![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Over the past day or so, Orangemarlin has exhibited extremely belligerent, uncivil behavior towards myself and others. The situation began with my removal of a blatantly false quote from a few articles. (See here, here and here.) I provided sources in the edit summaries proving the quote to be phony. I recall reading how such obviously false information can be removed from Wikipedia with prejudice and without discussion (from my understanding of what BLP says here, which would cover Phillip E. Johnson's article and any instance of this phony quote attributed to him in other articles). As expected, these proper and source-backed deletions were reverted and Orangemarlin falsely labeled my edits as "disruptive" here.
I attempted to politely ask Orangemarlin about the removal here, but he ignored the inquiry and deleted it while falsely labeling it "uncivil" here. I tried again here with the same result here.
Orangemarlin subsequently fabricated a sockpuppet accusation against me here and here based on EXTREMELY flimsy evidence which included blatantly false and easily disproven information (i.e. where my IP address tracks back to). I feel this accusation was made solely as an intimidation tactic. Orangemarlin was asked about this accusation by another editor here, in response to which he further accused me of vandalizing the article(s) here. I responded to the new accusation here, which Orangemarlin deleted again with the false claim that I was being "uncivil" here.
I approached another editor for help and he asked Orangemarlin about the situation here, with Orangemarlin responding unequivocally that I was a sock, "case closed," and with the edit summary of "we don't give AGF to socks" here. (I didn't realize WP policies and guidelines were subject to Orangemarlin's whims.) Orangemarlin went further on to describe his feelings about anonymous IP users here, which do not assume good faith (at least when they involve edits that runs contrary to his agenda).
During the sockpuppet accusation, I removed Orangemarlin's notice from this IP addresses talk page as I had read it. Orangemarlin reverted my removal with false claim here and here that they could not be removed until the case had been decided (which is completely unsupported by the WP pages about this process).
Finally, yet another editor (an admin, in fact) politely asked Orangemarlin to answer some questions regarding his accusation against me. The questions were here and the request is here. Orangemarlin once again took the uncivil route, bizarrely calling the polite, proper questions "rude and insulting" here.
The accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism have all been dismissed and abandoned, but Orangemarlin's policy-violating uncivil and non-AGF behavior remains unchecked and continues even now here, here and here (which includes his added desire for me to be blocked for no good reason), and I really doubt it will cease. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, this is not resolved. This is about OM's incivility, not his claim against me. And I would really like someone other than OddNature or any other friend of OM to handle this. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess that will be me, although I have commented on OM in the past due to his (repeated) appearances at Wikiquette alerts -- most without merit. That said, I don't see any personal attacks. It may be heated, but it was warranted given the situation and was met with an equal amount of hostility, in addition to POV-pushing. 67.135.49.116 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was using Jinxmchue ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to POV-push and edit war and that takes an increased weight when dealing with the situation.
My point is, back away and go find something else to do. You aren't helping yourself in this situation by complaining about Orangemarlin, when you have committed infractions that could warrant sanctions if it is not curbed. seicer | talk | contribs 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, Orangemarlin has stepped up the incivility and ventured into personal attack territory. Check out this edit summary for his reversion of my (and lots of other people's) edits:
So now I'm being accused of being an anti-Semite. If OM does not face any consequences for these behaviors, they will only continue to escalate. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not ANI that only deals with strong personal attacks - it deals with incivility and other problematic communications between editors, regardless of how egregious it is, or how many times it ihas occurred. There are clear problems with (and concerns about) the way in which OrangeMarlin conducts himself, and problems also exist among some users who have commented here so far. In any case, it's clear that WQA is an ineffective step in attempting to resolve this dispute. No amount of additional discussion here is going to help the situation so I'm closing this. In the future, please file an RFC on user conduct or pursue some other step in dispute resolution as this will not be effective. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
User repeatedly uses personal attacks against editor nrswanson on Talk:C (musical note)#C4 etc. page simply because the editor disagrees with his viewpoint. For example, user insinuates intellectual inferiority of nrswanson based solely on that editor's religious background. When asked to stop personal attacks, user still persists. It is also possible this editor may be using sock puppets and a separate report has been filed for that violation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi. Nrswanson ( talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree that Totophi has made any serious attempt at calming down or working constructively. He has made no apology for personal attacks and has said my accusations of sock puppetry deserved no response since they were "obviously frivolous". It is apparent that he sees nothing wrong with uncivil behavior and, since the sock puppetry case has now been proven, it shows deliberate deceit with the intention of doing harm. I believe a block in this case is warranted as Totophi's actions prove his continued contempt for wikipedia's guidelines. Nrswanson ( talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
In my Talk page, I got a message from user w2bh which contains the statement "I'd say you have some personal issues regarding your ethnicity and your ancestry". I feel this is a personal attack against me and my heritage. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy. No one should attack someone's ethnicity and ancestry. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This user has been making repeated edits to Malta related articles (specifically Maltese People) for some time now with an agenda I believe borders on xenophobia/racism. Any assistance in sorting out this issue would be appreciated. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 08:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, Yolgnu ( talk · contribs) and Gibmetal77 ( talk · contribs) are both already in violation of WP:3RR. I have warned each of them on their talk page. Further reversions by these users could result in a block without further notice. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The above user is ignoring WP:V here. The source used is credible. Furthermore, the person who keeps removing the entry knows for a fact that the two major biographies of Christopher Smart document him as a Freemason, that he was part of the Freemason circle of Vauxhall, that there are over 20 academic articles that discuss his "A Song to David" based on interpreting the knowledge he learned as a Freemason, and the notable A Defence of Freemasonry has been attributed to him by himself, his peers, and others who contributed to the poetic appendix to the work. There is no purpose for the user to constantly revert except for WP:OWN purposes and a lack of respect to WP:V. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
More actions by MSJapan, which the talk page proves as completely inaccurate. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a place for WQAs - not content dispute - please refer to WP:MEDIATION or Article RFC for help to resolve it. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 02:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Continued gross incivility despite reminders for past 2 weeks. The comment for discussion entry for Talk:Captain America#Intelligence under intelligence revisited stated "sick and tired of this shit." User went on to write:
“ | You know what? I don't care anymore. You don't care about the extant consensus, so why should I bother defending it on and on? You're never going to let up, or listen to fucking reason. Go add whatever you want. ThuranX ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | ” |
- 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
(redent) I am okay with no action, but please not this is my first Wikiquette report, as could be noted on my edit history. Providing additional sources to a discussion page rather than a contentious edit is my understanding how things are supposed to go. I made no page edits other than to get reasonable response to what I thought were new issues that addressed the previous arguement, and in the face of continued gross incivility, I did not feel so inclined to activly respond to User:ThuranX colorful remarks. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC).
Will an uninvolved editor please mark this thread as archived? I don't feel that I can do so any longer, since I am being harshly criticized for some reason that is beyond my understanding, therefore making me "involved" I suppose. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
User Blaxthos has on multiple pages
[8]
[9]
[10] accused me of being a POV warrior. This has been recognized by admin third party user
User:Jaysweet as being a baseless charge. Blaxthos additionally has misused the admin noticeboard, taking a dispute with me there when this would've been the appropriate spot, seemingly in an attempt to intimidate me. This is not the first time this user has misused wikipedia administration tools:
[11] there, he stalked and wrongfully reported a user who he'd had a longstanding disagreement with. It was recognized as a wrongful report and dismissed.
The root of this disagreement is Blaxthos' uncooperative editing, specifically on the
What Happened page. I will copy and paste the crux of the dispute from the admin noticeboard page:
I did not wish to take this further than civil discussion, but since Blaxthos has been hostile and has resorted to misreporting this on the admin noticeboard, I feel that this warrants some outside attention. Trilemma ( talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is Blaxthos aware that this thread is still ongoing? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
under the dub heading compromise The user User:The Hybrid is harassing me Yami ( talk) 05:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You're clearly frustrated that the subject of this complaint responded a little aggressively to a comment you made during a content dispute. However, the comment you made was very problematic, so it's a good idea to pay attention to those concerns and ignore the tone expressed by the subject of the complaint. Stick to the issues next time - comment on content, not contributors. Beyond that, there's nothing else to see here. It might be a good idea for you to take a break from the topic. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The user began by editing the Underoath Article against a consensus. The user keeps removing "Christian" label off of bands that classify themselves as being a "Christian band" simple because he thinks that means their religion, not music. Wikiedpia's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music all say otehrwise. He brought the conflict to my user page, and then went on to say I was being uncivil myself. I admit, I haven't kept my cool (because the pages that are being edited have had previous consensus to keep the Christian label and they didn't edit accordingly). I tried to tell him that a Christian band plays Christian music (as common sense would tell), but he refused and went on to edit my user talk page with "I don't understand you at all, isn't it about time for you to convert back over to atheism anyways?" I am highly offended by this, I don't think it's right or even civil to tell someone something like that. I told him to stay off but... I highly doubt he will. He isn't the only one to do this, as there are two others, but at least they have been civil about this. Please resolve this. There isn't a Chrsitian Metal wikiproject and a Christian metal category for nothing. ¤ IrønCrøw¤ ( Speak to Me) 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to draw attention to the pederasty article, which is having some problems right now.
Pederasty (as erotic relations between men and boys) is considered from various viewpoints, some historical, others positive, and of course majority views tend to be condemnatory, especially those that are concerned about the legal consequences, and harm to children. I (and it seems some other editors) am perfectly fine with every relevant view to be presented. Editors have expressed concern over POV forking (having a seperate pederasty and a pederasty in the modern world article), and that needs cleaning up, and there are many unsourced POV statements in the article. However, a group of editors (especially Haiduc [52] and AnotherSolipsist [53]) seem to be constantly removing peer-reviewed critical material when it is introduced:
When peer reviewed literature presenting relevant and majority views on pederasty are presented, they tend to cry homophobia, political conspiracy, smear, and propaganda and revert large sections of text [54] [55] [56] [57] [58], and as can be seen from the above, they make every attempt to remove material that describes the critical or majority views on pederasty. The accusations of “homophobic propaganda” are also quite ridiculous considering that most homosexuals have a dislike of pederasty and research suggests that they are mutually exclusive anyway [59]. When material is moved to the discussion page for discussion, they tend to totally ignore it [60] [61], and focus instead on distracting from discussing material facts by throwing uncivil accusations about [62] [63]. They fail to assume good faith, and fail to address the actual facts being presented. Their protestations seem to amount to “I don’t like it”. I have made strong efforts to follow the edit-revert-discuss cycle to all reasonable lengths, but constructive discussion of the material in question is not forthcoming. Any advice or attention will be welcome. Phdarts ( talk) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so, I'll take a crack at this one... I am aware of a long-running edit war on Wikipedia between pedophile apologists and anti-pedophile activists, but have stayed well on the periphery of this battle. I really don't need that kind of stress in my life, heh.
It appears this dispute is related to that long-running war. Would that be at least somewhat correct?
Again, I don't have any desire to mediate in that dispute, nor do I feel like I would have the skills of knowledge to do so. To put it bluntly, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.
So, while I am absolutely not going to attempt to resolve content disputes at Pederasty (dear god, no), what I will offer to do is if there are specific issues of incivility or tedentious editing, I am willing to look at diffs and try to give advice in relation to that. I am willing to warn users about civility (given a clear-cut diff of said incivility, of course), and I am willing to help broker specific compromises.
If you want someone to go mediate on the article itself, you'll have to find someone else. Frankly, I don't think you are going to get a lot of takers on this noticeboard -- over here, we usually just try to soothe tempers when people are getting a little stressed at each other. This kind of complicated mediation is beyond most of what happens at Wikiquette Alerts.
Within these constraints, let me know what I can do to help. Thanks. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the lecture, sir. I have always assumed good faith, and I have usually been rewarded with interesting and constructive discussions from which I learned a great deal and which almost invariably resulted in improvements to the articles I worked on, whether pederasty-related or not. In your case too I assumed good faith, but you, Phdarts, together with your collaborators, quickly disabused me of that illusion. You have consistently refused to engage in any meaningful discussion, as have your associates. Instead of engaging in a process of reasoning you have attempted to enforce your point of view by force of numbers and interminable repetition of favorite themes, one of them being the imposition of "majority views" and another being the incessant appeal to assuming good faith while destroying that faith through your behavior. I see that here too that pattern continues. Mediation?! Please go ahead. Your own words indict you better than mine ever could. Haiduc ( talk) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear me, this is why I don't get involved in these discussions. I write a couple paragraphs, and I come back 14 hours later to see several Kbytes of arguing. You anti-pederasty activists and pederasty apologists (I will not make the mistake of saying the pedo- word in present company anymore!) really need to see WP:TLDR. hehehe...
I have a few thoughts about the content dispute, but I am not nearly qualified. I would like to point out that Statutory rape is in Category:Child sexual abuse, FWIW, so even if we accept that pederasty and pedophilia are two separate things, it still seems remiss not to discuss an association between pederasty and abuse. But I don't really know anything about the literature, so I'll just leave it at that observation and not comment further on the content.
So, the Wikiquette issue at hand... Phdarts, to test my understanding, your main Wikiquette complaint is the edit summary that used the phrase "homophobic propaganda." Is that correct?
PaulB, Haiduc... words like "homophobic" and "propaganda" are very strong words, and when you put them together the message is even more intense. I would caution you to be very careful about using words such as this, especially in edit summaries (since they can not be retracted or modified later, not without admin assistance). I, in fact, avoid using words like that altogether most of the time -- and I have edited some pretty homophobic stuff out of articles before, but I try not to use those words because it just antagonizes the other side.
One option to move forward is that Haiduc can acknowledge that the words "homophobic propaganda" are highly charged and agree not to use language like that in edit summaries anymore. I think that is the easiest way to move forward, and it is what I would recommend. After all, if you feel a source is homophobic propaganda, you can still feel free to challenge it, but using less loaded words, e.g. you might say on the talk page (not edit summary, please) that "I feel this source has a clear bias as evidenced by X, Y, and Z, and I would object to using it as a reliable scientific source."
If this is really unacceptable to you, we can talk about other options. But really, does it take away from your ability to edit if you just don't call something "propaganda" in an edit summary? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I am closing and archiving this debate, and referring the participants to WP:RFC. While I do think there are some Wikiquette issues here, they are too intertwined with the underlying content dispute issues, and those issues are far beyond the ability of this noticeboard to address.
For instance, I wish people wouldn't throw around words like "homophobic" or "propaganda," but we can't really call it a cut-and-dry Wikiquette issue unless we establish whether or not an academic source criticizing pederasty can be considered homophobic -- and I'm going to cowardly refuse to even participate in that debate, sorry.
I have discussed this with another editor who is heavily involved in resolving requests on this noticeboard, and he agrees -- we just don't have the right people or the right resources to deal with it here. If an uninvolved editor would like to bravely take a crack at this, they may remove my {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} tags and reopen the discussion, but I would ask that nobody who commented here does so. As I said, we just can't help you here. I am sorry. Try WP:RFC. Best of luck. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
highly uncivil and if you check the start of his edit history he doesn't act like a new guy hence I suspect he's also a sockpuppet. -- Blackeagles ( talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Or he's obvious grudge against people of faith that taints so many of his posts and that's just in the last 7 days if one checks his edit history you'll find he makes remarks like this all the time. And then there's his sockpuppetry. My experience has been that most people start an account on wikipedia to edit articles (not to talk or argue) and as a result they start editing in articles. SlamDiego started editing in a talk area and went right from that to starting an article with a redirect, and not long after showed the kind of knowledge of wikipedia that only comes with working in it for over a year [73]. It's pretty obvious been on wikipedia before and under a different name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeagles ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I recommend everyone reading this check SlamDiego’s edit history from the start even if you disagree with the rest of my statement it is a fascinating read.
The fact is though that people who are new to Wikipedia don’t start out editing like SlamDiego.
He’s a clever one SlamDiego, chances are he’s working from a server with a rotating IP address.
He’s not new to Wikipedia he’s been here before under a different name.
He doesn’t operate like most disruptive editors though.
He limits his edits and conceals his disruptions from most people with the shear volume of his grammar corrections, and further dissuades most people from confronting him by employing a large vocabulary when he isn’t threatening to have people banned.
He’s the equivalent of a cumulative poison that takes years to kill a person but in the end it does.
I’ve also looked into grazon and while he did a lot of damage it wasn’t hard to spot.
I suspect he was a leftover from an earlier time from before the Seigenthaler incident.
SlamDiego is a new kind of creature and if you don’t keep an eye on him he will be more destructive that grazon ever was. -- Blackeagles ( talk) 00:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Maldek and I have been involved in a long running "difference of opinion" over reliable sources on the Burj Dubai article - Maldek saying an fan-boy blog site is an accurate source of information, and me and many others saying we need verifiable information from reliable sources even if it's not completely up-to-date, as per Wikipedia policy. Now for once Maldek believes we have a small point of agreement over the proposed height of another middle eastern skyscraper, Al Burj, when in fact I was simply copyediting another editor's contribution and assuming good faith that they had subscription access to a source. Unfortunately, Maldek is now taking this as some kind of endorsement that must be correct because I am "the man in charge" or "the God of Wikipedia". I really don't think such edit summaries are appropriate and is coming close to being a personal attack - but what do you guys think? Astronaut ( talk) 11:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
While adding material to Relationship between religion and science article over the past two weeks or so, I keep encountering what I perceive as rather strong language from User:Hrafn on the article's talk page Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science: the latest is "I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose," but in the past it has included such phrases as "Put up or shut up" I also am encountering rather pointy behavior. Recently, he or she followed me over to the unrelated project WP:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song where he or she brought up several other AfD's I had just contributed to (I don't think I went too far, but maybe I did. For I cited WP:TROLL). Plus he or she then tagged several of my other articles (e.g., Aydin Sayili). More recently, i.e., last night, he or she made drastic removals to the Relationship between religion and science article regarding well-sourced materials from H. Floris Cohen's 1994 book The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry in an apparent response to my additions of a small section, which I well-sourced to Peter J. Bowler's 2001 book Reconciling Science and Religion.
As the editor in question, here are some difs. Firefly322 has:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 04:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As to the "I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose" comment:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As to "Put up or shut up", that is a selective quotation -- my full statement was in fact "Put up or shut up, instead of making wild and WP:AGF-violating accusations. Provide the requested quotes."[ [86] Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Has violated the three-revert rule on 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team. Also, see the comment he left on my talk page. -- UWMSports ( talk) 05:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
User:GHcool is interested in me that he mentions me many times in his user page. I don't mind that, but what I do mind is him speaking bad of me: "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood". Per Wikipedia:User_page#What may I not have on my user page? this is a "perceived flaw" and should be removed from the page. I civilly asked him to remove the sentence but he declined to do it. Imad marie ( talk) 06:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, it seems GHcool is not willing to change his user page, any advice on how to proceed with the dispute resolution? Thanks. Imad marie ( talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This anonymous IP just appeared today specifically to edit in the Mexico Talkpage using very uncivil manners, insults and cynical comments [88] [89], his only 8 contributions have been done in that talkpage and he even warned me that he was going to change his IP before it could be block admitting that his only interest was to troll in Wikipedia, therefore I ask for the blockage of his IP and hope that when he changes it we can detect him. Supaman89 ( talk) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, where to begin... it's probably easier to just reference his contribution history... from his massively offensive userpage, to his incendiary accusations of "liberal bias" everywhere (only one diff given for brevity), to his false claims of "admin persecution", this guy takes the cake. He has even gone so far as to demand that contributors self-identify their political beliefs so that he may evaluate them. I suspect we're dealing with an adolescent, but in any case swift WQA action is in order. Thanks in advance. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for labels to be thrown around during a content dispute, so this really could've been dealt with without pursuing formal steps of dispute resolution. In any case, the user has been advised accordingly and there's nothing else to see here. Move on. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am having a discussion with Vapour ( talk · contribs) at Talk:MV Oceanic Viking over their desire to include a quote from an Australian political columnist Dennis Shanahan in this article (we were edit waring, and have taken the matter to the talk page - please see [90] for the text in question). During this discussion Vapour made a number of insulting comments against me. He/she has stated that "You do not seem to understand the policy of this site", that my edits are motivated by my political beliefs and that I am tying to censor other views. I have not mentioned my political views or views on whaling in this discussion, so they seem to be assuming that I hold various positions, and the wording I've proposed identifies Shanahan as the source of the comments and links back to the opinion article in which he made them, so I don't see how I'm suppressing his views. Vapour seems particularly upset that I called Dennis Shanahan right-wing, but he has admitted not knowing who he is, and this is simply a statement of how Shanahan is widely percieved (see for, instance, [91] and [92] for a couple of published examples which briefly discuss his leanings towards the conservative Liberal Party) and I would have removed similar quotes from left-wing political writers praising Australia's current left-wing government as being unsuited to the topic of the article (a ship).
More seriously, Vapour is now claiming I am abusing my admin status by trying to throw my weight around. I'm not sure how I could be doing so, however, as I only mentioned this status to rebut his abusive comment that I don't understand Wikipedia policies (eg, as I wouldn't be an admin if I didn't have at least a rough idea of the key policies), noted that it's no guarantee that I'm right and haven't used any admin tools on this article. Could someone please look into this and issue a warning as appropriate? Nick Dowling ( talk) 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
(I was about to post this response, then I was informed that I got a message. So please be aware of that fact.)
This is Vapour. Thanks Nick Dowling for informing me that he made a complaint. Here is my response. I made an edit sourced to the Australian, the biggest national newspaper in Australia. Then someone deleted it due to its being (right leaning) criticism/opinion. When someone's objection is not about the reliability of source but opinion expressed in it, it is a sign that the person is not familiar with wikipedia. Nick Dowling has not stated what is his political affiliation. That is fine. His or my politics is not an issue as long as edits are reliably sourced. However, he made his politics an issue by deleting an edit due to its politics/opinion. To my surprise, Nick Dowling turn out to be an admin. To make a matter worse, it is he who told me this. It is my opinion that it is extremely unwise for an admin to state his admin status in an edit dispute then later, make a complaint higher up because the other side was not nice enough to him. Admin is a judge, jury and has many system privilege. An admin shouldn't behave like other wikipedian by spinning wikipedia policies and system to his advantage like a lawyer do, then imply that, since he is an admin, he know the policy. Him taking the complaint higher up made the matter worse. Now it is an another admin who have to declare who is right. If I wins, then it shows that an admin doesn't know an elementary application of policies or worse, admin bend policies for his partisan bias. If Nick Dowling wins, it is "who you know" not "what you know". Lastly, this dispute could have been easily settled if Nick Dowling left my sourced edit alone then went on to look for a sourced statement in support of Oceanic Viking Vapour ( talk) 11:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact of matter is that censoring an sourced opinion is not fair. If he is admin, he should know that. Instead, he is filibustering the issue. If an admin doesn't want to lose, then what? Admin acting like a street lawyer to an average wikipedian is not fair. That include making Wikiquette compliant when opposing side point out that his policy argument is weak (and biased) and he, an admin, should know better. I usually leave sourced edit alone no matter how much it conflict with my POV, as long as edit is sourced from media or academia. Why can't I expect that kind of fairness from an admin. Vapour ( talk) 12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Vapour, there are a number of points that you've raised (and failed to acknowledge) that are troubling. You may need to look back at the article talk page after some points below.
You must familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, and understand them, and should not (at any time) game the system. If you cannot comply, and continue to edit disruptively, then this matter is not resolved and stronger measures will be used as necessary. Does this clarify it for you - have I made myself clear? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I still maintain that it's key to aim at balance (representing all views, proportionately) and to try not to overquote. Also, try to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. El_C 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
User is misciting and misusing WP policies and warning templates, is accusing me of doing the same, and is refusing to stop posting to my talk page after being asked to stop. Groupthink ( talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Neon white has agreed to the compromise: Both of you should stay off of each other's talk page, at least until this blows over, and pursue other venues for dispute resolution. I see Neon white is already in contact with PeterSymonds ( talk · contribs) and hopefully some understanding can be reached.
I would caution both users to remember that templating another user can be perceived as incivil, even if you don't mean it that way (see WP:DTTR), and that the worst thing you can do in that situation is get in a retaliatory template war. Both users are trying to do the right thing, I believe, so there is no need to "get all up in it". :D :D
I am marking this as resolved for now. Best of luck with the content dispute! -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
User originally stated on their userpage that their IQ was "probably higher than yours". I thought this was rather provocative, and removed it. Kd lvr then reverted me, and I am me93 left me a rather aggressive message. Me and IAM93 then discussed the matter- his talk and my talk. IAM93 continued to be aggressive and completely missed the point that his userpage isn't his own space to do whatever he likes. After reverting back and forth, we were left with an even more aggressive userpage. I don't want to revert war, so I bring the matter here for a third opinion. Never used this page before, apologies if I have done this wrong. J Milburn ( talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This comment is a personal attack accusing me of being a tendentious cabal. This sort of harassment was discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design but apparently Dragon695 didn't get the message. I'd like it to stop when I return to that page. Odd nature ( talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Accusing anyone of being tendentious is a personal attack which violates WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. Accusing anyone of being part of a tendentious cabal compounds the insult. Look at my comment Dragon695 attacked me for. Really, sort of incivility needs to stop. Odd nature ( talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that the phrase "self promoting" is said to be a sanctionable offense [101], and many editors charge that identifying them as "Wikipedia Review editors" is a personal attack and uncivil [102] (even if they are editors who have accounts at Wikipedia Review) and even listing Wikipedia policies [103] is viewed as an uncivil attack [104], and even questioning this is viewed as a personal attack [105], it is a bit hard to imagine how this outburst is not problematic. Can someone explain it to me?-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hilarious. Ok another one for my list. Thanks.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have decided to go do something else and leave these people be, for now. I'm sorry about that outburst, it could have been worded better. I will stand by my original statement: Odd Nature, Filll, and company will either modify their behavior or find themselves sanctioned by the community. Attempts at obfuscating the issue by FT2's one-off mistake will not succeed. I feel strongly that these editors who all have claimed, at one time or another, to be champions of science do more harm then good to the project. More importantly, they make strong believers in science ashamed to be associated with them due to their persistent odious behavior towards anyone who disagrees with them (see ID RFC for diffs). They certainly don't represent the highly regarded, well mannered, scholarly scientists I've ever met. Vigorous debate yes, but the tear–down, scorched–earth campaigns against those of opposing viewpoints is just outrageous. What you did to Mrs. Picard sometimes makes me want to reconsider my principled, strong opposition to WP:BLP. That is all I will say on the matter for now. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I hardly know where to begin. Thanks to people like Dragon695, I have stopped editing these kinds of articles completely. Am I not allowed to defend myself? Is no one involved with ID allowed? And I still have not seen how we did anything bad to Professor Picard. Have you talked to Professor Picard? Do you know what her position is? If you are so concerned about the statements about Professor Picard, why not mount a lawsuit against the New York Times, which is where we obtained our information? If what we did was so terrible, then what they did was clearly many times worse. What is amazing, is that Dragon695 believes that Picard episode justifies any kind of outrageous behavior on his part, or anyone else's part. Good heavens. I also think that Dragon695 does not know many scientists or much about science.--
Filll (
talk |
wpc)
20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Storm Rider ( talk · contribs)
I wonder if someone could have a look at the comments being directed at me on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.? - Juden ( talk) 00:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I took a look, and while some of Storm Rider's comments are pushing it in terms of civility and good faith, the edits Juden is adding have some problems. The allegation that Joseph Smith fathered children with women other than Emma smith is a tinderbox, and would need to be well-sourced. Even if it was well-sourced, care would have to be taken regarding the Undue weight policy. I know quite a bit about Mormonism, and I think I've only heard that allegation once or twice (doesn't mean it's not more common than I think, but I am a little skeptical).
Juden, if you would like to pursue this further, Storm Rider should be notified of this thread. Let us know what you'd like to do. It looks like Ludwigs has already asked Storm Rider to tone it down. Wikiquette Alerts is not intended to mediate in content disputes, but if you are continuing to have trouble with reverting each other, I could probably take a look (Full disclosure: I was raised Mormon, but have not been affiliated with the church for pretty much my entire adult life, and I hold little sympathy for the organization. I believe I can mediate without allowing a conflict of interest to get in the way, as I do not consider myself to anti-Mormon either, but I am not completely uninvolved either) -- Jaysweet ( talk) 14:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Juden said: I have never inserted any claim into any article that Joseph Smith was known to have children by his plural wives. While this is technically true, it is terribly disingenuous. See this diff, which is only one of like three (both of you were pushing WP:3RR there at times, by the way). While you technically did not say that he did, there was no mention of this possibility previously, so it clearly is a hint. If I all of a sudden said, in the middle of handling this Wikiquette Alert, "It is not clear to me whether or not Juden beats his wife", do you think that would be fair? Of course not.
Also, since the section in question was providing views either way as to whether Smith did have plural wives, the statement is loaded from that perspective too, because it implicitly confirms that he has plural wives. In fact, forget what I said before, this would be like if I wrote, in the middle of this post, "It is not clear to me how often Juden beats his wife." Um, no. Not acceptable.
Now, if we produce some notable and credible sources that are discussing the possibility, that might warrant inclusion. Until then, though, the loaded statement simply does not belong in the article.
Regarding the allegations of continued incivility, do you have any diffs? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Storm Rider (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Calling the removal of insults an "unconstructive edit" is just another violation of WP:Civility. Thanks for providing further evidence.- Juden (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC) You might want to find a new complaint; that one is getting rather old and people aren't listening to you. Maybe if you jump up and down it will help, but I would actually recommend reading polciies and attempt to first implement them yourself. You may see it as a personal insult; however, that would be a personal problem and it would have nothing to do with my edit. My edit was a warning and should be interpreted as such. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for adding more evidence. - Juden (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
which will soon be gone :) - Juden ( talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm very disturbed by the commentaries left by this user Dilip_rajeev at an AFD, in which a simply AFD turned into a shouting match between the pro-FLG and anti-FLG camps. For example here [111] he made attacks against another user for wanting to delete the article, suggesting him as a "CCP-hired thug paid to post pro-CCP messages and assault FLG practitioners". In another instance he accused a new user of being a CCP propagandist [112]. The user edits nothing but Falun Gong related articles [113], and has been blocked 3 times previously for edit warring. [114]-- PCPP ( talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
IP address 216.70.26.237 has been making drastic reversions to articles, including List of programs broadcast by ABC Family and List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Those edits have been part of ongoing edit wars (see Talk:List of programs broadcast by ABC Family#Article organization and Talk:List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon#Article reorganization) in both articles. Furthermore, he has used the "undo" feature without an edit summary [116] and has used the summary "rv vandalism" to restore his preferred version of the articles. [117] [118] [119] [120].
Note: I have left a talk page message with this user about a month ago. [121] RJaguar3 | u | t 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Edited to add: The above diff was about edit warring. This diff [122] was about the use of "rv vandalism" edit summaries. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, there is no prohibition that I am aware of about using the "undo" button to change to a preferred version, as long as it does not constitute edit warring. (You may be confusing this with the Rollback function offered to some Wikipedians, and available via scripts like Twinkle -- those features should not be used except for vandalism and other egregious issues)
One other piece of advice I would give is that it is almost always a bad idea to call something "vandalism" unless it is really, really obvious (e.g. blanking an entire page and replacing it with "I like doo-doo!"). Even if someone is making a highly controversial edit that goes against consensus, generally one should avoid calling it "vandalism" as this only serves to fan the flames. So, avoid the V-word when possible.
Does 216.*'s promise to use the edit summary resolve this problem, or should someone look into it more carefully? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please review Special:Contributions/LardleFan as this user has made several personal attacks against me. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Cleo123 has treated me in an incivil way. There are multiple instances, but the main one of concern should be those found here. To be upfront, a few admin have contacted me and asked that I file a complaint here about current incivil treatments of myself. I have filed a report of the above user's actions on my talk page and a report on the above user's use of BLP and other policies to justify their behavior. This report is just for incivil comments about myself which the above user refuses to stop.
1. "Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. [99][100] Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior."
An accusation of incivility based on my removing an off topic dispute by the above user that I did not want on my talk page and made it clear in the summary that I was reverting (yet they denied that they could see that I reverted).
2. "You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page."
Claims that I posted derogatory remarks using this as evidence, even though I did not post any derogatory remarks nor even post there.
3. "When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks?"
Vague allegations of incivility or possible sock puppetry.
4. "As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous."
More claims that I was being disrupted based on my activities here and here.
5. "Now the numerous sources available make it clear that Steve Windom was the victim of defamation that resulted in criminal charges. The incident is currently discussed in a neutral and fair manner in the article. Yet, you have been arguing for a detailed reprinting on Wikipedia of the material that a court ruled to be libelous. You have even encouraged a new, inexperienced user to create a free standing article in order to showcase this libel, insisting that Windom who you claim to have contacted in real life, (in violation of Wikipedia's policies on original research) will have to sue Wikipedia if he wants to get it removed! When users attempt to explain Wikipedia's libel policy to you, you have repeatedly taken the unusual stance that only actual libel victims are allowed to mention the word WP:LIBEL on Wikipedia."
As you can see, the above user claims that you cannot talk about legal cases dealing with defamation, even if numerous news papers reported on it. The above user also condemns any mention of it before they even see it. The above user also challenges John Carter's and my proposal of moving any indepth discussion of the incident (false allegations about prostitution) to a new page in order to remove any WP:WEIGHT issues. The above user then attacks me for contacting the subject of the article in order to determine if they felt that the way we were handling it was "defamation" in order to negate their claims that it was defamation (as only the person in the biography has the right to determine such and not any proxy unless given legal permission to do so). They are then claiming that it is "original research" even though such a thing pertains only to the pages themselves and not to figuring out legal issues behind the pages. They then claim that I don't understand policy. Swatjester's comments on the legality and the legal process of the page can be found here. As he states, it is an issue for OTRS and the Office.
6. "I've said that a court ruled the material in question to be libelous, which it did. I've cautioned you about knowingly reprinting libel on Wikipedia as you could be exposing Wikipedia to potential legal problems. I think WP:BLP is very clear that libel about living people is to be removed immediately."
Another claim that I would be producing Libel before even seeing what I would right.
7. "You entered the article's discussion late in the game and have been defending the view of an editor who was repeatedly inserting defamatory material into the article."
Claims that I "entered" into a "game" at a time that was "late". Also claims of defamation.
8. "For reasons unknown, you are still on the page fighting like hell to "mediate" a dispute that no longer exists, even going so far as to contact the article's subject and argue for the creation of a separate "scandal" article for reasons unknown."
Questioning my use of mediation between User:Dem1970 and User:Audemus Defendere. As you can note, both of the have stopped their edit war and are no longer fighting in a semi-incivil manner.
9. "I am a disruption? LOL! Sorry, but that is downright amusing coming from a user who has been banned from participating in FAC discussions (for behavior that is strikingly similar to your conduct in this matter)"
The user links here, which you can note that I took a short wikibreak from FA review, and I was not banned. As you can also note, SandyGeorgia, who helps run FAR/FAC stated that I was a good contributor and was opposed to the proposed actions of a vocal minority.
10. "cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times."
The above user cites this, which had no real result and did not agree that it was "extreme". They also cite my block log, which dealt mostly with an edit dispute at Treaty of Tripoli which I broke 3RR based on reverting just before 24 hours, an edit dispute at to proposed changes to WP:NLT which community consensus agreed with me on a stopping of the wording from being changed, and a block until I apologized for "tenditious editing" based on User:MSJapan and my dispute over the legitimacy of academic sources which did not involve a 3RR and was disputed by quite a few admin. Do any of these pertain to the situation? No.
That is just one page. There are multiple talk pages that include mostly repetition of the above. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
User: Maunus appears to be in contravention of WP:DRC. S/he has made repeated reverts on my talkpage. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies to Maunus; I had not realised 78.151.142.191 ( talk · contribs) was the one making the reverts. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Being consistently attacked by user:Nishidani. user:Nishidani has been accusing me all over wikipedia recently. He has been accusing me of calling him an antisemite, something I've never done, and I politely explained his mistake to him, he keeps ignoring this and accusing me in order to confuse an administrator and attack me on every occasion. He has called me a terrorist organization fanatic a Lehi aficionado - aficionado means fanatic, fan, enthusiastic follower , which means he claims I'm a terrorist organization fanatic. He's difficult to discuss with because when in content dispute, he claims the other party to be a vandal. He name-called me a myriad of slurs one of which was that I engage in chronic vandalism. To top it all, he now threatens to report me. This is harassment. Recently, I've been stalked by user:Meteormaker, and his attacks against me seem like a personal vendetta, because he is an ally of Meteormaker on several articles. Here he followed me to the stalker's page and spread lies on me. He claims I stalked him on pages I always had watched. He then says "Big blokes aren't supposed to whine, especially about piddling matters" and yet threatens continuously to report me, probably thinking he can trick an administrator into believing that I called him an antisemite. The reason he's doing all that is because he 'lost' in a content dispute in Talk:Lehi (group), where a consensus has reached and he didn't like it. This consensus was already reached in November 2007 and the article had a stable version (about this issue). He now introduced it again, and didn't reply to the issues I've raised and other users' pleas to move on, and instead tried to make it personal again. I want him to leave the personal attacks aside and focus on the content. While he calls my words dreck, which is crap in Yiddish I've always tried to be very polite to him. I said to him "I know you're reasonable and I respect your opinions", and this is what I get. Being called a terrorist fanatic and accused of saying things I've never said. Amoruso ( talk) 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have warned Nishandi for making personal attacks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Over the past day or so, Orangemarlin has exhibited extremely belligerent, uncivil behavior towards myself and others. The situation began with my removal of a blatantly false quote from a few articles. (See here, here and here.) I provided sources in the edit summaries proving the quote to be phony. I recall reading how such obviously false information can be removed from Wikipedia with prejudice and without discussion (from my understanding of what BLP says here, which would cover Phillip E. Johnson's article and any instance of this phony quote attributed to him in other articles). As expected, these proper and source-backed deletions were reverted and Orangemarlin falsely labeled my edits as "disruptive" here.
I attempted to politely ask Orangemarlin about the removal here, but he ignored the inquiry and deleted it while falsely labeling it "uncivil" here. I tried again here with the same result here.
Orangemarlin subsequently fabricated a sockpuppet accusation against me here and here based on EXTREMELY flimsy evidence which included blatantly false and easily disproven information (i.e. where my IP address tracks back to). I feel this accusation was made solely as an intimidation tactic. Orangemarlin was asked about this accusation by another editor here, in response to which he further accused me of vandalizing the article(s) here. I responded to the new accusation here, which Orangemarlin deleted again with the false claim that I was being "uncivil" here.
I approached another editor for help and he asked Orangemarlin about the situation here, with Orangemarlin responding unequivocally that I was a sock, "case closed," and with the edit summary of "we don't give AGF to socks" here. (I didn't realize WP policies and guidelines were subject to Orangemarlin's whims.) Orangemarlin went further on to describe his feelings about anonymous IP users here, which do not assume good faith (at least when they involve edits that runs contrary to his agenda).
During the sockpuppet accusation, I removed Orangemarlin's notice from this IP addresses talk page as I had read it. Orangemarlin reverted my removal with false claim here and here that they could not be removed until the case had been decided (which is completely unsupported by the WP pages about this process).
Finally, yet another editor (an admin, in fact) politely asked Orangemarlin to answer some questions regarding his accusation against me. The questions were here and the request is here. Orangemarlin once again took the uncivil route, bizarrely calling the polite, proper questions "rude and insulting" here.
The accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism have all been dismissed and abandoned, but Orangemarlin's policy-violating uncivil and non-AGF behavior remains unchecked and continues even now here, here and here (which includes his added desire for me to be blocked for no good reason), and I really doubt it will cease. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, this is not resolved. This is about OM's incivility, not his claim against me. And I would really like someone other than OddNature or any other friend of OM to handle this. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess that will be me, although I have commented on OM in the past due to his (repeated) appearances at Wikiquette alerts -- most without merit. That said, I don't see any personal attacks. It may be heated, but it was warranted given the situation and was met with an equal amount of hostility, in addition to POV-pushing. 67.135.49.116 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was using Jinxmchue ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to POV-push and edit war and that takes an increased weight when dealing with the situation.
My point is, back away and go find something else to do. You aren't helping yourself in this situation by complaining about Orangemarlin, when you have committed infractions that could warrant sanctions if it is not curbed. seicer | talk | contribs 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, Orangemarlin has stepped up the incivility and ventured into personal attack territory. Check out this edit summary for his reversion of my (and lots of other people's) edits:
So now I'm being accused of being an anti-Semite. If OM does not face any consequences for these behaviors, they will only continue to escalate. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This is not ANI that only deals with strong personal attacks - it deals with incivility and other problematic communications between editors, regardless of how egregious it is, or how many times it ihas occurred. There are clear problems with (and concerns about) the way in which OrangeMarlin conducts himself, and problems also exist among some users who have commented here so far. In any case, it's clear that WQA is an ineffective step in attempting to resolve this dispute. No amount of additional discussion here is going to help the situation so I'm closing this. In the future, please file an RFC on user conduct or pursue some other step in dispute resolution as this will not be effective. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
User repeatedly uses personal attacks against editor nrswanson on Talk:C (musical note)#C4 etc. page simply because the editor disagrees with his viewpoint. For example, user insinuates intellectual inferiority of nrswanson based solely on that editor's religious background. When asked to stop personal attacks, user still persists. It is also possible this editor may be using sock puppets and a separate report has been filed for that violation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi. Nrswanson ( talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree that Totophi has made any serious attempt at calming down or working constructively. He has made no apology for personal attacks and has said my accusations of sock puppetry deserved no response since they were "obviously frivolous". It is apparent that he sees nothing wrong with uncivil behavior and, since the sock puppetry case has now been proven, it shows deliberate deceit with the intention of doing harm. I believe a block in this case is warranted as Totophi's actions prove his continued contempt for wikipedia's guidelines. Nrswanson ( talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
In my Talk page, I got a message from user w2bh which contains the statement "I'd say you have some personal issues regarding your ethnicity and your ancestry". I feel this is a personal attack against me and my heritage. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy. No one should attack someone's ethnicity and ancestry. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This user has been making repeated edits to Malta related articles (specifically Maltese People) for some time now with an agenda I believe borders on xenophobia/racism. Any assistance in sorting out this issue would be appreciated. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 08:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Upon closer inspection, Yolgnu ( talk · contribs) and Gibmetal77 ( talk · contribs) are both already in violation of WP:3RR. I have warned each of them on their talk page. Further reversions by these users could result in a block without further notice. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The above user is ignoring WP:V here. The source used is credible. Furthermore, the person who keeps removing the entry knows for a fact that the two major biographies of Christopher Smart document him as a Freemason, that he was part of the Freemason circle of Vauxhall, that there are over 20 academic articles that discuss his "A Song to David" based on interpreting the knowledge he learned as a Freemason, and the notable A Defence of Freemasonry has been attributed to him by himself, his peers, and others who contributed to the poetic appendix to the work. There is no purpose for the user to constantly revert except for WP:OWN purposes and a lack of respect to WP:V. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
More actions by MSJapan, which the talk page proves as completely inaccurate. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a place for WQAs - not content dispute - please refer to WP:MEDIATION or Article RFC for help to resolve it. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 02:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Continued gross incivility despite reminders for past 2 weeks. The comment for discussion entry for Talk:Captain America#Intelligence under intelligence revisited stated "sick and tired of this shit." User went on to write:
“ | You know what? I don't care anymore. You don't care about the extant consensus, so why should I bother defending it on and on? You're never going to let up, or listen to fucking reason. Go add whatever you want. ThuranX ( talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | ” |
- 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
(redent) I am okay with no action, but please not this is my first Wikiquette report, as could be noted on my edit history. Providing additional sources to a discussion page rather than a contentious edit is my understanding how things are supposed to go. I made no page edits other than to get reasonable response to what I thought were new issues that addressed the previous arguement, and in the face of continued gross incivility, I did not feel so inclined to activly respond to User:ThuranX colorful remarks. - 66.109.248.114 ( talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC).
Will an uninvolved editor please mark this thread as archived? I don't feel that I can do so any longer, since I am being harshly criticized for some reason that is beyond my understanding, therefore making me "involved" I suppose. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
User Blaxthos has on multiple pages
[8]
[9]
[10] accused me of being a POV warrior. This has been recognized by admin third party user
User:Jaysweet as being a baseless charge. Blaxthos additionally has misused the admin noticeboard, taking a dispute with me there when this would've been the appropriate spot, seemingly in an attempt to intimidate me. This is not the first time this user has misused wikipedia administration tools:
[11] there, he stalked and wrongfully reported a user who he'd had a longstanding disagreement with. It was recognized as a wrongful report and dismissed.
The root of this disagreement is Blaxthos' uncooperative editing, specifically on the
What Happened page. I will copy and paste the crux of the dispute from the admin noticeboard page:
I did not wish to take this further than civil discussion, but since Blaxthos has been hostile and has resorted to misreporting this on the admin noticeboard, I feel that this warrants some outside attention. Trilemma ( talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is Blaxthos aware that this thread is still ongoing? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
under the dub heading compromise The user User:The Hybrid is harassing me Yami ( talk) 05:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You're clearly frustrated that the subject of this complaint responded a little aggressively to a comment you made during a content dispute. However, the comment you made was very problematic, so it's a good idea to pay attention to those concerns and ignore the tone expressed by the subject of the complaint. Stick to the issues next time - comment on content, not contributors. Beyond that, there's nothing else to see here. It might be a good idea for you to take a break from the topic. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The user began by editing the Underoath Article against a consensus. The user keeps removing "Christian" label off of bands that classify themselves as being a "Christian band" simple because he thinks that means their religion, not music. Wikiedpia's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music all say otehrwise. He brought the conflict to my user page, and then went on to say I was being uncivil myself. I admit, I haven't kept my cool (because the pages that are being edited have had previous consensus to keep the Christian label and they didn't edit accordingly). I tried to tell him that a Christian band plays Christian music (as common sense would tell), but he refused and went on to edit my user talk page with "I don't understand you at all, isn't it about time for you to convert back over to atheism anyways?" I am highly offended by this, I don't think it's right or even civil to tell someone something like that. I told him to stay off but... I highly doubt he will. He isn't the only one to do this, as there are two others, but at least they have been civil about this. Please resolve this. There isn't a Chrsitian Metal wikiproject and a Christian metal category for nothing. ¤ IrønCrøw¤ ( Speak to Me) 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to draw attention to the pederasty article, which is having some problems right now.
Pederasty (as erotic relations between men and boys) is considered from various viewpoints, some historical, others positive, and of course majority views tend to be condemnatory, especially those that are concerned about the legal consequences, and harm to children. I (and it seems some other editors) am perfectly fine with every relevant view to be presented. Editors have expressed concern over POV forking (having a seperate pederasty and a pederasty in the modern world article), and that needs cleaning up, and there are many unsourced POV statements in the article. However, a group of editors (especially Haiduc [52] and AnotherSolipsist [53]) seem to be constantly removing peer-reviewed critical material when it is introduced:
When peer reviewed literature presenting relevant and majority views on pederasty are presented, they tend to cry homophobia, political conspiracy, smear, and propaganda and revert large sections of text [54] [55] [56] [57] [58], and as can be seen from the above, they make every attempt to remove material that describes the critical or majority views on pederasty. The accusations of “homophobic propaganda” are also quite ridiculous considering that most homosexuals have a dislike of pederasty and research suggests that they are mutually exclusive anyway [59]. When material is moved to the discussion page for discussion, they tend to totally ignore it [60] [61], and focus instead on distracting from discussing material facts by throwing uncivil accusations about [62] [63]. They fail to assume good faith, and fail to address the actual facts being presented. Their protestations seem to amount to “I don’t like it”. I have made strong efforts to follow the edit-revert-discuss cycle to all reasonable lengths, but constructive discussion of the material in question is not forthcoming. Any advice or attention will be welcome. Phdarts ( talk) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so, I'll take a crack at this one... I am aware of a long-running edit war on Wikipedia between pedophile apologists and anti-pedophile activists, but have stayed well on the periphery of this battle. I really don't need that kind of stress in my life, heh.
It appears this dispute is related to that long-running war. Would that be at least somewhat correct?
Again, I don't have any desire to mediate in that dispute, nor do I feel like I would have the skills of knowledge to do so. To put it bluntly, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.
So, while I am absolutely not going to attempt to resolve content disputes at Pederasty (dear god, no), what I will offer to do is if there are specific issues of incivility or tedentious editing, I am willing to look at diffs and try to give advice in relation to that. I am willing to warn users about civility (given a clear-cut diff of said incivility, of course), and I am willing to help broker specific compromises.
If you want someone to go mediate on the article itself, you'll have to find someone else. Frankly, I don't think you are going to get a lot of takers on this noticeboard -- over here, we usually just try to soothe tempers when people are getting a little stressed at each other. This kind of complicated mediation is beyond most of what happens at Wikiquette Alerts.
Within these constraints, let me know what I can do to help. Thanks. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the lecture, sir. I have always assumed good faith, and I have usually been rewarded with interesting and constructive discussions from which I learned a great deal and which almost invariably resulted in improvements to the articles I worked on, whether pederasty-related or not. In your case too I assumed good faith, but you, Phdarts, together with your collaborators, quickly disabused me of that illusion. You have consistently refused to engage in any meaningful discussion, as have your associates. Instead of engaging in a process of reasoning you have attempted to enforce your point of view by force of numbers and interminable repetition of favorite themes, one of them being the imposition of "majority views" and another being the incessant appeal to assuming good faith while destroying that faith through your behavior. I see that here too that pattern continues. Mediation?! Please go ahead. Your own words indict you better than mine ever could. Haiduc ( talk) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear me, this is why I don't get involved in these discussions. I write a couple paragraphs, and I come back 14 hours later to see several Kbytes of arguing. You anti-pederasty activists and pederasty apologists (I will not make the mistake of saying the pedo- word in present company anymore!) really need to see WP:TLDR. hehehe...
I have a few thoughts about the content dispute, but I am not nearly qualified. I would like to point out that Statutory rape is in Category:Child sexual abuse, FWIW, so even if we accept that pederasty and pedophilia are two separate things, it still seems remiss not to discuss an association between pederasty and abuse. But I don't really know anything about the literature, so I'll just leave it at that observation and not comment further on the content.
So, the Wikiquette issue at hand... Phdarts, to test my understanding, your main Wikiquette complaint is the edit summary that used the phrase "homophobic propaganda." Is that correct?
PaulB, Haiduc... words like "homophobic" and "propaganda" are very strong words, and when you put them together the message is even more intense. I would caution you to be very careful about using words such as this, especially in edit summaries (since they can not be retracted or modified later, not without admin assistance). I, in fact, avoid using words like that altogether most of the time -- and I have edited some pretty homophobic stuff out of articles before, but I try not to use those words because it just antagonizes the other side.
One option to move forward is that Haiduc can acknowledge that the words "homophobic propaganda" are highly charged and agree not to use language like that in edit summaries anymore. I think that is the easiest way to move forward, and it is what I would recommend. After all, if you feel a source is homophobic propaganda, you can still feel free to challenge it, but using less loaded words, e.g. you might say on the talk page (not edit summary, please) that "I feel this source has a clear bias as evidenced by X, Y, and Z, and I would object to using it as a reliable scientific source."
If this is really unacceptable to you, we can talk about other options. But really, does it take away from your ability to edit if you just don't call something "propaganda" in an edit summary? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I am closing and archiving this debate, and referring the participants to WP:RFC. While I do think there are some Wikiquette issues here, they are too intertwined with the underlying content dispute issues, and those issues are far beyond the ability of this noticeboard to address.
For instance, I wish people wouldn't throw around words like "homophobic" or "propaganda," but we can't really call it a cut-and-dry Wikiquette issue unless we establish whether or not an academic source criticizing pederasty can be considered homophobic -- and I'm going to cowardly refuse to even participate in that debate, sorry.
I have discussed this with another editor who is heavily involved in resolving requests on this noticeboard, and he agrees -- we just don't have the right people or the right resources to deal with it here. If an uninvolved editor would like to bravely take a crack at this, they may remove my {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} tags and reopen the discussion, but I would ask that nobody who commented here does so. As I said, we just can't help you here. I am sorry. Try WP:RFC. Best of luck. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
highly uncivil and if you check the start of his edit history he doesn't act like a new guy hence I suspect he's also a sockpuppet. -- Blackeagles ( talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Or he's obvious grudge against people of faith that taints so many of his posts and that's just in the last 7 days if one checks his edit history you'll find he makes remarks like this all the time. And then there's his sockpuppetry. My experience has been that most people start an account on wikipedia to edit articles (not to talk or argue) and as a result they start editing in articles. SlamDiego started editing in a talk area and went right from that to starting an article with a redirect, and not long after showed the kind of knowledge of wikipedia that only comes with working in it for over a year [73]. It's pretty obvious been on wikipedia before and under a different name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeagles ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I recommend everyone reading this check SlamDiego’s edit history from the start even if you disagree with the rest of my statement it is a fascinating read.
The fact is though that people who are new to Wikipedia don’t start out editing like SlamDiego.
He’s a clever one SlamDiego, chances are he’s working from a server with a rotating IP address.
He’s not new to Wikipedia he’s been here before under a different name.
He doesn’t operate like most disruptive editors though.
He limits his edits and conceals his disruptions from most people with the shear volume of his grammar corrections, and further dissuades most people from confronting him by employing a large vocabulary when he isn’t threatening to have people banned.
He’s the equivalent of a cumulative poison that takes years to kill a person but in the end it does.
I’ve also looked into grazon and while he did a lot of damage it wasn’t hard to spot.
I suspect he was a leftover from an earlier time from before the Seigenthaler incident.
SlamDiego is a new kind of creature and if you don’t keep an eye on him he will be more destructive that grazon ever was. -- Blackeagles ( talk) 00:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Maldek and I have been involved in a long running "difference of opinion" over reliable sources on the Burj Dubai article - Maldek saying an fan-boy blog site is an accurate source of information, and me and many others saying we need verifiable information from reliable sources even if it's not completely up-to-date, as per Wikipedia policy. Now for once Maldek believes we have a small point of agreement over the proposed height of another middle eastern skyscraper, Al Burj, when in fact I was simply copyediting another editor's contribution and assuming good faith that they had subscription access to a source. Unfortunately, Maldek is now taking this as some kind of endorsement that must be correct because I am "the man in charge" or "the God of Wikipedia". I really don't think such edit summaries are appropriate and is coming close to being a personal attack - but what do you guys think? Astronaut ( talk) 11:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
While adding material to Relationship between religion and science article over the past two weeks or so, I keep encountering what I perceive as rather strong language from User:Hrafn on the article's talk page Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science: the latest is "I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose," but in the past it has included such phrases as "Put up or shut up" I also am encountering rather pointy behavior. Recently, he or she followed me over to the unrelated project WP:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song where he or she brought up several other AfD's I had just contributed to (I don't think I went too far, but maybe I did. For I cited WP:TROLL). Plus he or she then tagged several of my other articles (e.g., Aydin Sayili). More recently, i.e., last night, he or she made drastic removals to the Relationship between religion and science article regarding well-sourced materials from H. Floris Cohen's 1994 book The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry in an apparent response to my additions of a small section, which I well-sourced to Peter J. Bowler's 2001 book Reconciling Science and Religion.
As the editor in question, here are some difs. Firefly322 has:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 04:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As to the "I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose" comment:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As to "Put up or shut up", that is a selective quotation -- my full statement was in fact "Put up or shut up, instead of making wild and WP:AGF-violating accusations. Provide the requested quotes."[ [86] Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Has violated the three-revert rule on 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team. Also, see the comment he left on my talk page. -- UWMSports ( talk) 05:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
User:GHcool is interested in me that he mentions me many times in his user page. I don't mind that, but what I do mind is him speaking bad of me: "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood". Per Wikipedia:User_page#What may I not have on my user page? this is a "perceived flaw" and should be removed from the page. I civilly asked him to remove the sentence but he declined to do it. Imad marie ( talk) 06:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, it seems GHcool is not willing to change his user page, any advice on how to proceed with the dispute resolution? Thanks. Imad marie ( talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This anonymous IP just appeared today specifically to edit in the Mexico Talkpage using very uncivil manners, insults and cynical comments [88] [89], his only 8 contributions have been done in that talkpage and he even warned me that he was going to change his IP before it could be block admitting that his only interest was to troll in Wikipedia, therefore I ask for the blockage of his IP and hope that when he changes it we can detect him. Supaman89 ( talk) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, where to begin... it's probably easier to just reference his contribution history... from his massively offensive userpage, to his incendiary accusations of "liberal bias" everywhere (only one diff given for brevity), to his false claims of "admin persecution", this guy takes the cake. He has even gone so far as to demand that contributors self-identify their political beliefs so that he may evaluate them. I suspect we're dealing with an adolescent, but in any case swift WQA action is in order. Thanks in advance. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for labels to be thrown around during a content dispute, so this really could've been dealt with without pursuing formal steps of dispute resolution. In any case, the user has been advised accordingly and there's nothing else to see here. Move on. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am having a discussion with Vapour ( talk · contribs) at Talk:MV Oceanic Viking over their desire to include a quote from an Australian political columnist Dennis Shanahan in this article (we were edit waring, and have taken the matter to the talk page - please see [90] for the text in question). During this discussion Vapour made a number of insulting comments against me. He/she has stated that "You do not seem to understand the policy of this site", that my edits are motivated by my political beliefs and that I am tying to censor other views. I have not mentioned my political views or views on whaling in this discussion, so they seem to be assuming that I hold various positions, and the wording I've proposed identifies Shanahan as the source of the comments and links back to the opinion article in which he made them, so I don't see how I'm suppressing his views. Vapour seems particularly upset that I called Dennis Shanahan right-wing, but he has admitted not knowing who he is, and this is simply a statement of how Shanahan is widely percieved (see for, instance, [91] and [92] for a couple of published examples which briefly discuss his leanings towards the conservative Liberal Party) and I would have removed similar quotes from left-wing political writers praising Australia's current left-wing government as being unsuited to the topic of the article (a ship).
More seriously, Vapour is now claiming I am abusing my admin status by trying to throw my weight around. I'm not sure how I could be doing so, however, as I only mentioned this status to rebut his abusive comment that I don't understand Wikipedia policies (eg, as I wouldn't be an admin if I didn't have at least a rough idea of the key policies), noted that it's no guarantee that I'm right and haven't used any admin tools on this article. Could someone please look into this and issue a warning as appropriate? Nick Dowling ( talk) 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
(I was about to post this response, then I was informed that I got a message. So please be aware of that fact.)
This is Vapour. Thanks Nick Dowling for informing me that he made a complaint. Here is my response. I made an edit sourced to the Australian, the biggest national newspaper in Australia. Then someone deleted it due to its being (right leaning) criticism/opinion. When someone's objection is not about the reliability of source but opinion expressed in it, it is a sign that the person is not familiar with wikipedia. Nick Dowling has not stated what is his political affiliation. That is fine. His or my politics is not an issue as long as edits are reliably sourced. However, he made his politics an issue by deleting an edit due to its politics/opinion. To my surprise, Nick Dowling turn out to be an admin. To make a matter worse, it is he who told me this. It is my opinion that it is extremely unwise for an admin to state his admin status in an edit dispute then later, make a complaint higher up because the other side was not nice enough to him. Admin is a judge, jury and has many system privilege. An admin shouldn't behave like other wikipedian by spinning wikipedia policies and system to his advantage like a lawyer do, then imply that, since he is an admin, he know the policy. Him taking the complaint higher up made the matter worse. Now it is an another admin who have to declare who is right. If I wins, then it shows that an admin doesn't know an elementary application of policies or worse, admin bend policies for his partisan bias. If Nick Dowling wins, it is "who you know" not "what you know". Lastly, this dispute could have been easily settled if Nick Dowling left my sourced edit alone then went on to look for a sourced statement in support of Oceanic Viking Vapour ( talk) 11:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact of matter is that censoring an sourced opinion is not fair. If he is admin, he should know that. Instead, he is filibustering the issue. If an admin doesn't want to lose, then what? Admin acting like a street lawyer to an average wikipedian is not fair. That include making Wikiquette compliant when opposing side point out that his policy argument is weak (and biased) and he, an admin, should know better. I usually leave sourced edit alone no matter how much it conflict with my POV, as long as edit is sourced from media or academia. Why can't I expect that kind of fairness from an admin. Vapour ( talk) 12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Vapour, there are a number of points that you've raised (and failed to acknowledge) that are troubling. You may need to look back at the article talk page after some points below.
You must familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, and understand them, and should not (at any time) game the system. If you cannot comply, and continue to edit disruptively, then this matter is not resolved and stronger measures will be used as necessary. Does this clarify it for you - have I made myself clear? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 13:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I still maintain that it's key to aim at balance (representing all views, proportionately) and to try not to overquote. Also, try to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. El_C 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
User is misciting and misusing WP policies and warning templates, is accusing me of doing the same, and is refusing to stop posting to my talk page after being asked to stop. Groupthink ( talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Neon white has agreed to the compromise: Both of you should stay off of each other's talk page, at least until this blows over, and pursue other venues for dispute resolution. I see Neon white is already in contact with PeterSymonds ( talk · contribs) and hopefully some understanding can be reached.
I would caution both users to remember that templating another user can be perceived as incivil, even if you don't mean it that way (see WP:DTTR), and that the worst thing you can do in that situation is get in a retaliatory template war. Both users are trying to do the right thing, I believe, so there is no need to "get all up in it". :D :D
I am marking this as resolved for now. Best of luck with the content dispute! -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
User originally stated on their userpage that their IQ was "probably higher than yours". I thought this was rather provocative, and removed it. Kd lvr then reverted me, and I am me93 left me a rather aggressive message. Me and IAM93 then discussed the matter- his talk and my talk. IAM93 continued to be aggressive and completely missed the point that his userpage isn't his own space to do whatever he likes. After reverting back and forth, we were left with an even more aggressive userpage. I don't want to revert war, so I bring the matter here for a third opinion. Never used this page before, apologies if I have done this wrong. J Milburn ( talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This comment is a personal attack accusing me of being a tendentious cabal. This sort of harassment was discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design but apparently Dragon695 didn't get the message. I'd like it to stop when I return to that page. Odd nature ( talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Accusing anyone of being tendentious is a personal attack which violates WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. Accusing anyone of being part of a tendentious cabal compounds the insult. Look at my comment Dragon695 attacked me for. Really, sort of incivility needs to stop. Odd nature ( talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that the phrase "self promoting" is said to be a sanctionable offense [101], and many editors charge that identifying them as "Wikipedia Review editors" is a personal attack and uncivil [102] (even if they are editors who have accounts at Wikipedia Review) and even listing Wikipedia policies [103] is viewed as an uncivil attack [104], and even questioning this is viewed as a personal attack [105], it is a bit hard to imagine how this outburst is not problematic. Can someone explain it to me?-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hilarious. Ok another one for my list. Thanks.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have decided to go do something else and leave these people be, for now. I'm sorry about that outburst, it could have been worded better. I will stand by my original statement: Odd Nature, Filll, and company will either modify their behavior or find themselves sanctioned by the community. Attempts at obfuscating the issue by FT2's one-off mistake will not succeed. I feel strongly that these editors who all have claimed, at one time or another, to be champions of science do more harm then good to the project. More importantly, they make strong believers in science ashamed to be associated with them due to their persistent odious behavior towards anyone who disagrees with them (see ID RFC for diffs). They certainly don't represent the highly regarded, well mannered, scholarly scientists I've ever met. Vigorous debate yes, but the tear–down, scorched–earth campaigns against those of opposing viewpoints is just outrageous. What you did to Mrs. Picard sometimes makes me want to reconsider my principled, strong opposition to WP:BLP. That is all I will say on the matter for now. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I hardly know where to begin. Thanks to people like Dragon695, I have stopped editing these kinds of articles completely. Am I not allowed to defend myself? Is no one involved with ID allowed? And I still have not seen how we did anything bad to Professor Picard. Have you talked to Professor Picard? Do you know what her position is? If you are so concerned about the statements about Professor Picard, why not mount a lawsuit against the New York Times, which is where we obtained our information? If what we did was so terrible, then what they did was clearly many times worse. What is amazing, is that Dragon695 believes that Picard episode justifies any kind of outrageous behavior on his part, or anyone else's part. Good heavens. I also think that Dragon695 does not know many scientists or much about science.--
Filll (
talk |
wpc)
20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Storm Rider ( talk · contribs)
I wonder if someone could have a look at the comments being directed at me on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.? - Juden ( talk) 00:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I took a look, and while some of Storm Rider's comments are pushing it in terms of civility and good faith, the edits Juden is adding have some problems. The allegation that Joseph Smith fathered children with women other than Emma smith is a tinderbox, and would need to be well-sourced. Even if it was well-sourced, care would have to be taken regarding the Undue weight policy. I know quite a bit about Mormonism, and I think I've only heard that allegation once or twice (doesn't mean it's not more common than I think, but I am a little skeptical).
Juden, if you would like to pursue this further, Storm Rider should be notified of this thread. Let us know what you'd like to do. It looks like Ludwigs has already asked Storm Rider to tone it down. Wikiquette Alerts is not intended to mediate in content disputes, but if you are continuing to have trouble with reverting each other, I could probably take a look (Full disclosure: I was raised Mormon, but have not been affiliated with the church for pretty much my entire adult life, and I hold little sympathy for the organization. I believe I can mediate without allowing a conflict of interest to get in the way, as I do not consider myself to anti-Mormon either, but I am not completely uninvolved either) -- Jaysweet ( talk) 14:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Juden said: I have never inserted any claim into any article that Joseph Smith was known to have children by his plural wives. While this is technically true, it is terribly disingenuous. See this diff, which is only one of like three (both of you were pushing WP:3RR there at times, by the way). While you technically did not say that he did, there was no mention of this possibility previously, so it clearly is a hint. If I all of a sudden said, in the middle of handling this Wikiquette Alert, "It is not clear to me whether or not Juden beats his wife", do you think that would be fair? Of course not.
Also, since the section in question was providing views either way as to whether Smith did have plural wives, the statement is loaded from that perspective too, because it implicitly confirms that he has plural wives. In fact, forget what I said before, this would be like if I wrote, in the middle of this post, "It is not clear to me how often Juden beats his wife." Um, no. Not acceptable.
Now, if we produce some notable and credible sources that are discussing the possibility, that might warrant inclusion. Until then, though, the loaded statement simply does not belong in the article.
Regarding the allegations of continued incivility, do you have any diffs? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Storm Rider (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Calling the removal of insults an "unconstructive edit" is just another violation of WP:Civility. Thanks for providing further evidence.- Juden (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC) You might want to find a new complaint; that one is getting rather old and people aren't listening to you. Maybe if you jump up and down it will help, but I would actually recommend reading polciies and attempt to first implement them yourself. You may see it as a personal insult; however, that would be a personal problem and it would have nothing to do with my edit. My edit was a warning and should be interpreted as such. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for adding more evidence. - Juden (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
which will soon be gone :) - Juden ( talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm very disturbed by the commentaries left by this user Dilip_rajeev at an AFD, in which a simply AFD turned into a shouting match between the pro-FLG and anti-FLG camps. For example here [111] he made attacks against another user for wanting to delete the article, suggesting him as a "CCP-hired thug paid to post pro-CCP messages and assault FLG practitioners". In another instance he accused a new user of being a CCP propagandist [112]. The user edits nothing but Falun Gong related articles [113], and has been blocked 3 times previously for edit warring. [114]-- PCPP ( talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
IP address 216.70.26.237 has been making drastic reversions to articles, including List of programs broadcast by ABC Family and List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Those edits have been part of ongoing edit wars (see Talk:List of programs broadcast by ABC Family#Article organization and Talk:List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon#Article reorganization) in both articles. Furthermore, he has used the "undo" feature without an edit summary [116] and has used the summary "rv vandalism" to restore his preferred version of the articles. [117] [118] [119] [120].
Note: I have left a talk page message with this user about a month ago. [121] RJaguar3 | u | t 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Edited to add: The above diff was about edit warring. This diff [122] was about the use of "rv vandalism" edit summaries. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, there is no prohibition that I am aware of about using the "undo" button to change to a preferred version, as long as it does not constitute edit warring. (You may be confusing this with the Rollback function offered to some Wikipedians, and available via scripts like Twinkle -- those features should not be used except for vandalism and other egregious issues)
One other piece of advice I would give is that it is almost always a bad idea to call something "vandalism" unless it is really, really obvious (e.g. blanking an entire page and replacing it with "I like doo-doo!"). Even if someone is making a highly controversial edit that goes against consensus, generally one should avoid calling it "vandalism" as this only serves to fan the flames. So, avoid the V-word when possible.
Does 216.*'s promise to use the edit summary resolve this problem, or should someone look into it more carefully? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Please review Special:Contributions/LardleFan as this user has made several personal attacks against me. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Cleo123 has treated me in an incivil way. There are multiple instances, but the main one of concern should be those found here. To be upfront, a few admin have contacted me and asked that I file a complaint here about current incivil treatments of myself. I have filed a report of the above user's actions on my talk page and a report on the above user's use of BLP and other policies to justify their behavior. This report is just for incivil comments about myself which the above user refuses to stop.
1. "Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. [99][100] Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior."
An accusation of incivility based on my removing an off topic dispute by the above user that I did not want on my talk page and made it clear in the summary that I was reverting (yet they denied that they could see that I reverted).
2. "You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page."
Claims that I posted derogatory remarks using this as evidence, even though I did not post any derogatory remarks nor even post there.
3. "When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks?"
Vague allegations of incivility or possible sock puppetry.
4. "As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous."
More claims that I was being disrupted based on my activities here and here.
5. "Now the numerous sources available make it clear that Steve Windom was the victim of defamation that resulted in criminal charges. The incident is currently discussed in a neutral and fair manner in the article. Yet, you have been arguing for a detailed reprinting on Wikipedia of the material that a court ruled to be libelous. You have even encouraged a new, inexperienced user to create a free standing article in order to showcase this libel, insisting that Windom who you claim to have contacted in real life, (in violation of Wikipedia's policies on original research) will have to sue Wikipedia if he wants to get it removed! When users attempt to explain Wikipedia's libel policy to you, you have repeatedly taken the unusual stance that only actual libel victims are allowed to mention the word WP:LIBEL on Wikipedia."
As you can see, the above user claims that you cannot talk about legal cases dealing with defamation, even if numerous news papers reported on it. The above user also condemns any mention of it before they even see it. The above user also challenges John Carter's and my proposal of moving any indepth discussion of the incident (false allegations about prostitution) to a new page in order to remove any WP:WEIGHT issues. The above user then attacks me for contacting the subject of the article in order to determine if they felt that the way we were handling it was "defamation" in order to negate their claims that it was defamation (as only the person in the biography has the right to determine such and not any proxy unless given legal permission to do so). They are then claiming that it is "original research" even though such a thing pertains only to the pages themselves and not to figuring out legal issues behind the pages. They then claim that I don't understand policy. Swatjester's comments on the legality and the legal process of the page can be found here. As he states, it is an issue for OTRS and the Office.
6. "I've said that a court ruled the material in question to be libelous, which it did. I've cautioned you about knowingly reprinting libel on Wikipedia as you could be exposing Wikipedia to potential legal problems. I think WP:BLP is very clear that libel about living people is to be removed immediately."
Another claim that I would be producing Libel before even seeing what I would right.
7. "You entered the article's discussion late in the game and have been defending the view of an editor who was repeatedly inserting defamatory material into the article."
Claims that I "entered" into a "game" at a time that was "late". Also claims of defamation.
8. "For reasons unknown, you are still on the page fighting like hell to "mediate" a dispute that no longer exists, even going so far as to contact the article's subject and argue for the creation of a separate "scandal" article for reasons unknown."
Questioning my use of mediation between User:Dem1970 and User:Audemus Defendere. As you can note, both of the have stopped their edit war and are no longer fighting in a semi-incivil manner.
9. "I am a disruption? LOL! Sorry, but that is downright amusing coming from a user who has been banned from participating in FAC discussions (for behavior that is strikingly similar to your conduct in this matter)"
The user links here, which you can note that I took a short wikibreak from FA review, and I was not banned. As you can also note, SandyGeorgia, who helps run FAR/FAC stated that I was a good contributor and was opposed to the proposed actions of a vocal minority.
10. "cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times."
The above user cites this, which had no real result and did not agree that it was "extreme". They also cite my block log, which dealt mostly with an edit dispute at Treaty of Tripoli which I broke 3RR based on reverting just before 24 hours, an edit dispute at to proposed changes to WP:NLT which community consensus agreed with me on a stopping of the wording from being changed, and a block until I apologized for "tenditious editing" based on User:MSJapan and my dispute over the legitimacy of academic sources which did not involve a 3RR and was disputed by quite a few admin. Do any of these pertain to the situation? No.
That is just one page. There are multiple talk pages that include mostly repetition of the above. Ottava Rima ( talk) 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
User: Maunus appears to be in contravention of WP:DRC. S/he has made repeated reverts on my talkpage. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies to Maunus; I had not realised 78.151.142.191 ( talk · contribs) was the one making the reverts. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms ( talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Being consistently attacked by user:Nishidani. user:Nishidani has been accusing me all over wikipedia recently. He has been accusing me of calling him an antisemite, something I've never done, and I politely explained his mistake to him, he keeps ignoring this and accusing me in order to confuse an administrator and attack me on every occasion. He has called me a terrorist organization fanatic a Lehi aficionado - aficionado means fanatic, fan, enthusiastic follower , which means he claims I'm a terrorist organization fanatic. He's difficult to discuss with because when in content dispute, he claims the other party to be a vandal. He name-called me a myriad of slurs one of which was that I engage in chronic vandalism. To top it all, he now threatens to report me. This is harassment. Recently, I've been stalked by user:Meteormaker, and his attacks against me seem like a personal vendetta, because he is an ally of Meteormaker on several articles. Here he followed me to the stalker's page and spread lies on me. He claims I stalked him on pages I always had watched. He then says "Big blokes aren't supposed to whine, especially about piddling matters" and yet threatens continuously to report me, probably thinking he can trick an administrator into believing that I called him an antisemite. The reason he's doing all that is because he 'lost' in a content dispute in Talk:Lehi (group), where a consensus has reached and he didn't like it. This consensus was already reached in November 2007 and the article had a stable version (about this issue). He now introduced it again, and didn't reply to the issues I've raised and other users' pleas to move on, and instead tried to make it personal again. I want him to leave the personal attacks aside and focus on the content. While he calls my words dreck, which is crap in Yiddish I've always tried to be very polite to him. I said to him "I know you're reasonable and I respect your opinions", and this is what I get. Being called a terrorist fanatic and accused of saying things I've never said. Amoruso ( talk) 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have warned Nishandi for making personal attacks. Gwen Gale ( talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)