic bias" - I consider it hate speech and highly offensive to accuse an editor of being racist when there is no evidence of it.

2] "demonstrably pro-conspiracy theory bias to the Nazis" - I consider it hate speech and highly offensive to accuse an editor of being a Nazi when there is no evidence of it.

At 07:04, 14 August 2010 , not content with the above offensive comments the editor Sceptre then made the following comments against me

1] "Have to be careful not to insult the pond-life"

2] "I have to defend calling an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist a Nazi,"

I am highly offended at being called 'anti-Semitic', a 'Nazi' and 'pond life' . And what's clear and shocking is that the editor Sceptre made these FOUR instances of hate speech within an hour of being blocked for the same. No one should have to put up with these kind of attacks for editing Wikipedia.

I have notified the user of this report here

Vexorg (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm not going to bother with this thread. I think WQA is just a place for people to gripe about other people who have been a bit mean to them. I should note that given his editing history, especially this edit, the terms "anti-Semitic" and "conspiracy theorist" are entirely appropriate. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, Although I don't even recall offering any conspiracies, I haven't complained about being called a conspiracy theorist. But being called 'Anti-Semitic' when there's no evidence of it is highly offensive. The edit the user Sceptre has cited above has also nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Someone not knowing the meaning of terms for racism is no excuse to go throwing them out at other editors in a defamatory manner. My complaint still stands, especially as Sceptre is still continuing to make defamatory accusations above. Something which shouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit appears to support Sceptre's contention that you "offer conspiracy theories" ~~(which you appear to accept)~~, rather than the anti-Semitic contention. TFOWR 13:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As said I'm not complaining about being called a conspiracy theorist. It's no insult. Racism on the other hand is disgusting and it's highly offensive to call someone such without evidence. Vexorg (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment "The edit the user Sceptre has cited above has also nothing to do with anti-Semitism". Indeed, it does not. I was explaining why Sceptre posted the edit. TFOWR 14:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that both Sceptre and Vexorg have just come out from under civility blocks for personal attacks on each other, so I don't think that this thread could lead to much more than further mutual recriminations. I am not familiar with the editing history that led to this dispute, but I have to say that I found the diff provided by Scepter is quite startling. To blank a redirect from "Al Qaeda's attacks on September 11, 2001" -> September 11 attacks with the edit summary "deleting page. no evidence of such" is certainly indicative of subscribing to some pretty radical conspiracy theories and fringe views. Nsk92 (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments I was blocked for were ".seriously irrational or at least seriously naive. Can you actually explain yourself?" - which as you can see nowhere near the level of personal attack calling someone a racist and a Nazi. There's nothing radical or fringe about questioning the official theory on 911 and even if it were it's nothing to do with racism or being a Nazi. And frankly it's quite irrelevant. What is startling is that someone can continue to make personal attacks while already on a block for making the same personal attacks. The editor talk clearly hasn't respected his block whatsoever. Vexorg (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Although there is no evidence of Vexorg being anti-semite, nor "pond-scum", it's also obvious that making a WQA for angry comments done by Sceptre just after he got blocked is completely pointless, and only aimed at making him more angry. Baiting is also not allowed. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not make this WQA to bait anyone. I made this WQA because I am highly offended and Wikipedia is not the place where people should be allowed to continue to make defamatory and offensive statements. Especially when they have just been blocked for the same. Surely you are not excusing [User talk:Sceptre|talk] just because he might have been 'angry' ? Vexorg (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishment, but preventative. One of the way this works is to allow people to calm down. You are not allowing Sceptre to calm down, and hence, you are baiting him. You both have a history of personal attacks, as your block logs show, so I think you both should step back and cool down. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would remind you that I am not responsible for the mood of Sceptre. And in this case you also wrong in that stating blocks are preventative. An blocked editor is not prevented from adding to the their user page and thus a block does not prevent an editor from making personal attacks. Your logic speaks volumes about your bias. I am the recipient of several personal attacks by an already blocked editor yet you are pointing the finger at me negatively for making a complaint about those attacks. <sigh> Vexorg (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And I would remind you that you are responsible for your own actions, and that you aren't making any friends by baiting people. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) He's been blocked, but not from editing his own talk page: it doesn't appear to be warranted. "Incivility": certainly. ""Hate speech"? This isn't a "war crimes tribunal" - or is it? What can be done, in your opinion, to make this right, Vexorg? Doc9871 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As it turns out, there is a current ANI thread related to this dispute, WP:ANI#Vexorg on Criticism of YouTube. There are some diffs there that appear relevant, particularly these two[62][63]. The first of these removed the qualifier "the anti-semitic hoax" in front of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"; the second edit argues that Zionist Occupation Government is not an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. These edits are indicative of holding anti-semitic views. Calling some-one a Nazi is certainly incivil, and Sceptre has just served out a block for doing that. Nsk92 (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"One can not the heavy influence the Zionist Movement has on Western Governments without hating Jews." I'm sorry, but that sentence just doesn't make sense. Vexorg? It's your quote, and your thread... Doc9871 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Zionist Movement is a political ideology and not mutually inclusive with anyone being Jewish. Most Zionists are Christians at any rate. That quote should read ""One can recognise the heavy influence the Zionist Movement has on Western Governments without hating Jews." - FWIW I think racism stinks and what equally stinks is pulling out the race card against anyone criticising a political movement. Vexorg (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

When one takes an antisemitic conspiracy theory and replaces the word "Jew" with the word "Zionist," it remains an antisemitic conspiracy theory, and I cannot see that the edits cited above can by any stretch of the imagination be considered as resembling "criticism of a political movement." Whether or not you consider yourself to be racist is irrelevant; I think that the diffs above show that describing you as "an editor with a demonstrably anti-Semitic bias" is not offensive, but accurate. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard so much utter rubbish. NOTHING in my edits show that I have any prejudices against the Jewish people and they never will. When I mean Zionist I mean Zionist,and I certainly haven't replaced 'Jew' with 'Zionist'. It's extremely disingenuous to pull out the race card to accuse those criticising Zionism of being racist. Cordelia Vorkosigan you should be ashamed of yourself. Very offensive!! Vexorg (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And also largely irrelevant. We don't care what opinions people have, it's the edits they do that count. Wikipedia:Don't_call_a_spade_a_spade --OpenFuture (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And those edits show a demonstrable anti-Semitic bias. Even so given the emphasis on saying "Zionist". (c.f. "states rights") Sceptre ^(talk) 16:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No they do not. Sceptre you should learn the difference between 'Zionist' and 'Jewish'. Vexorg (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Deleting the factually true description that The Protocols is an anti-Semitic hoax (which it is: it's anti-Semitic, and a hoax) is evidence of anti-Semitism in itself. And you've inadvertently proven my point with that reply; like how "states rights" is often seen as a code-word for racism, "Zionism" is often used to disparage Jews without directly disparaging them. The emphasis on the distinction between the two phrases is a common argument with people who use either term. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You comments are erroneous. You need to wake up and realise that Zionism does NOT speak for all Jews and stop pulling the race card on anyone that criticises the Zionist movement. People should be allowed to criticise Zionism without incurring hideous accusations of racism. Zionism is NOT a race. You should also learn the difference between a pre-judgement ( prejuduce ) and a post judgement ( postjudice ). Anti-Semitism is a prejudice and is thus abhorrent. Criticising the Zionist Movement, a movement that incidentally doesn't hesitate to castigate even Jews who speak against it ( coining the disgusting term 'self haters'), is not a prejudice it's a postjudice and is perfectly legitimate. Maybe your offensive comments towards me are born out of ignorance to these issues. If so I could be sympathetic to your offensive and erroneous claim that I am anti-Semitic, however there is still NO excuse for the Nazi or Pond Life comment. Vexorg (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the "pond life" comment, for anyone who's confused, is a bait-and-switch comment. It's like that episode of Firefly where Mal comments that calling Badger a "psychotic lowlife" was an "insult to the psychotic lowlife community". Sceptre ^(talk) 14:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no confusion Vexorg (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Have the parties considered taking a temporary but voluntary break from the dispute? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Both of these editors have long block records, and need to rethink their style of contributing. Figureofnine (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Comparing S's positive contributions to V's positive contributions suggests that judging the merit of an individual WQA by the length of the block logs of the editors involved is not a good idea. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The point I raised wasn't as a means of judging the merit of an individual WQA, and I don't think Figureofnine raise the block log entries for that reason either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. I just feel that these are active contributors, they have gotten into heated disputes in the past, and perhaps they should take a break from this one. Figureofnine (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think a voluntary break is going to happen, as they clearly are more interested and getting angry at each other than listening to anyone. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in getting angry at anyone. I am interested in keeping Wikipedia free from hate speech and the vile pulling of the race card for any comment that might show the Zionist Movement to be a bigger movement than it likes to show itself as. Don't forget I was called 'anti-Semitic' by Sceptre for expressing an opinion that, based upon available evidence, Al-Qaeda didn't commit 911. That shows there is some weird logic floating around in the political ether. Vexorg (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You are exactly as guilty of weird logic yourself. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
"Exactly as guilty?" C'mon. The edits that Vexorg has been making express a POV that could be reliably sourced as antisemitic. And IMO it takes a heck of a lot of gall to call what Sceptre said "hate speech." This is not the first time that I've seen Vexorg baiting an editor, and it looks to me like he's driven at least one productive editor away from the encyclopedia 1. However, I do appreciate that you're trying to diffuse the situation (which would be over, I think, if V would walk away from this), and end the thread. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
"Exactly as guilty?" - Of "weird logic" yes. Or maybe I should have said "at least as guilty of weird logic", but that's nitpicking. Claiming that a POV can be reliably sourced as anti-semitic is plain nonsense. If Vexorg says he is not anti-semitic, but an anti-Zionist conspiracy theorist, we have to believe him. Sceptres comments were inexcusable and he was blocked for it, so stop trying to excuse them. I suggest that both you and Vexorg drop your respective wp:sticks. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The show's over? I want my ha'penny back... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. It is a consensus view of mainstream reliable sources that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Zionist Occupation Government are anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Subscribing to these theories is a hallmark of being anti-semitic, and Vexorg's edits[64][65] indicate that he does. Scepter was blocked for calling Vexorg a Nazi, not for saying that Vexorg is anti-semitic. Nsk92 (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
That they were created with anti-semitic intent does not make anyone falling for them anti-semites. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, it does. Not only were these conspiracies created with anti-semitic intent, subscribing to them is considered, by consensus of mainstream reliable sources, as anti-semitic. In the case of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, denying that they are an anti-semitic hoax is and has been for quite a while one of the signature anti-semitic views. Nsk92 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You can't read his mind. If Vexorg says he is not anti-semitic, but an anti-Zionist conspiracy theorist, we have to believe him. Drop the stick and back away from the discussion. It was dead before it was even dragged in here, and now it's starting to smell. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with reading minds. Lots of people who are anti-semitic claim that they are not and some of them even honestly believe it (the same is true for any other kind of prejudice). As usual in these situations, what matters is if particular specific views to which someone subscribes are considered anti-semitic by mainstream reliable sources. Denying that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an anti-semitic hoax is a signature anti-semitic view and everybody who subscribes to that view is anti-semitic, whether they themselves acknowledge it or not. Regarding dropping the stick - I could make the same suggestion to you. Nsk92 (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to know what errors there is in your reasoning, ask on my talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning is perfectly sound and if you insist on challenging it, you must do so here. I am willing to drop a great many sticks, but there is absolutely no way I am going to drop one regarding the denial of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being an anti-semitic hoax as bona fide proof of anti-semitism. Hell is going to freeze over before I drop that one. Nsk92 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, then don't bring it up with me because if you do you'll end up dropping it. Your errors in reasoning are off topic for this discussion, so I will not bring them up here. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You still insist on insinuating some errors in my reasoning, quite without foundation. And this is not off-topic for this discussion, it is rather on topic. Whether or not an accusation that someone is antisemitic constitutes a personal attack directly depends on whether that person, as expressed by their edits, subscribes to anti-semitic views. That is very much on topic here. Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. If he tells you he isn't anti-semite and takes offense to being called an anti-semite, then calling him an anti-semite is a personal attack, no matter if you think you know his opinions better than he knows them himself. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Nsk92. The characterisation of the Protocols as an anti-semitic hoax is well-known; trying to rehabilitate it is, quite simply, prima facie evidence of subscribing to anti semitic beliefs. There are, of course, other possible explanations for the edit: maybe Vexorg's finger slipped, maybe space aliens took possession of his brain and edited the article in his sleep, or maybe Hamas terrorists broke into his house and forced him to make the edit at gunpoint. But "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", as they say, and when I see someone wandering around Wikipedia removing the word "hoax" in front of a reference to the Protocols, then frankly the burden of proof instantly shifts. Nandesuka (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no extraordinary claim here. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

~~I think that both sides are forgetting Hanlon's Razor.~~ One shouldn't discount Hanlon's Razor. Unomi (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Unomi (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As the Wizard said, I'm not on anyone's "side". But given that Vexorg has marched in here and expressed outrage that someone could possibly think he is an antisemite, then it's my duty to observe that that may be because he made exactly the sort of edit that committed antisemites make. If you cover yourself in feathers, waddle everywhere, and shout "Quack! Quack!" then you can't be taken seriously if you complain when someone mistakes you for a duck. Nandesuka (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Calling somebody anti-semite or racist or nazi or asshat or ignoramus or stupid etc are personal attacks. It does not matter if it's well deserved or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does matter. If someone makes a racist remark, bringing them to task and saying that the remark is racist is not a personal attack, but a factual statement. Similarly, calling someone a POV pusher is not a personal attack if the facts justify it (but they do have to justify it and the burden of proof is on whomever uses the term "POV pusher" to justify the accusation); and, almost invariably the POV pusher will deny being a POV pusher and in most instances probably believes it. It is the same with being anti-semitic: if someone makes an anti-semitic remark or an edit promoting an anti-semitic conspiracy theory, it is not a personal attack to point that out; and if there is a pattern of such actions, it is not a personal attack to call the editor in question anti-semitic. Nsk92 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're the missing the entire point here. Calling someone who removes the factually true statement that The Protocols is a hoax, and has a history of anti-[synonym for Jewish] edits besides that, an anti-Semite is a simple observation. There are generally two types of anti-Israeli editors: people who are opposed to Israel for political reasons, and people who hate Jews. The default assumption is that an editor with a demonstrable anti-Israeli bias (and, with the Arab-Israeli conflict being as grey-and-grey as it is, that's no easy feat) has a political reason for doing so, which can be corroborated with the editor's statements about their politics or editing history outside the topic. But there are tell-tale signs that an anti-Israeli editor has an animus against Jews, such as subscribing to historically anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (The Protocols, ZOG, maybe holocaust denial), but, more obviously, the insistence that they're not anti-Semitic, they're "anti-Zionist". While it is true that there are genuine anti-Zionists who bear no ill will towards Jews (some anti-Zionists are Jews), it's a classic obfuscation technique to appear more cultured or less racist. Even Martin Luther King Jr recognised that fact (see: [66]). Compare it to pro-segregation rhetoric in the guise of "states' rights", or the British National Party using "indigenous Briton" to mean "white". It's not a personal attack if we can demonstrate it to be true, and we have done far and beyond what would normally be required. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that his edits show an anti-Semitic agenda, you can pursue that through dispute resolution. Figureofnine (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see this thread has now only become an excuse to continually call Vexorg names. I suggest we archive it, nothing useful can come out of this. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

POV pushing in Oom Yung Doe article

Hi all.

User:Cjim63 has been pushing a negative POV in the Oom Yung Doe article for quite some time; he's used grossly misleading summaries of genuine facts, made up facts, falsified sources, and refused efforts at meditation and other conflict resolution (and now more or less refuses to take part in discussion on the talk page). Most recently, he made this edit, adding some valid information about a new lawsuit against the school, but also adding several dishonest statements, for example:

In 1989, Pam Zekman produced a series for the local Chicago area WBBM-TV station alleging misconduct by the school, much of it shockingly criminal (including violence, threats, and coercion against students of Oom Yung Doe, violence against students and instructors of competing schools, blatant financial fraud, and murder). Controversies continued in this area continued with charges brought against Kim in 1989 by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois and Kim's conviction in 1995, eventually leading to the shutdown of schools in that area (continuing to this day).

The actual fact of the matter (which the current state of the article reflects) is that Pam Zekman's report was largely untrue, no charges were ever filed for the criminal offenses she alleged, the Attorney General's 1989 case (for financial misconduct) ended with a settlement of a few thousand dollars, and John C. Kim's conviction and the shutdown of the schools was based on a later charge of conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Cjim63's summary, though, leaves any sensible reader with the impression that the much more serious allegations were demonstrated in court and led to the shutdown of the schools.

Diffs for some other random similar misconduct (I have more, but this post is already going to be longer than usual):

Here Cjim63 adds a citation to "POWERLines Chicago Magazine" to the statement "In fact, the effectiveness and credibility of the Oom Yung Doe style and its senior members are often viewed as highly suspect by other members of the martial arts community." Upon further discussion, it developed that the cited article was unlikely to exist at all, and Cjim63 made no attempt to defend its existence. The statement was removed (after several reverted attempts).
Here Cjim63 describes a former instructor who had "recently left the organization" who was murdered. When more information was added to the article (that he had left the school seven years earlier, and had been involved in the use and sale of cocaine at the time of his demise), Cjim63 added the statement that "there had been communications between Ludden and Oom Yung Doe instructors just prior to his disappearance." Attempts (1 2) to determine the exact source behind this statement failed, and eventually the entire section was removed, as no one could make a convincing argument that it had anything to do with the school.

Cjim63 is a member of what is effectively a hate group about Oom Yung Doe (which they call "Moo") -- here he is replying to someone who talks about "fat lil' effeminate Kim" and requests that Wikipedia be updated. There are other choice quotes in the thread ("typical Moo cowards, probably practising Moo-meditations for penis growth", "truly disgusting vermin"), but in general the group hates the school, believes several incorrect things about the school, and wants to spread the "information" they believe (including posting it to Wikipedia). His Wikipedia account seems to be an SPA.

What can I do about this? So far I've simply been discussing on the talk page, reverting things that are inappropriate, looking up sources when they don't seem likely to match the cited statements, and suchlike, but that's now been going on for years. Because of what seems like a lack of good faith (refusal to discuss, dishonest sourcing, misleading summaries, and some edit warring), it's also frequently more difficult than it needs to be (e.g. when I track down a source and find that it doesn't exist or doesn't say anything remotely related to what's claimed). I'm not sure if WQA is the right place for this, but it seems to me that blatant, repeated dishonesty like this obviously crosses some sort of line. What's my next step beyond reverting inappropriate things and attempting without success to open discussion?

Subverdor (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In my experience these sorts of problems are very difficult when there is only one editor on each side. There are behavior issues here, but fundamentally this is a disagreement about facts and sources. When disagreements of this type are one-versus-one, they are usually intractable. The only solution that works is for more editors to get involved -- and even that only works if they all come down in support of one side. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So I should recruit a bunch of other Oom Yung Doe people to join WP and get involved in the discussion? :-)

I'm joking, I'm joking, I really am one hundred per cent joking. I've actually asked other people not to get involved because I don't think it would add anything to just increase the volume of what I'm saying by having some other people saying it too.

Partly getting other (neutral) parties involved is what I'm asking for here. If I could get some other eyes to say "No, you're deluded, Cjim63 is just trying to present the truth and you're browbeating him for it" or "Yes, this is very dishonest of him and he shouldn't be doing it" it would make things easier. The thing is that it's very hard to discuss facts and sources when one side isn't presenting things honestly. Am I really obligated to indefinitely keep looking up sources, finding that they don't back up the cited statements, having Cjim63 enter radio silence when confronted with this, and eventually removing the dubious statements myself?

Subverdor (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't touch a martial-arts-school-related dispute with a 10 foot katana; I suspect that many other people feel the same way. You might have better luck at WP:BLPN. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, people tend to have strong opinions -- let me tell you, discussing what was going to go into the "Quality of Training" section (which does still exist in the article for some reason) was a lot of fun. It's like having a sports team article with an "Are they a good team?" section. :-)

Anyway, thanks for your input. Subverdor (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to be more of an article content issue, perhaps with a user engaged in inappropriate edits, then one of personal attacks mandating use of this page. Figureofnine (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The content issues are not terribly difficult to solve -- generally Cjim63 doesn't attempt to dig in his heels on really absurd changes any more (though there's been a problem with that in the past). However, he's still around making attempts to slant the article every once in a while, and it seems transparent to me that he's planning to continue this indefinitely (with the apparent knowledge that the way he's presenting things in the article is dishonest). I would point to WP:PUSH: "Accounts which use Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of advocating a specific agenda at the expense of core policies and consensus-based editing should be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator." He's certainly engaged in several of the behaviors listed in that article:

They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme. (Special:Contributions/Cjim63)
They attempt to water down language (diff)
They revert war over such edits.
They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. (diff)

Subverdor (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe bringing this issue here tends to present my conduct and edits in an unfair light. I would invite anyone who is interested in considering my character to inspect my edits and the way in which I have related to other editors on the archives of the Oom Yung Doe talk page. Indeed I do have a different opinion from Subverdor. However, I have done my best to hold myself to a high standard. On the other hand, I believe the WP:PUSH could be used to describe subverdor's conduct as well as mine (note his/her edit history and first edits) all in order to present a somewhat dubious organization under the very best possible light.Cjim63 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to bring more drama, but here is the response to subverdor I put on the Oom Yung Doe talk page. I don't know if 100% of it will make sense, but I suppose it is relevant.

Subverdor, I don't like going through protracted debates with you because I feel it results in lots of drama and less in the way of results. I believe you use wikipedia policy as much as possible to get your way and are willing to dedicate more time and effort to this sort of drama than I am interested in investing.

How about if I ask a few questions?

Why is the Robert Ludden material removed? I know your reasons that you stated before, but I don't think those reasons are any good. The material is well sourced. Many, many sources say that the schools were being investigated because of a possible link with his death. So why isn't it there?
I haven't had a problem with removing several items from the article that are negative that aren't sourced as well because I am OK with the negative aspects of OYD being held to the highest standard. So why is it OK for so many "non-primary source needed" sources on the article? What proof is there, for example, that OYD actually teaches Ju Jitsu, Hapkido, Kong Su, etc.? I suspect that many ju jitsu practitioners would not agree that the material being taught is very similar.
When I and other editors have reverted vandalism, why do you refer to it as "edit warring"? Note your own statement on SamIamOnFire's page here. There was no reason for either myself or Jmcw37 to view these edits as anything other than vandalism. Indeed, while I am sort of OK with the removal of this material since nothing came of it, it was very well sourced.
Why do you point to WP:PUSH when a brief look at your edit history suggests that barring a little dabbling in other pages that you are a prime example of that very issue?
Why do you go to wiki etiquette when I make well sourced edits? Note that most of the supposed POV edits that you had a problem with are material that you originally wrote yourself cut and pasted.
Why do we make authoritative statements like "students describe substantial benefits including self-defense skills, mental and physical health, and improvements in conditions such as asthma and diabetes." when only some students say that while others cite the damage it has done to their bodies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyzfckRW8Ck
Since when has an unnamed source, referenced by Jennifer Vogel saying the following: "Students' say-and even the school's critic's admit-the Chung Moo program is rigorous, and that it includes some valuable martial arts skills. "I'm paying $4,800 to get to black belt," says first-year student Chris Newcombe. "That's twice what other school charge. But what they teach there is 10 times more than what they teach at other schools." been an authoritative statement on the rigor of training?
Why did you assume that I was making edits in bad faith (ie making up information) with regard to court records and legal documents? I recall that you got after me quite a bit until I posted them on wikipedia but felt no obligation to obtain them yourself.

In summary, I am afraid that it is the wikidrama that makes me less interested in having these sorts of long discussions and not because I am not interested in discussing my views with others. I suggest that it is wikidrama because even though I have written this long piece, and read the newest wiki etiquette alert you put out, I don't think the article will be improved.Cjim63 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Timtrent

Recently, there was an article that was nominated for deletion. The article was deleted. As I was trying to improve the article. I made a number of relevant redirects and wikilinked other articles to the article that had been AfD'd.

As I said before, the article was deleted in July. However, User:Timtrent (aka Fiddle Faddle) is now hounding me on my talk page, and has in fact issued a shot across the bow and threatened me for a perceived offense. Mind you, these threats came weeks after the article was deleted.

I really don't think I did anything wrong. I've asked Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle to stop bothering me 2x, but this seems to egg him on. I'm asking a neutral party to intervene. Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You asked him to leave your talk page on 4 August here[67], to which he quickly responded[68]. Nearly nine full days later, you responded[69]. Now this report; three days later yet. Are you seeking a block of User:Timtrent for hounding? What should be done here? Doc9871 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like him to stop posting to my page insisting that I've done something wrong. I'd also like him to stop threatening me. Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

None of Timtrent's posts were incivil and none amount to anything even close to wikihounding. WP:WQA is the wrong venue for bringing these kinds of content dispute complaints. If you feel that an admin action is required, you should have reported it at WP:ANI, not here (although in the case of your particular complaint I would advise against it). Nsk92 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I will let my contributions record and that of the complaining editor stand for themselves. I have no interest in this matter and will take no further part in it. If the complaining editor behaves in what I view as a disruptive manner in the future I will take similar actions again without hesitation. I see this very much as Lady Macbeth. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. So what happened here is as far as I can see:

Philly jawn made incorrect redirects to an article that doesn't exist and shouldn't exist.
Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle reverted these, and explained that it was incorrect on Philly jawns talk page.
Philly jawn seems to not understand that this was wrong.
Timtrent says he is going to report it if it happens again.
Philly jawn tries to preempt this by reporting Timtrent instead.

What Timtrent did wrong: You didn't need to bring up vandalism immediately. You said you treated it as good faith edits. Then you should explain what was wrong with the edits. What you are doing now is saying that you treat it as good faith edits, but your comment clearly shows that you don't actually believe it to be. The comments was unnecessarily confrontational.

What Philly jawn did wrong: 1. Redirecting to an article that doesn't exist. 2. Reporting Timtrent when he has done nothing wrong.

I can't see that there is any outside action needed here. Timtrent: Be nice. Philly jawn: Your article was rightfully deleted. Accept it and go on with contributing to Wikipedia in better ways. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

With one exception, I agree with OpenFuture. The one exception is that Philly jawn did nothing wrong in reporting Timtrent to Wikiquette alerts. Any User is encouraged to report any action that he or she considers is in breach of Wikipedia's code of etiquette. If that User is reporting an action that is not a breach of etiquette the WQA community will point this out, hopefully with an explanation of why it is not a breach of etiquette. Conversely, if that User is reporting an action that is genuinely a breach of etiquette the WQA community will do what it can to educate the offender and provide the User with support and encouragement to continue contributing to the encyclopedia.

Philly jawn was genuinely offended by some of Timtrent's actions, for the reasons given above by OpenFuture. It is much better that Philly jawn brought his complaint to WQA, rather than taking direct action against the offender as some Users do. Wikipedia is a learning process for all of us, all the time. Hopefully both Philly jawn and Timtrent have learnt a little by this exercise. Dolphin (t) 11:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a point of information. At the time that I made the redirects, the articles existed. What bothered me was timtrents characterization that I was being disruptive or acting in bad faith. Also, after i made declaritive staements that I wanted to be left alone, I was still harassed. That attitude continued here. Philly jawn (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by user 7mike5000

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

– moved to WP:ANI --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to go about reporting this as the instructions were a bit confusing, but I'm running into a conflict with user 7mike5000.

This began when I undid a significant amount of text he added to the Smoking article. The edit he made was this: [70]

I undid this and in my edit summary pointed toward the talk page of the article (I wrote, "undone -- see talk page"), providing an explanation here: [71]
7mike5000 then reverted to his edit, stating "Something called an edit summary/ try using it": [72]
I then reverted that here: [73] , stating "The edit summary is on the talk page -- I'm invoking the 3-revert rule until issues resolve."
7mike5000 replied then replied to my explanation with this: [74] , a somewhat less-than-civil tirade. Notice the part at the bottom which reads:

Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page (Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user.

I then responded with this incensed reply: [75]
7mike5000 then responded with some taunting and insults: [76] He also added that I hadn't included an edit summary on my first removal of the text, which I had -- I even preserved a copy of said text for discussion on the talk page. I did not respond.
7mike5000, not content with this latest tirade follows up with this: [77] which included more personal attacks. I did not respond.
7mike5000 then decides to continue ranting on my talk page, here: [78].

7mike5000 has repeated demonstrated such behavior on other articles and towards other users. A history of just that which has been reported could be found on his talkpage, before he deleted it: [79] and replaced it, ironically, with this: [80].

That's what has transpired since this began. The details of the dispute are covered in uninterrupted form here: Talk:Smoking#Section_on_Depression_vs._Suicide and here: User_talk:TeamZissou#.22_consider_keeping_your_edit_summaries_a_bit_more_civil_instead_of_venting_your_anger.22 TeamZissou (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 1: I added a notification template to 7mike5000's talk page, per the WQA rules at the top of this page. TeamZissou (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 2: I added a notification of this WQA to the bottom of the discussion on the Talk:Smoking page, here: [81] TeamZissou (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 3: I just learned 7mike5000 nominated an article I started ( Sherman Trap) to be merged into Animal trapping (here: [82] and here: [83], though he didn't sign this. The article was one of my first back in 2006 and therefore wasn't done well, but it's been there for 4 years, and it is significant in that the Sherman trap is used and mentioned in the majority of small mammal studies and ecological surveys involving small mammals. My hasty links to sources added to that article in light of this are to demonstrate this trap's unique place in its own article just like Pitfall trap and Malaise trap. Given the timing and his comment on this article, 7mike5000's nomination for this article would seem to be motivated by our recent conflict. TeamZissou (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 4: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page:

Bulliform cell (changes here: [84])
Plastic Utopia (changes here: [85])
Geomys (changes here: [86])
George IV Bridge (changes here: [87])
Henry E. Dixey (changes here: [88])
Norderoog (changes here: [89])

While further references and citations are always good, all of those articles are legitimate and have been in valid, verifiable standing for a long time. Other editors have expanded articles like George IV Bridge, Norderoog is a place mentioned in North Frisian Islands and Brown_rat#Diet (it's the site of several important animal studies), Bulliform cell has been rated as High-importance by WikiProject Plants, etc. -- It is obvious the 7mike5000 is only doing this to harass me in light of his false claims that I deleted his contribution without an edit summary -- I gave him much more than a summary, and now he's merely retaliating. Can I please get an Administrator to look at this? TeamZissou (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 5: User 7mike5000 has gone through and done the same to these articles I started as well to harass me: Acylglyceride linkage, Bathyergus, Dear enemy recognition, Robert Linssen, Lupinus nootkatensis, all given "verification" tags -- he's likely doing this to set up moves to delete all these articles. Many of these have been reviewed by their respective WikiProjects, verification is easily done by doing a quick google search -- 7mike5000 is not tagging these articles in good faith, and it's clear he's not doing it to improve Wikipedia. TeamZissou (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here, not just Wikiquette, and clearly administrator action is needed. That is unusual on WQA, so I think you should move this to AN/I. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you have already, in fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Binksternet

I have been involved in an ongoing dispute over the Susan B. Anthony List page for several days now, since 27 July. User:Binksternet has engaged in edit warring but has taken some steps to resolve disputes on the talk page. However, he has been engaged in WP:HOUNDING for some time:

Keith Fimian: I did an extensive overhaul of the page, which was riddled with POV and unsourced information. Binksternet came along on 29 July and undid several edits I made to the page. 1 2 3
Alice Paul: User followed me to this page and edited it within hours of when I did. No undos, but it's clear he followed me to inspect my edits.
Dede Scozzafava: User undid one of my edits within eight hours 1.
Karen Clark Sheard: User again undid one of my edits within hours. 1

Perhaps the most damning evidence of hounding is the fact that the user had never edited those pages before, at least not in the last 500 edits of each page.

User's edits on those pages may have been merited/constructive. But it's clear that the only reason he ever would have gone to those pages is because he was tracking down my edits and inspecting them.

Lastly, I would like to apologize for an edit made under my username to user's talk page -- I did not make the edit, it was someone in my house who knows of the situation and did it under my name when I was away from the computer to be funny. I reverted the edit.

BS24 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING states that wikihounding is characterized by "joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." You yourself admit that Binksternet's edits to the articles in question have been constructive. Therefore, it is not wikihounding or harassment, nor is there anything wrong with his behavior. Your edit history is out in the open, for anyone to see and use as they see fit. If I come across an article where a user is making a lot of questionable edits, I will routinely check their edit history to see if they are making questionable edits to other articles as well. And if they are, I will go to those other articles and correct them. There is no "rule" that says you can't check someone's edit history and make constructive edits to articles you find there. Since there is no apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress, I don't see a problem here. SnottyWong ^yak 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clearheaded explanation, SnottyWong—you nailed my position exactly. When I run into an editor who has made what I consider a detrimental edit to an article on my watchlist, I will go to that editor's history and check on other work, to make sure the Wiki is getting high quality edits. I fully admit to making edits based on my viewing of other editors' histories, but I have never done so for the purpose of disruption or harassment; only for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia.

I first ran into BS24 on July 27 after noticing that a fellow Oakland, California article editor, User:Critical Chris, was getting a stream of vitriol on his talk page about his work at Keith Fimian, a politician. Chris and I have crossed swords before, and we have worked together with good results, so I wanted to go see what he was up to with Fimian; see if he was advocating a fringe position or a neutral one. I found his work there to be entirely worthy of the wiki, so I joined in the editing of that article to make certain that Fimian's public political positions were getting mentioned rather than hidden, and the same with a minor run-in he had with the law while in college. I am certain the article improved in the process.

I have examined more articles than shown in the list above, but BS24's work stands up nicely in the articles I looked at but did not join. Again, I want to emphasize that I am not trying to harass—not out to discourage BS24 from editing—there is plenty of good work that this editor does. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"I did not make the edit, it was someone in my house who knows of the situation and did it under my name when I was away from the computer to be funny. I reverted the edit."

Really? Then if someone in your house knows how Wikipedia works (and give out a sarcastic barn-star) then he/she should know that this is considered a bad faith edit. Why do you think he/she would want to spoil your good standing at WP?? Jrod2 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh... I had intended to ignore the sarcastic barnstar, but now I think I will display it with my others. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

SnottyWong, I said his edits may have been constructive, I just don't think they were all made in good faith since most of them were undos. I apologize for my frustration; it's just very frustrating that most Wikipedia editors are undeniably liberal, and it seems anyone who tries to make it more fair towards the conservative side gets shot down by established users who have been around for years. Any edit by a conservative, constructive or not, is treated with far more scrutiny. This may or may not have been Binksternet's aim, but it is still incredibly frustrating. Also, CriticalChris's edits to Keith Fimian were not "worthy" of the article. He openly admitted on the talk page that he was going to fill the page with POV. One needs only to look at the horrendous state of the article before I edited it to see the liberal bias that was accepted by editors, where Fimian was slammed for each and every statement and position he takes. BS24 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Any perceived liberal/conservative bias on Wikipedia is only just that: your perception. Wikipedia is based on the concept of neutral point of view, which means overly liberal/conservative viewpoints are never allowed. If you are working on an article that you believe has a non-neutral point of view, then point it out and show how it is not neutral. Otherwise, deliberately trying to add what you consider to be a "conservative" edit would clearly violate WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is about information, which transcends the simplistic, dualist notion of liberal/conservative. SnottyWong ^babble 23:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that user BS24 never answered my previous question, i find it ludicrous he believed Bink's edits were made in *bad faith*, yo. Anyhoo, it's not uncommon to check or oversee what new potentially good editors are doing to pages JIC. Jrod2 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrod2 -- because some people actually don't care about Wikipedia. I know it's hard to believe but it's true. /sarcasm BS24 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Now Binksternet is engaged in edit warring (1 2 3). See his ridiculous rationales (1 2) on Talk:Susan B. Anthony List. BS24 (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo

Resolved

– There was neither any bullying nor a newbie. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

user:Kintetsubuffalo is once again bullying a newbie, shortly after a discussion on this page was concluded with a notice to Kintetsubuffalo to stop biting newbies. See the recent exchanges between him (or her?) and an anonymous editor at user talk:Kintetsubuffalo. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you mean User:98.82.1.253 That IP is obviously not a newbie, but well aware of Wikipedia rules (and battle prone). However, I can see no reason for the 3RR warning. But no newbie bullying happened. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture is correct about me not being a newbie; I have been editing for over two years (I have a dynamic IP, which is why Michael Hardy thought I was a newbie, I suppose). But yes, User:Kintetsubuffalo was ~~behaving in a bullying manner,~~ issuing completely unwarranted warnings (I actually had zero reverts to an article, and he issued me a 3RR warning!). and, IMHO ~~has demonstrated that he is something of an ass~~ he appears unaware of the definition of the word "revert". 98.82.1.253 (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the lack of reversions, but I'd suggest that you go back and delete the last word of your post here. It's not good form to attack a person in an anti-attack forum. Figureofnine (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see no bullying, just an incorrect 3RR warning. I can see an uncivil and aggressive attitude from the IP. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I will concur that "bullying" is possibly not the best word to use. I won't take a gander as to what would be better, just let's say that his untoward behaviour directed at me was not appropriate. But what of my behaviour?

Incivility and aggression are, in the normal course of life, considered a fairly natural response to being maligned without cause. In courts of law, when John punches Dave and Dave hits back, John is the one who bears the brunt of the blame for the situation. So I'm a bit hostile to the person who falsely accuses me of edit warring--which as we know is near the top of any list of Wikipedia misbehaviour--why should I be the one lectured? Has anyone with authority posted anything to Kinetsbuffalo asking him to be more cautious in making accusations? Such a post would have sent the message to me that there is some justice to be had, which would have immediately lowered my temperature. 98.82.1.253 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Maligned". :-) The correct response to being incorrectly warned for a 3RR violation is. "You are mistaken. I have not reverted anything on that article". There has been no injustice against you whatsoever. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone did recently post to Kintetsubuffalo's page about Kintetsubuffalo's recent newbie-biting. Kintetsubuffalo is habitually rude, and has made no secret of his intention to continue on that course. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's a longstanding problematic behavior you might want to consider an RFC. But make sure that at least two users have tried to resolve the problems in a serious and courteous manner first. For borderline cases the best thing is to simply ignore it. But bringing it up again and again here, especially when it's incorrect as in this case, is not going to improve anything, as it just makes it look like you are the problem. In this case there was no newbie and no bullying. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You say it's incorrect in this case. The part that was incorrect is that the IP is a newbie. But certainly what Kintetsubuffalo did was bullying, boorishness, and cowardice. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your denial. What happened was that someone made a false accusation and then turned around and ran away in panic before his accuser replied. That's what it amounts to when Kintetsubuffalo, after making an accusation, deletes the accused's defense with an edit summary pointedly expressing contempt or saying it's an undue demand on his time to take notice of such things. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bullying? No, to my mind that requires a repeated action. The only one repeating anything was the IP, who appeared to be attempting to provoke a response. Cowardice? That is patently impossible to say; none of us can read the mind of another, and while "cowardice" is a possibility, there are other equally likely explanations for Kintetsbuffalo's actions. Boorishness? Well, that, simply put, is a subjective term. It's not a term that I use, but I would say, yes, if one acknowledges that it is subjective, it might be accurate to call Kintetsbuffalo's actions "boorish". To which I say, "So what?" The IP went on the record stating that he/she is not a newbie, and so again, so what?. If Kintetsbuffalo is a boor, but contributes to the encyclopedia in an otherwise positive way, he can call me whatever he wants, and my skin is thick enough to take it. The only exception I would make to this would be to say that newbies--true newbies--should be treated with kid gloves. But that didn't apply here. So why don't you drop your anti-Kintetsbuffalo campaign and spend your time helping to build a better encyclopedia? Just a thought. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I know of no definition of "bullying" that requires repetition. To attack someone and then run away in panic is bullying and is cowardice. As for building a better encyclopedia, very few Wikipedians have done more of that than I have. You have not; Kintetsubuffalo has not; the other discussants here have not. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And must I remind people that boorishness is something Wikipedia has a policy against. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To attack someone - Attack? At the same time you have called him a coward, and 98.82.1.253 have told HuskyHuskie to go screw himself. It's pretty obvious who are making the attacks here. If you want Kintetsubuffalo to improve his behavior, the first thing to do is to make sure you behave better than him, and at the moment neither of you do. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How shall we rank the following on a scale to be used for assessing who is behaving better than who?

to call someone a coward;
to respond to someone's complaint about one's behavior by deleting the complaint with a terse edit summary calling the complaint "vandalism" or something less polite than that;
to receive a polite request for one's opinion about editing of an article, from a far more experienced Wikipedian than oneself, who is a professional in a field that the article is about—a field in which the recipient of the request lacks expertise—and to respond to it by deleting the request with a terse edit summary calling the request "vandalism" or something less polite than that.

Kintetsubuffalo has committed the latter two acts and announced that he will continue doing that, by a coolly thought-out policy of his, in hypothetical future situations. Either of them alone, without the announcement of policy and future intentions, is worse than the first one. I think we should avoid being impolite to Kintetsubuffalo by banning him. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The first is a personal attack and against wikipedia policy. The two second are not. They are in no way worse than personal attacks. No ranking is needed. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They are instances of calculated rudeness. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert

User:Paul Siebert is continuing vandalize the article GULAG with a purpose to promote the point of view of a group of scholars on a subject what is very controversial. He threated users , mocked and harassed them. Without having any level of knowledge of the subject he deletes all parts of the article what he does not like.Celasson (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Celasson, a content dispute is not vandalism; please don't misuse the term. You need to provide evidence of the "mocked" and "harassed" as I have not found it so far. Both you and Paul Siebert appear to be edit-warring and both will be blocked if you continue engaging in this behavior. Resolve your issues by discussing them on the talk page - not edit-warring with one another. You should also notify Paul Siebert about this complaint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Siebert known for his highly developed form of civil discourse? Without diffs, these accusations are difficult to believe. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified... Doc9871 (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume the first act of "vandalism" was this: "Reverted good faith edits by Celasson; The article devores zero attention to controversial nature of Getty's writings, so this phrase is irrelevant to the lede." A discussion follows on the talkpage, during which Celasson and Paul Siebert revert each other several times over the course of a few days.

As Ncmvocalist notes, none of this constitutes vandalism. It is a content dispute, with edit warring thrown in. Insufficient edit warring, to my mind, to justify blocks at this stage, but I would warn both parties to stop.
Paul Siebert uses edit summaries without fail, including this edit, in which they explain what vandalism is and isn't, and this edit in which they direct Celasson to the talkpage.
The initial revert ('the first act of "vandalism"') by Paul Siebert which kicked this off appears reasonable: the lead section should summarise the article and the article makes no mention of any controversy surround Getty's writings in this field (perhaps it should - I don't know - but until it does the lead should not "summarise" something that does not exist in the article-proper).

TFOWR 14:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it should because Paul Sibert waited a long time and when all editors were gone begun to vandalize the article

[[90]] here

[[91]] here

[[92]]here

[[93]] here

The thing is that authors whom he holds for the first instance authority are kind of GULAG deniers and describe things which have never exist. And I discussed with him a lot and require any evidence but he refused. My curiosity made him made. That all. Of course the best solution to write about that like 'The numbers are disputed' etc. But he decided to vandalize article to keep his lies alive.Celasson (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks. Although the Celasson's behaviour is highly uncivil (for example, he accused me several times in editing WP for money here [94] and here [95]) and is against WP policy (for instance, he refused to accept a good quality secondary source published in American Historical Review, which had been wetted by a scientific community [96] under a pretext that the authors are liars [97], or "fools and charlatans"[98]; he ignores the fact that the data from the source he dislikes are supported by other reputable scholars [99], and proposes to rely on memoirs, i.e. on primary sources instead; he also put forward a very strange thesis [100], namely that WP is a democracy, whereas, according to the policy, it is not). My numerous attempts to urge him to resolve the dispute via WP:RSN or WP:RFC have been fully ignored by him. That demonstrates that Celasson deeply misunderstands how WP works. However, taking into account that I have some reasons to suspect that some members of Celasson family were among GULAG survivors I can understand his emotions. I do not think any sanctions against Celasson are desirable in this situation. I believe it would be better if someone (not me, because Celasson genuinely believes that I am a devil's deputy) explained him some basic rules about the sources and ways for conflict resolution.
Thank you in advance,
Sincerely,--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert. Everything that you need to understand, that we live in a free world where people respect opinions of others and don't lie so how it probably you got to use in Russia.[[101]] I asked you a couple of questions which remained without answers. And it is not the way to have a discussion. When I accused you to work for money? I asked you if you are paid for that what you are doing here day and night and confirmed that I am a volunteer. But you was not cooperative and I still suppose that you are beeing paid. You are seating an the article day and night and people have no time watch what from their contributions you have deleted because you was feel like this not comply with your godesses ZRG. And the ethic issues related to this article require bun user Paul Siebert from the editing of this article on the base his ethic illiteracy and the insulting of the memory of the deceased.Celasson (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read the discussion more carefully.If there are more than one opinion that should be represented in the article.Paul Siebert has a totalitarian 'weltanschauung' and is not able accept opinions of other people.Why his nick name linked to Nikolai Ivanovich Kuznetsov alias Paul Siebert, a soviet spy and assassin? I understand why, because he is a true 'soviet' who does not recognize neither freedom of speach nor rights of other humans and of course is not ready to compromise.

Why do you assume that I will accuse somebody without having evidences? Of course I have them. 1.He threated user Biophys to disclose his identity ( probably initiate against user Biophus some repressions):

It was easy to combine three facts: your nick, your edits of articles devoted to membrane proteins, sodium channels or molecular mechanics, and your familiarity with who Ovchinnikov was. With regards to my vision or your motives, I am glad that I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (User talk:Paul Siebert#top|talk) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There are in Russia a move toward to deny Stalin's crimes and persecute historians.Mikhail Suprun I tried to discuss with him. He never answers any question asked and suppose to know any WP Policy better than anybody else, but if you begin discuss details he refuses to answer.

Further examples:

1.however, nobody dispute validity of Zemskov's data. Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That nobody dares to dispute Zemskov's because this data was published in The American Historical Review, there were no explanations why. He intentionally push a point of view of a group of scientists and so violate WP:NPOV

2.User Biphus states:

Sure, I made decent reading on this subject including books by Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov, Ginzburg, Margolin, Applebaum, Antonov-Ovseenko and others. Conquest and Figes wrote a lot about repressions in general, but not that much about Gulag. And remember that Gulag Archipelago by Solzenitsyn is non-fiction.Biophys (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert answer: Hmmm... "Do not read Soviet newspapers before a lunch..." (C) Bulgakov.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it is a proper way to have a dispute?

3. My statement:

I don't find good the idea that in this article will be used some works from communists or pro-communists authors . It is disrespectful of the victims.--Celasson (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And, please, remember, that, in addition to neutrality other policies exist, namely, verifiability and no original research. Re assume good faith, "Physician, heal thyself".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert openly mocks victims of the Stalin's crimes. And moreover he is using for that the quote from the Bible! Stalin's persecutions against Christian can be compared with such ones in Antique Rome. And WP:ETIQUETTE is very clear : common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted yours. Remember that anything written on Wikipedia is kept permanently, even if it is not visible. Celasson (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me leave most of that uncommented. However, as far as the last Celasson's post concerns another user (Biophys) I need to make some clarification, namely, to provide a more extended quote from my talk page archive these words were taken from [102] (this is a part of the discussion of the notorious EEML case on my talk page):

the quote begins

Paul, you apparently misunderstood my previous comment. No, I asked the question about your nick only because I wanted to ask the question (no one else asked me in emails or elsewhere to do that), and the question was innocent. And no one tried to out you. Of course, I made a kind of opposite claim in emails: that you know who I am in real life because you pointedly described me in WP space the building where I worked in Moscow, but this is something different Biophys (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It was easy to combine three facts: your nick, your edits of articles devoted to membrane proteins, sodium channels or molecular mechanics, and your familiarity with who Ovchinnikov was. With regards to my vision or your motives, I am glad that I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify things a little bit. I said this, and you replied that. What made me suspicious was the fact that the Institute had very little to do with Biophysics. In fact, none of the labs had word "Biophysics" anywhere in the title. But that's OK. I do not think that anything of that deserved Arbcom attention. We do not need more drama.Biophys (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

the quote ends

I have no desire to comment that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Recommend closure. Back in March, Celasson admitted that he was on a personal campaign due to his family members having been sent to the gulag. I feel for him, and I express my sympathy. However, the user has not used the talk page or article in a constructive manner and his recent actions look like harassment. I think a topic ban should be discussed on ANI if things do not improve. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; none of the diffs provided show cases of either incivility or vandalism by User:Paul Siebert. VQuakr (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a general comment. User:Paul Siebert might just be one of the most civil editors that I am familiar with. I've seen loads of abuse heaped upon him, with absolutely no retaliation. Has the complainant here even posted a diff of incivility yet? Diffs of "vandalism" would not support the case for incivility. BigK HeX (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is being called a "crackpot" within Wikiquette?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Resolved

– Ongoing discussion at WP:ANI, which seems a more appropriate venue. — e. ripley\^talk 15:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to this. I have just pointed out to User:Miacek, that his references are not formated in accordance with WP-standards, and he called me a crackhead in return. I am not a native speaker of English, so I might get this wrong, but according to WP this is not a nice thing to say. Is this acceptable behavior - or what can be done about it? Yours --78.53.40.172 (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't have said crackpot, no. But I'm guessing this might be related in some way. — e. ripley\^talk 14:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it certainly explains his short temper. On the other hand, if he calls every IP names for no reason, no wonder he feels he's being stalked. --78.53.40.172 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't comment in depth - no need. I've been stalked and wikihounded by that user from that IP range during last 3 weeks, just see my talk page history (full of bogus warnings from him) or my report at WP:AIN. The user, who spends day and night stalking my edits and either simply reverting me or changing in a manner that is not constructive, shouldn't be offended when I dare to call a spade a spade. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific where I "simply reverted" you. Actually in this case you reverted me first. --78.53.40.172 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I have gone ahead and notified Miacek about this complaint. Note that our procedures require that the reported user be notified. We are an informal non-binding noticeboard and can provide perspective, advice and informal mediation or refer the matter to the appropriate noticeboard. I will wait to see if Miacek responds before further comment. Vyeh (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't aware that I was supposed to do that.--78.53.40.172 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Miacek, perhaps you should ask that your talk page be semiprotected for a time. — e. ripley\^talk 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this is already at ANI, could I suggest that this does not belong here? Vyeh (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, please archive it. The IP user was up to drama again, let's deprive him of his twisted pleasure of discussing his frivolous claims here, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference neolib was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[neolib-1] Cite error: The named reference neolib was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]