Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Calling "Jewish" a source or an article improperly and without any valid reason

Resolved
 – Closed per request by Jeffro77 and Ceci n'est pas une pipe
  1. Jeffro77 refers to the Wikipedia article Righteous Among the Nations as to a "Jewish article".
  2. I have asked him to avoid this kind of remarks which I find rather abusive. I must say that I misunderstood his initial assertion: I thought he was referring to the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations.
  3. John Carter has intervened to say that it's OK to refer to that Encyclopedia as to a "Jewish article" because it is an Encyclopedia with a Jewish learning (sic!).

I have no idea what relevance these remarks have on the topic we were discussing. I perceive this as an abuse. Is there anything that can be done or shall we accept that somebody else refers to the article Homosexuality as to a "homosexual article", to Romani people as to a "Gypsy article", to National Socialism as to a "Nazi article"?

This is not essential but, by the way, both of them keep denying the simple fact that the source (the Encyclopedia) explicitly mentions the religious affiliation of two Jehovah's Witnesses as their motivation for hiding a young Jewish woman during the Shoah. How do you talk to someone who refuses to read the sources while at the same time qualifying them as "Jewish"?

-- Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77 and John Carter's remarks are reasonable in the context they were made -- discussion of an article listing individuals who saved individuals of the Jewish faith during the Holocaust. Nobody Ent 11:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Ceci n'est pas une pipe seems to imagine that it is somehow offensive to specify the context of an article that is plainly related to Jewish people. I have no idea why he imagines that to be some kind of indictment of Jews or anyone else. Aside from that, no one has 'denied' that the encyclopedia to which he refers makes mention of the religion of a couple of people who helped one Jewish girl. The point is that their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves), because people of any religion are equally likely to consider their religion to be a motive for helping others. Righteous Among the Nations does not give any special attention to the religious affiliation of others who helped Jewish people during the Holocaust, including those who helped hundreds or even thousands of Jews. It seems that Ceci n'est pas une pipe's entire basis for raising this complaint may be a retributive action for his edit not being retained at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments [1] See User talk:Jeffro77#Re and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Notable Jehovah's Witnesses.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling it a jewish article isn't entirely accurate but it is civil. It would be better described as a "Judaism related article". Comparing calling an aricle jewish to calling an article homosexual, nazi or gypsy is a bit over the top. It seems like your implying they are all pejorative which isn't the case. Gsonnenf ( talk) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77—why are you referring to the Righteous among the Nations article as a "Jewish article"? Bus stop ( talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Already answered. Nobody Ent 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it may be slightly more accurate to refer to a Judaism-related article, but Jewish article is entirely valid shorthand for same. The term was used quite clearly to establish context. It should be quite clear that I was not implying that a digital file on a database possesses any particular ethnicity. Sigh.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Jeffro77 —I think it is not advisable to pigeonhole articles as "Jewish articles". I think such a reference tends to be dismissive of the article so referrenced. An article is a complex entity referring to many identities including in this case non-Jews. Those who extended kindness at great personal risk to Jews during the holocaust, referenced for instance in this section, are also the subject of that article. I'm heartened by your characterization of your language as merely "shorthand" as I understand the exigencies of quickly dashing off written communication on Talk pages. Nevertheless I understand the objection raised here to the encapsulation of a complex topic covered as if it were merely of concern to Jews, as this article highlights many non-Jews as well. Bus stop ( talk) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article not calling it a Jewish article, 'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths. Gsonnenf ( talk) 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The context in which it I referred to as a 'Jewish article' is quite clear. Some of you are behaving as if this is wording I've tried to use in article. Please just stop.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

After this and this - which can well be right and I have not questioned - I have decided to add this in the talk of the Project related to the JWs: if users more skilled/knowledgeable than myself are interested to add this piece of information to Wikipedia they have the opportunity to discuss about it, as it is unlikely that I will intervene any longer on this subject anyway, with maybe few exceptions.

Jeffro77 reacted with a certain irritation: «As you've already been told …» which is not exactly an elegant way to talk to anyone. After all, what I have been told is only his opinion (over and over again, actually) - opinion which is objectively wrong, a mere provocation: Jeffro77 is openly denying the content of a source which reports that the two Belarusians in question were «devout JWs» and that «they believed that their deed of rescue was a commandment from God» while Jeffro77 keeps repeating over and over again that «their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves)». What is he trying to say? That the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations (ERAN) is not a relevant source? He has never tried to explain why, according to him, what the ERAN finds notable should be ignored/discarded. He keeps repeating that the 2 JWs saved only 1 Jew while many others have saved thousands. What is he trying to say? That the two didn't deserve the honorific "Righteous Among the Nations"? That the honorific itself is not especially notable? He proposed to add the two Belarusians in a Polish list (?!). This is the context in which he added that ambiguous inaccurate «Jewish article». If you allow me, I have noted too much ambiguous inaccuracy accompanied by the presumption that he is obviously right and I'm obviously wrong. If he is obviously right, how come he is being so inaccurate and on similar delicate issues?

In English, Jewish article means an article that has been written with a Jewish point of view which, related to a Wikipedia article, means that it is a bad article, at least if Wikipedia articles aim at being "neutral". The same is true for "homosexual article" or "Nazi article" or any other "x article" of the same kind. It is wrong and there can be absolutely no doubt about this. Together with the rest, included the fact that he keeps defending his inaccuracy, it makes me think it was not a simple accidental inaccuracy, and this will remain my permanent opinion about Jeffro77.

I feel quite disappointed by the kind of comments I have read here. I expect from someone endowed with the slightest common sense to at least say something like: «Jewish article is wrong and potentially very ambiguous. No hard feelings, but please avoid such remarks in the future». But I agree that common sense is not so common after all. 1 Case closed for me. -- Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 'denying' anything. I am stating that the religion of the 2 people who helped one Jewish girl is not especially notable. I am also stating that Righteous Among the Nations does not note the religious affiliation of other people who helped hundreds or thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. I am therefore stating that it would constitute undue weight to give special attention to the fact that the religion of these two people is more significant than the religious affiliation of many other people of various religions who helped Jews during the Holocaust. Regarding his further claim that I've suggested the honorific is not notable, I have also previously stated that the numbers for these two should be included at Righteous Among the Nations in the same manner as all the others. The Encyclopedia says that the 2 people considered their religion to be their motive for helping the Jewish girl; that could be said of people of any religion, and does not warrant special attention in the Wikipedia article. It certainly would be biased to make a special point of the honorific being conveyed upon JWs when no such special point is made in the article about members of other religions, as if it should be 'surprising' that JWs would receive the honorific.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe seems to be on a crusade about questioning my motives on something for which everyone else clearly recognised the intended context and that such—while not an accurate description for article content—was not objectionable. Jewish article in English means "an article that is of or pertaining to Jews or Judaism." I have no idea why Ceci n'est pas une pipe determines that such an article must therefore be 'bad'. (I should also note that the value judgement Ceci n'est pas une pipe places on 'homosexual articles' as 'bad' is also discriminatory.)-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 01:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have provided clear evidence that Jeffro77 is lying: he says that «their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves)» knowing that the ERAN says that, when the situation became extremely dangerous, they kept protecting their ward because «they believed that their deed of rescue was a commandment from God», i.e. their religious affiliation is especially notable for ERAN which mentions only this as explanation for their motive. Since ERAN is not written by the two belarusian JWs, Jeffro77 is lying because he knows that what he is stating is false. Of course that doesn't mean that what ERAN finds notable should be considered notable by Wikipedia as well, I have never suggested this automatism.
Since Jeffro77 cannot defend himself from the evidence, he changes subject to deviate from the point: his "undue weight" argument is completely empty, given that I have never proposed to mention the story of the two JWs in Righteous among the Nations. My opinion is that a short paragraph could - not should - be added in some article related to the behaviour of Jehovah's Witnesses during WWII, in particular their very clear and rather compact refusal of the Nazi regime. For an interesting point of view, read here.
The idea that "Jewish article", when referred to a Wikipedia article, means "an article that is of or pertaining to Jews or Judaism" is silly and I shall not answer. A "homosexual article" is an article that is of or pertaining to homosexuals? Simply ridiculous. Normal people do not use these expressions unless they intend to be offensive. If they do not intend to be offensive they do not persist defending such ambiguous expressions.
When a user refers to a Wikipedia article as to a "Jewish article", the least that can be noted is that, by saying so, he is accusing the contributors of that article of partisanship/dishonesty/disregard for the neutrality policies. If the attached attribute is sensitive - like "Jewish" or "homosexual" - then this is likely to be also abusive towards these communities.
Also, it should be noted that the article in question - Righteous among the Nations - is not a Judaism-related article, being related to the Shoah, Antisemitism, World War II, Israel, Yad Vashem, etc. Certainly not to Judaism, no more than to Jewish atheism (the Nazi plan included the entire Jewish people, not only the followers of the religion called Judaism).
The rest is a ridiculous, totally unsubstantiated accuse made by Jeffro77 against my person («(I should also note …»): I request that it is removed from history.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 16:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you is not lying and expressing an opinion is not a criminal allegation. It is not going to be a good use of your time discussing the article content here; the issue you've asked our opinion on is whether the use of the term "Jewish article" is incivil and there is not a consensus that it is. Nobody Ent 16:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I require that the user withdraws his claim about libel.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I also just noticed his statement that I had "proposed to add the two Belarusians in a Polish list". As I immediately explained after I realised I'd made a minor error [2], I had innocuously thought a place name in his text was in Poland rather than Belarus. I have no opinion or vested interest regarding the politics of Poland or Belarus, and am not aware that the incidental error was "delicate". (However, on closer inspection, the Wilno District was in fact part of Poland at the beginning of World War II. [3])-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the false syllogism between the words Jewish and homosexual, words pertaining to nationalities are ordinarily (and non-judgementally) used in the sense of pertaining to. Italian food. French architecture. No one routinely refers to homosexual food or homosexual architecture. The only reason for selecting the term homosexual for such a comparison is to suggest that such a term is inherently negative.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
(I just noticed another editor had marked this section as resolved prior to my last comment. I considered deleting the post-resolved comment, but as it is related to a separate attack on my motives, I feel it is better to leave intact, with some adjustment.)-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
We can change it to stuck if you'd like. It appears outside authors have stated their opinions. For something relatively minor like this, findings of WQA just give you an outside opinion. Hopefully you can benefit from the outside perspective. Gsonnenf ( talk) 11:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Jeffro77, after resolution, has taken advantage to keep attacking me with ridiculous nonsensical non-arguments, I reckon one last reply is only due.
Now Jeffro77 says that referring to a Wikipedia article as to a "Jewish article" is comparable to talking about Italian food (sic!). He must have surely been thinking hard about it.
He also says that for him it is routine to refer to a Wikipedia article as to a Jewish article, while for some extraordinarily mysterious reason he agrees with me (and fails to acknowledge it) that "homosexual article" would be an intolerable incivility.
He says: «The only reason for selecting the term homosexual for such a comparison is to suggest that such a term is inherently negative». No way: what do Jews and homosexuals (or Gypsies) have in common? They are both minorities under risk of discrimination: the comparison is only too obvious. Thus also the last desperate attempt to deviate attention from his inaccurate expression evaporates into thin air. -- Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 14:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. You seem to have misused 'sic'.
  2. You know (or should reasonably know) that words describing nationalities are commonly used as descriptors, as in the examples provided.
  3. I did not say I agree with your negative implication about "homosexual article", I said that to come up with the comparison in the first place suggests a negative view of that topic, and it ignores the stated distinction demonstrating the way in which nationality descriptors are commonly used.
  4. Your attack here seems entirely retributive in nature as a result of your edit being removed from an article.
  5. I used the term Jewish in an appropriate manner for a Talk page, and everyone else clearly understands the intended meaning. It is not particularly important or relevant that you continue to object. Now please go and do something productive, like complain vehemently about Jewish cuisine.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 14:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
While Jewish cuisine is a perfectly no-nonsense notion, "Jewish article" - when referred to a Wikipedia article - is certainly not. People with non-hostile attitudes don't say that. Polite people withdraw it without any problem, if found ambiguous, they don't persist for days and days.
If Wikipedia community accepts your ambiguous expressions, it's perfectly ok for me, I don't live on Wikipedia. I don't need assistance to identify your expressions and your obstinacy to defend them as improper: I will remain happy with that.
I find it quite touching that you started by saying that your "Jewish" was related to "Judaism" and now you end up claiming that yours was a reference to a nationality (which, in particular, and of whom? -- I'd be curious to know). But - you say - not to an ethnicity. In short, you don't have yourself the slightest idea of what you meant by that "Jewish article". Whoa! You might find beneficial to do some reading. Also you could try to focus a minute or two on the meaning of that " among the Nations": it's there for a reason after all.
-- Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 16:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You incorrectly inferred something about my use of Jewish article. You also incorrectly inferred that my reference to the Wikipedia article Righteous Among the Nations was actually about The Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations. You were then upset by your own incorrect inferences. The context of my use of Jewish article was clear from the outset (as confirmed by other editors), yet you continue to claim special knowledge of my thoughts. You have assumed an awful lot. The only thing you have not assumed is good faith.
But let's go step back a bit and look at where I happened to use this supposedly terrible phrase. Was it a frequent characterisation of articles related to Jews or Judaism? No. Was it in an article? No. Was it even at article Talk? Well, actually, no, it wasn't. This shocking phrase was actually used in a single comment in response to Ceci n'est pas une pipe at my User Talk page, directly in relation to establishing the correct context of information Ceci n'est pas une pipe had added to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. The context of the original 'offensive' statement was "My best guess from the place names was Poland [Wilno was in fact in Poland at the beginning of WWII]. Whatever the location, it only warrants mentioning within the context of Righteous among the Nations or directly related articles. The account [of two Jehovah's Witnesses helping a Jewish girl] has nothing at all to do with the attitude of governments toward JWs. Nor is there any indication in the account that the action of two JWs is representative of the religion itself. If their status as JWs is relevant in the context of the Jewish article , I have no concern about it being mentioned."-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, I did not "[start] by saying that [my use of] "Jewish" was related to "Judaism""; I actually said at this page that a Jewish article means an article pertaining to Jews or Judaism. Distinction between culture, nationality or ethnicity is entirely beside the point, as no negative connotation was ever intended. The fact remains that Righteous Among the Nations is plainly a Jewish topic (in the sense used in the original statement), relating to an honorific bestowed by Jews on people of other nations for helping Jews. If you (or anyone else) imagine that somehow suggests something negative about Jews, that is essentially your problem. I simply do not automatically attribute negative implications to normal English words.
My entire obligation to Ceci n'est pas une pipe in this matter is to acknowledge that he made an incorrect inference about my response to him at my User Talk page. I will proceed to an ANI if he continues to attack my motives.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have removed what appeared to be a biased summary by Gsonnenf. In view of his own contributions, it seems advisable that Gsonnenf should not close discussions on matters concerned with Judaism. Recently he has been significantly involved in similar matters on this page. His summary seemed WP:POINTY. Please leave it up to disinterested regulars. Mathsci ( talk) 07:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
WQA editors have already suggested Jeffro77 use the term "jewish related article" instead of "jewish article" when referring multi-cultural articles. Jefrro77 is free to believe what he wants as long as he's not violating wiki policy. If he continues to refer to multi-cultural article as a "Jewish article", and you feel this breaches wiki policy, I would suggest taking it to a message board with binding resolutions. Gsonnenf ( talk) 07:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. This noticeboard is being misused by a number of users, beyond the purposes for which it was intended. Please do not restore your biased summary. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Mathsci, I understand we've had differences on several occasions, but please do not disrupt this WQA process to make a point about your feelings towards me. Thank you. Gsonnenf ( talk) 07:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, given your own editing history, it is probably better not to involve yourself in this WP:POINTY way. The discussion does not seem to have ended yet. My own view is that on talk pages language is often so imprecise and ungrammatical that this minor nit-picking serves little or no purpose. The imprecision does not involve comments about any particular user on wikipedia. I cannot see how incivility or wikiquette enter here. Mathsci ( talk) 07:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to recap. The initial reporter made a complaint about two editors, only one of whom has responded here. Nobody Ent did not think the objection was valid. Apart from Gsonnenf himself and the original reporter, the only other editor to intervene has been Bus Stop. Now I have made a statement, more or less in agreement with Nobody Ent. What consensus is there here, except that this is a minor linguistic issue on a talk page that was probably not worth reporting here? Mathsci ( talk) 08:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, I don't see why you see any bias in the resolution.

Opinions

  • Not uncivil - Nobodyent, Gsonnenf, Mathsci
  • Better referred as X-related article instead of X article - Bus Stop, gsonnenf

I'm pretty much just summarizing here, no WP:POINT at all. Last WQA author besides me (and now you) posted 5 days ago. Also, there is a link [4] to the admin recommending removal of the term libel which occurred during this dispute. Hopefully the authors will stop debating this WQA and do something more beneficial since we concluded the WQA. Gsonnenf ( talk) 08:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The original complaint was a misuse of this noticeboard. Since Jeffro77 is still adding comments, I do not see that the matter has yet been concluded. Mathsci ( talk) 10:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I've exercised my right of reply. The matter can be closed.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've retagged the request per the WQA volunteer instructions Nobody Ent 11:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really 'stuck'. The complaint was based on an incorrect inference on the part of the complainant, and the circumstances and correct intended meaning have all been very clearly explained. No further action is necessary.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 12:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Jeffro77—"Righteous among the Nations" is nominally a Jewish article because included in its material are topics that involve Jews, among other people. But "Righteous among the Nations" is not an article that has a Jewish perspective. If it were, it would probably be in violation of important WP principles such as WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. I don't think it would be incorrect to say that Wiki does not have Jewish articles, Muslim articles, or Christian articles. The choosing of language is of obvious importance. Referring to the "Righteous among the Nations" article as a Jewish article has the unintended consequence of implying that it has a Jewish perspective. Bus stop ( talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The context of the usage of the term at my User Talk page was unambiguous, limited in scope, and had an intended audience of one. I see no reason to change it.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 12:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The initial complaint was a valid use of the board. Ceci n'est pas une pipe felt Jeffro77 was being uncivil because he found the comment offensive. The board gave him good feed back that the community did not see it as uncivil. The board also gave guidance for resolving the situation. I'm glad we could give input that helped resolve the situation. Gsonnenf ( talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Gsonnenf, please stop sermonising. Hardly anybody commented, nothing happened, no relevant guidance was given, ... Is it not time to beat your swords into ploughshares? Mathsci ( talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Lets continue this on a talk page if you'd like to discuss our disagreement. Gsonnenf ( talk) 21:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Gsonnenf—you post under a post of mine that: "I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article, 'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths."
I have bolded the word "also" in the above quote.
You are concurring with me in the second half of your sentence but not concurring with me in the first half of your sentence.
You correctly paraphrase me in your assertion "…'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths".
But you are not at all reflecting anything I said in the first half of your sentence: "I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article…"
I want to make it clear that I did not "recommend calling it a judaism-related article…" Bus stop ( talk) 18:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. In the interesting of finding a solution, I assumed you would be alright with Judaism related article because the article relates to judaism. Problem fixed. Gsonnenf ( talk) 01:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
OMG! This is still going? I used an informal expression at my own User Talk page. End of story. It's done and dusted.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Roux at the village pump

In a section labelled "Please clarify", study the conversation between me and Roux. Please read the whole discussion and make sure you know both of us well and see if it really makes sense that I'm as bad of a Wikipedian as Roux thinks I am. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also study all edits Roux has made since then. He even carried it over to my talk page. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please drop this futile bickering. Fences& Windows 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. I never said you were a 'bad Wikipedian,' I implied that you are not competent to edit here, as you are still raising the same question which someone answered for you six years ago. Fail.
  2. When I suggested that you read WP:COMPETENCE, you further indicated how incompetent you are by failing to actually read the page and instead go on some weird clicking to other pages which had absolutely no bearing. Fail.
  3. You were required to notify me that you had posted here. You failed at that, too, and I can only guess it's because you appear to have less than no interest in actually reading anything.
  4. I will treat this nonsense with the contempt it deserves and will not be watching this page.

→  ROUX  ₪  21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Georgia guy, why have you brought this here? You aired this at the Village pump. Fences closed the discussion as "going nowhere". And here you are wanting to go nowhere yet again?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up before the Village pump section was closed. I was sent here from my talk page as the right place to go to warn others of Roux's edits. But I have calmed down now. Georgia guy ( talk) 21:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, this is my very first time with this particular page. So please help me nicely with good etiquette. Georgia guy ( talk) 21:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Easy. Just let it go. Stop keeping this topic alive. Don't bring it up anywhere else. Find an article that needs improvement and edit it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Start by assuming good faith on the part of Roux. Start by assuming that other editors who appear to be siding with Roux know what they're talking about. Start by stepping back and thoroughly reviewing the policies and best practices of the community. If you don't throw the first stone and come to the table with an open mind you might just be surprised at the level of good faith other editors are willing to extend to you. Hasteur ( talk) 22:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you clarify what "on the part of Roux" means?? Does it mean first assume Roux is good?? Please explain. Georgia guy ( talk) 22:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me Google that for you... It's an idiom. Are you a native English speaker? If you aren't this might explain some of the difficulties you've had in communicating with various people. Hasteur ( talk) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That's how I actually did start, for a little while, until somehow I slowly began to believe Roux was bad. (And yes, I'm a native English speaker.) Georgia guy ( talk) 23:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • comment From reading the village pump posts, It looks like Roux was a bit rude and uncivil. I would suggest we advise him to be less rude and more civil and then promptly close this thread. Gsonnenf ( talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Roux needs any advice. He wasn't being rude or uncivil. He was being blunt. He explained. When Georgia guy didn't get it, Roux got frustrated and was more forceful. I'm a big fan of civility, but there's nothing that requires Roux to be warm and fuzzy. And Georgia guy should just give it up. I do agree that this topic should be closed - it should never have been opened.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Roux was being incivil -- would have been better if they had walked away. That said, it was certainly understandable under the circumstances so I'm certainly not going to say anything to them about it. Georgia guy was specifically told at the Village Pump to post to WQA if they had concerns, so the WQA should have been opened. Nobody Ent 00:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
First, there is a difference between being uncivil and it being a better idea to walk away. I agree with your walk away comment. Second, you're right about the WQA suggestion. I missed that; thank you for pointing it out.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Before all y'all have a merry old time claiming I was rude--I wasn't; as said above I was blunt and there is absolutely nothing requiring me to mollycoddle those who insist on bullshit--you should have a look at this particular bit of nonsense, which is a flat-out and deliberate lie about my behaviour. Prior to today, as far as I know the sum total of my interactions with this editor were when he appeared out of nowhere to revert spam on my talkpage. →  ROUX  ₪  08:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Whether "blunt" or "rude" - I will just ask if the tone used was the most appropriate to achieve a satisfactory close to the initial incident and ask Roux to consider whether a different approach might not have led to a different state where none of us would be here? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Your tone was no different. In fact, you were openly mocking. Is that different somehow? Either way, that is utterly irrelevant to the issue of an editor who is either a very subtle troll or incompetent deliberately lying about me. →  ROUX  ₪  19:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, come on, there's nothing to be gained by ratcheting this up. Don't accuse editors of being trolls or liars. You're just going to attract more attention against you and keep this thread open for that much longer.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Given how this whole thing started, trolling is almost certainly what's going on. Georgia guy claimed that he'd noticed something while reverting vandalism, then posted to VP.. which doesn't really explain why in the edit summary reverting the vandalism he pointed people to VP when he hadn't even posted a topic yet.
As for calling him a liar, he said something which he knows to be factually untrue. Do you have another word for it? 'Politician' has roughly the same meaning, I suppose. Point being, he comes here whining about me with no basis, but when I point out that he has very specifically made an accusation which is not borne out by anything in the real world, you tell me to shut up. WTF is wrong with you people? →  ROUX  ₪  19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't tell if Georgia guy is trolling or has genuine issues understanding what vandalism is. I'm sure he's received many definitions from many users. If he is trolling i suggest WP:DENY, if he isn't trolling let someone spend 30 seconds answering his redundant question. It is less disruptive. I again suggest we close this discussion. Gsonnenf ( talk) 20:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
People have been trying to explain to him what vandalism is and is not since 2006. WP:VAND contains all the definitions, and several of us have pointed him there, to no avail. At this point it is either trolling or incompetence. →  ROUX  ₪  20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was never trolling. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You did, however, lie. That is not in dispute--you cannot possibly dispute that you were lying when you claimed I was 'following you around.' You going to retract your lies or not? →  ROUX  ₪  20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
To clarify what I meant when I said you were following me around, I mean that often when I make an edit relating to this discussion, you make one in response. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
1) Bullshit; 2) do you know what the word 'discussion' means?; 3) Do you know what the watchlist is?; 4) Do you understand that when you are talking about someone, especially when you are doing so dishonestly, they are going to respond?
Go re-read WP:COMPETENCE. Except this time, actually read the bloody page instead of clicking away. That means read and understand all the words from top to bottom. Then re-evaluate whether, given that it's been six years and you still have no clue what 'vandalism' means, let alone your obvious other difficulties with comprehension of really basic things like 'how to use words to say what you claim you actually meant, instead of using words which say something entirely and completely different,' you actually have the skillset required to edit here. For God's sake. →  ROUX  ₪  21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I read the article and one section says:
Bias-based incompetence: Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate. Try this first before going for a site ban, because some people can make valuable contributions in places other than their pet topic. For some reason, it is very difficult to see your own biased editing, though it is easy to see others' biased editing.
Per the last sentence in this section, I see Roux's editing easily. It definitely appears biased. Georgia guy ( talk) 21:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You have got to be fucking joking. →  ROUX  ₪  21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This thread started with Georgia guy wanting to know if other editors agreed with Roux's negative assessment of him. Not really the right kind of thing to bring to WQA (yeah, I know, someone told him to), but whatever. Then, just because we are at WQA, it devolved into questioning Roux's civility, and to the extent he was uncivil, whether it was justifiable because of Georgia guy's supposed inability to grasp certain concepts. Now, it has deteriorated rapidly with Roux demonstrating that he is uncivil and continuing his attack on Georgia guy as incompetent (which again doesn't really belong here). None of this is doing anyone any good. If someone wants to counsel Roux to get off his high horse, to treat editors with respect, and to stop digging himself deeper into a hole, fine. Otherwise, I don't know why we're here except to witness further pointless unpleasantness.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We're here because GG is incapable of comprehending anything which he is told, including when he is told to go and read the very page which discusses that issue. →  ROUX  ₪  21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • People are actually... discussing this? I thought it was apparent that Georgia guy is a either a troll or perhaps not quite competent. In either case it's getting disruptive. Killiondude ( talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm seriously not a troll. This discussion all began with me posting a serious question at the village pump. Roux responded to it in a biased way. Something to say: I have studied Roux's edits in all WP pages related to this discussion and I can tell that he is someone pretending to be civil. Have you triple-checked this discussion to find out what the truth is?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        • My comments in this discussion are biased how exactly? I await a cogent response with breathless anticipation. Thus far you have accused me of following you around (untrue), pretending.. something (also untrue), and now bias. We all know that's untrue as well, and I am going to have to demand that you actually explain precisely how my edits to this discussion are biased, or remove the stupid accusation immediately. Is that crystal clear? →  ROUX  ₪  21:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You better watch out, Killiondude. Saying that someone is incompetent--despite the overwhelming evidence--is apparently a personal attack now. At least according to Bbb23. →  ROUX  ₪  21:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This does it. I think it's about time to close this discussion now. Any objections?? Georgia guy ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I object. You have made multiple spurious accusations. You are now required to provide actual evidence supporting them, or retract them--and quite frankly, issue an apology for making them in the first place. →  ROUX  ₪  22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Georgia Guy, per WP:VANDAL: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Roux is correct that an editor with over 6,000 mainspace and six years experience should know this by now, so it's unclear what you were attempting to do at the Village Pump, especially since you said you knew what vandalism is [5]. You said you want to close the conversation -- WQA participation is voluntary so you can just leave this conversation and go back to your content work. To answer you question: Is Roux a good Wikipedian? Absolutely. He's made over 6,000 mainspace edits and is currently under no sanctions. Nobody Ent 22:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, I know what vandalism is; it's exactly what you said. But now let me explain what I was intending to do. Shortly before I made the post, I noticed a new MediaWiki message saying "If you're undoing an edit that is not vandalism..." I was curious on an improvement to the message so that it will be clear than anyone who undoes the edit will know what it means, even Wikipedians who don't know what vandalism is. Georgia guy ( talk) 22:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
What wording would you propose? Nobody Ent 22:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no real suggestion. Perhaps a phrase "(see the link for details)" added to the text in the MediaWiki message can do. (The word link is a reference to the link that the word vandalism points to. I also suggest that the link should link to the "What is not vandalism" section of the WP:VAND page because that's the section most relevant to understanding the statement the message mentions.) Georgia guy ( talk) 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the fact the word vandalism is in the hyperlink color is sufficient indication to the editor they can click on it. What section of the page would be most useful to a particular editor would depend on the editor, don't you think? Nobody Ent 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Notice the contents of WP:VAND. I know it varies depending on the editor; I agree with you. Go to section 7 in the contents and notice sub-sections 7.1 to 7.13 and that it can be any of those sub-sections of section 7 depending on the editor, but they're all in section 7 and that's where it be linked. Georgia guy ( talk) 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That would be good for the person who learns best through lots of concrete examples; there are other people for whom the statement at the top of the page would be best. Also, that allows edits to scroll down and see the table of contents. Nobody Ent 23:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) So, NE, you want to extend this exercise in how-to-waste-everyone's-time-on Wikipedia? As if there weren't countless ways to do that already. So, let's quibble. Having 6,000 edits and not currently under sanctions is NOT necessarily the "definition" of a good editor. I pass no judgment on Roux's article edits, but at this point I've lost any confidence in his good judgment otherwise. He should have stuck to his guns at the beginning when he said he wasn't going to watch this page (was that a "lie", Roux?). Roux wants to have it both ways. He wants to declare GG to be incompetent and yet accuse him of all sorts of things that would only make sense if GG were competent. Everyone should walk away from this topic (including me, and this is my last comment).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was not watching this page until GG decided to start lying about me elsewhere. The only things I am accusing GG of--with excellent evidence--are 1) incompetence, 2) lying, or alternatively 3) trolling. One notices that not one fucking person here has asked GG to back up his false and bullshit allegations.n Not one. →  ROUX  ₪  08:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the board for Wikiquette assistance and it says at the top: "Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks." I think any prospect of a mutually agreed solution between these two editors has vanished some time ago. It looks as though GG effectively withdrew from this discussion yesterday. Roux, if you want to pursue your own complaint above, it looks like this is not the place for it - suggest you try a board with more teeth. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
So you're saying it's perfectly okay for someone to come here, to lie repeatedly, and make baseless accusations without any evidence whatsoever, without anyone saying one fucking word about it? Really?
I'm going to have a lot of fun with this page then. →  ROUX  ₪  08:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If that's what has happened, of course it's not ok. But the behaviour needs taking elsewhere, eg to WP:ANI if you feel that strongly about it. But my candid advice is that you are over-reacting and that people's unwillingness to come to your aid is because you make your case in a shrill, over-the-top manner. If you do go to ANI, make your case more calmly. If you stay here and disrupt the Wikiquette board (if that's what fun implies) then WP:POINT will apply. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you completely failed to understand anything I said. GG has made unsubstantiated allegations about me, yes or no? (hint: he has). Nobody here has asked him to back up the shit he is spewing. Ergo, it is obviously okay for anyone to say whatever they want here without basis and without fear of reprisal. If it is not okay, then please explain why nobody--except, you know, the person he's being a jerk to--has asked him to substantiate what he is saying.
It's either okay to make baseless accusations or it is not. pick one. →  ROUX  ₪  09:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
A corollary of anyone can edit is that anyone will edit: we can all see what has happened here, and there is no need to drive a stake into anyone's heart to make a point. Please drop the matter—this is just a website, and no benefit would come from taking this any further. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

GG did make, as far I've been able to find, a single unsubstantiated comment regarding Roux's edits, on a third party's (Red Pen of Doom's) talk page. RPoD dealt with the comment well by suggesting GG (paraphrasing here) take a wikibreak. Regarding "okay to make accusations or not": no, Wikipedia is not a binary place -- it fact it's most gray. Lack of reaction to GG's statement is not an endorsement of the behavior, rather it's dealing with it as recommended by the policy page, ignoring it.

I concur that it can be difficult to parse out what GG means in some of their posts. The best solutions to that are either strong application of AGF and asking clarifying questions, or keeping in mind that, with few exceptions, we're not required to answer questions from individual editors and that disenaging from an unproductive conversation is always a possible option and frequently the best one. (Agreeing with Johnuniq).

An important connotation of lie is that a falsehood must be intentional; as it is essentially impossible to truly know another's intention when they make a post, it is a term best avoided as unnecessary inflammatory. Nobody Ent 14:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually he's made several, including accusing me of bias--yet another bullshit allegation that none of you lot have bothered asking him to substantiate. As for the lie, of course it was intentional: he claimed I was 'always' following him around when he knew that was absolutely not the case. →  ROUX  ₪  17:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears Georgia Guy was asking for people's opinions on what is wp:vandalism because it is a topic that interests him. If he wants to civilly debate the fine points of vandalism with others, that is OK. It is uncivil to be combative in order to stifle his discussion.
"Incivility consists of one of more of the following behaviors: personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours---when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict."
Gsonnenf ( talk) 11:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that Georgia Guy lacks the ability to communicate effectively that is required to be an editor here. If this continues, I suggest that a more substantial review of his contributions is called for - A cursory review of the content presented here shows someone who is actively disruptive. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Diasystem and Dale Chock

It seems as though User:Dale Chock is attempting to WP:OWN the article diasystem through reversions and talk page hostility. On Feb 19, Dale rewrote the article by adding mostly agreeable content but also deleting a significant portion of cited material. I incorporated the two versions in this edit, which Dale promptly reverted on Feb 23 before adding another mix of mostly agreeable content on March 1. I, again, attempted to reincorporate the content here, as well as clean up what Dale had added, which was then reverted again.

To be fair, this does come amid talk page discussion, but Dale's behavior in the talk page amounts to hostility (even to neutral parties [6]) and a focus on editors (mostly myself) over content [7]. Needless to say, Dale's vested interest in portraying other participants as incompetent [8] [9] means that he finds it easy to dismiss or ignore points made by others. I thus have been unable to edit the article without being reverted and am unable to discuss the matter without being insulted. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  • This description closely resembles my own past experiences with Dale Chock. If you review his editing history you will see that almost all of his edits are framed as personal victories over whoever wrote the previous text. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 22:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I started to review, but didn't finish reading his rants, which had little to do with content. Dale became hostile and threatening when I told him he needed to address the content rather than the people. — kwami ( talk) 03:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dale seems to know his stuff content-wise, but still needs time to learn how to interact productively with other editors. I was surprised by his accusatory tone with Aeusoes1, and a little perplexed with his negative reaction to my intervention in the early stages of the dispute. I think this may be an indication of a battleground mentality which will not stand him in good stead in future interactions, and I hope this thread can help him to recognise that he needs to change his behaviour. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In response to the four preceding comments.
    • AEsos himself got started with the article by tossing out everything in it and starting over, in June 2010—a fact he even acknowledged on Talk:Diasystem sometime late in February 2012. AEsos was virtually the only editor of Diasystem and Diaphoneme for a year and a half (June 2010 to Feb. 2012), ergo his accusation of WP:OWN is an example that the best defense is a good offense.
    • For an example of Dale's participation in linguistics articles that contradicts the above opinions, see two years of editing Mongolian language (31 Aug 2009 to 8 Nov 2011; includes content edits).
    • Strad's intervention was chirpy, premature, and refused to address content issues. He professes bafflement that his behavior was found to be unconstructive.
    • A bullet point list of the content failures by AEsos—seven items—is provided by Dale—me—at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics#Requests_for_attention 2 March 2012. I had discussed these issues at Talk:Diasystem already in February—giving the lie to Kwami's accusation.
    • Much of the opposition to article discussion by Dale—me—comes from the entrenched current in Wikipedia that tolerates misinformation in articles. I recall the celebrity Liz Smith recounting how Wikipedia reported her having once been married to someone she'd never been married to, and it took ten months to get Wikipedia to clean up its act. If someone were to write at WP that the U.S. Civil War started in 1858; if someone were to describe Einstein as a classical physicist; if someone were to confuse the positions of Darwin and Lamarck, that someone would be slammed, by dozens of Wikipedians, for mucking up article content. That hasn't been happening with linguistics articles, but only because too few Wikipedians participate in the linguistics articles. Notice that the three of the four of you above are three regular participants in the Linguistics Project who have shown little to no academic proficiency in the discipline, and two of those three don't even make content edits, as far as i can tell.
    • Kwami is engaging in backing up a fellow scribe. He and AEsos are two people who spend 365 days a year making housekeeping edits to linguistics articles. First, look at how Kwami joined the dispute:

      "Dale, I didn't bother to read your diatribe. You might try discussing content rather that making personal attacks, as Stradivarius has requested. Otherwise I'll conclude you're being a WP:DICK and revert you. WP is a cooperative enterprise. — kwami (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)"

      Well, by that day, there had been almost two weeks of comments by Dale—by me; so it's impossible to know which one Kwami was referring to. Anyway, next go to the very first two paragraphs of the dispute:

      "This article was poorly researched. It contradicted the verdict of linguists. The notion of diasystem fell into disuse a generation ago. Another academic objection is that one poorly written sentence can be interpreted to suggest that the inventor of the concept himself, Weinreich, was inspired by generative phonology. Of course, when Weinreich published his paper in 1954, generative phonology did not even exist yet. [new paragraph] The immediate previous version was seven years in the making (it hadn't been edited in the last 13 months). In that version, there was a conspicuous failure to consult textbooks in the field, or (with the exception of a discipline dictionary) to consult relevant works more recent that 34 years ago, this in a young, fast changing discipline. (An article from 31 years ago was cited only to attribute the use of terminology, and a source from 22 years ago was a dictionary, not a linguistics research work). Moreover, half the article was taken up with a digression on the diaphoneme, although there is already a separate article on that. Dale Chock (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"

      Then read everything in between. You see that Kwami is a bullying administrator. He just refuses to read comments that are there to be read. Dale Chock ( talk) 01:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What you routinely do Dale is to arrive at an article where someone has been working, notice something that could be improved, proceed to berate and denigrate those who wrote i,t and then when they react negatively to being demeaned you accuse them of ownership. The reason you didn't have that experience at Mongolian language was not because you didn't act like that but because G. Purevdorj who had written and maintained that article over several years and is a linguist specializing in Mongolian is an extremely agreeable person who didn't react negatively to your antics. You cannot expect all people to react with such angelic patience to your agressive and incivil style of argumentation as he did. Kwami is not a bully, you are. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Maunus, I'm not seeing that at Mongolian language (diffs?). From what I can tell, Dale has indeed been gracious, humble, and professional when editing and discussing at that page. This tells me that he knows the difference between civil and uncivil behavior, though there may be something else going on. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You're missing the point, Dale. I haven't prevented anyone from editing the article, you have. Being the only contributor to an article is not a violation of WP:OWN. Do you really see your behavior in the talk page as civil? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If Einstein had post E=mc2 on Wikipedia in 1916, it would have been reverted as original research. Does Wikipedia have an accuracy problem? explains the reasoning behind our policies quite well. So, while we welcome expert editors, it's because experts presumably know what and where the reliable sources are and can provides references to them, and additionally rephrase field specific terminology into explanations understandable to the general reader. The anonymous nature of Wikipedia editors and lack of resources means we have no way of distinguishing between the next Einstein and and the next quack. Therefore, aggressively asserting a position, regardless of its veracity, is counterproductive and disruptive. If Dale Chock finds the manner in which Wikipedia operates unacceptable I'd recommend they find other pursuits. Nobody Ent 21:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incivility by Defacto

User:DeFacto replaced the existing text in the section Metrication in the United Kingdom#Legal Requirements with his own text. The principal source of original text was a summary of UK legislation which was published by an official UK authority complete with official summary. DeFacto, who has a track record of hostility to metrication, is insisting that his version is more accurate. When I tried to reinstate the original version ( here), DeFacto reverted with the comment: "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable (see talk) - more references pending" (15:13 23 February 2012). I refused to discuss the matter with him until I had received an unconditional apology for his behaviour. The best that he did was to restate why he believed his version was better - something which I rejected. After I tried again to reinstate the original version, he revoked, calling the original version "discredited" (19:48 3 March 2012). I demanded an apology, but none was forthcoming.

Immediately before this episode took place, DeFacto's proposals regarding more prominent use of imperial measure in the Hindhead Tunnel article ( here) and on WP:MOSNUM ( here) had been rejected. He then totally removed a section from the article Metrication in the United Kingdom (since restored) and added banners to four other section ( diffs here]. The dispute above was initiated when I removed the banner from the article "Legal Requirements" and reinstated the section that he had removed.

Finally, while I was preparing this argument, Defacto twice trespassed on my userspace and deleted the draft. Martinvl ( talk) 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for Defacto's deletion of the draft of Martinvl's report [10], [11]. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 13:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. "Incivility? Oh the irony! I think what you are actually complaining about is my ongoing clean-up of the " Metrication in the United Kingdom" article which, evidenced by your constant mass reversions and attacks, you seem to be asserting ownership of. -- de Facto ( talk). 17:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 2. And talking about "civility"; you posted this entry here, but with scant regard for the etiquette and common decency conventions associated with such reports. You ignored the advice given at the top of the page here in the box entitled "Request etiquette assistance".

  • You did not first make "a polite attempt to to discuss the problem with the other editor". Instead you issued inflammatory threats and ultimatums: here and here and in discussion on the article's talkpage here.
  • You did not "Try to phrase it in neutral and non-judgemental language". Instead you made the misrepresentative and misleading statement we see above (and learn more about below).
  • You did not "Include diffs that show the situation", instead you selected a diff of an unrelated event to do with the 'history' section and one of my recent attempt (Revision as of 19:48 3 March 2012) to restore the article after you corrupted it by dumping into it an old obsolete version of a section, and then dishonestly assigned an edit summary from 15:13 23 February 2012 to it! Do you think people reading this are stupid, or are you hoping that they won't look too closely at your behaviour and realise what the situation actually is?
  • You did not even "Notify the involved user(s)". I found out about this after reading this curious comment you gave on your talkpage. Were you afraid that I would expose your agenda?

-- de Facto ( talk). 18:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Background. Let's add a background timeline of some events that might explain this witch-hunt:

-- de Facto ( talk). 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to DeFcto by Martinvl
Q1:Why did I not inform DeFacto that I filing this request?
A1: I honestly believed that when I added his name to the template at the top of the form, he would be informed automatically. I apologise for this.
Q2: Why did I not enter into dialogue with him regarding his changes?
A2: Given what had happened in the previous few days, I judged that he was behaving like a two year old having a tantrum. I treated him accordingly. Uninvolved editors should decide for themselves whether, given the circumstances, I was justified in taking this approach.
Q3: DeFacto’s "Background Material"
A3: We all, including DeFacto, have a past. The issue at the moment is not about the past, but about the present, so bringing up the past diverts attention from the present. The participants in this discussion are uninvolved editors, not the accuser or the accused, so I ask DeFacto to please let them have their say.
Martinvl ( talk) 07:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Martinvl, did you "forget" to try to answer the other 2 points too?
You wrote: "The issue at the moment is not about the past, but about the present". In your account above you introduced an unrelated event in an unrelated article ( Hindhead Tunnel) from the past - why?
This report, I believe, is nothing more than an attempt to discredit me - as a reaction to my cleaning up of the article, and my refusal to submit to your threats, intimidation and rudeness in your desperate attempt to keep your original wording in place (complete with characteristic OR/SYNTH and heavily pro-metrication POV).
Please don't treat reviewers here as idiots, if they decide to even entertain your complaint, they will not swallow your bluster. They will: look at the article history and your actions and edit summaries; look at the article talkpage and its history and see your assertions, threats, intolerant language and rudeness; look at our respective account talkpages and their histories and see how bitter you have been. They may even look at your recent contributions elsewhere and see your failed attempt to get me blocked, your failed attempt to mediation to support your opinions and your warnings for ad-hominem attacks and false accusations of vandalism against me and your very recent question on the WP:Verifiability talkpage about allowing the use of OR to discredit a reliable source! -- de Facto ( talk). 10:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've reviewed the many allegations regarding this, it appears there is uncivility on both sides. The question is how can we tone down the incivility while still allowing the authors to debate and reach actionable conclusion in a reasonable period of time. Any suggestions? (Also if you are preparing an RfC/U, this wouldn't be the best place to address it.) Gsonnenf ( talk) 07:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Accusation in pushing personal opinion

I have no desire to mention anyone's concrete name so far; my question is more general. What is the best way to resolve the following situation:

  1. Some user declares that the point I am trying to make is just my personal meme (personal opinion, synthesis, etc) and that this my thesis is not supported by mainstream reliable sources.
  2. I provide needed sources, which directly support my statements, and ask my opponent to withdraw his allegations and apologise;
  3. My opponent ignores my request and goes into minor details.
  4. Upon some time, the ##1-3 repeat as if no sources had been provided by me.

Thank you in advance.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you might benefit from some outside voices in working to establish consensus. I've found WP:RfC to be helpful in such cases. — Eustress talk 19:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem is that RfCs in this area do not lead to any significant external input. In addition, my question is not regarding the content dispute itself. I am asking if such behaviour is acceptable per our Wikiquette rules. To me, it looks like a refusal to get the point. Am I right?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Once you've made reasonable, good faith replies to another editor's queries, your obligation is complete, regardless of whether they understand or like your answer. If Rfc's aren't helpful for the content I'd further suggest WP:DRN ... the volunteers there generally do a good job providing structured discussion and additional viewpoints. Nobody Ent 21:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

It seems it has turned into a habit for Wee Curry Monster to attack me (by bad faith accusations and mischaracterization) instead of content whenever I rise a question or proposal. A few days ago he jumped into a discussion at RSN and filled it with bad faith accusations, using 87 words to address the question and 199 to sling mud at me!! This is not the first time he does this. [12] I'm honestly feeling harassed, this defamation process is slowly putting me out of Wikipedia... moreover, he's now following as you can see from [13] [14] I don't mind being followed, but I need him to PLEASE stop the defamation!! Nothing constructive can emerge from a conversation where he enters shooting at me... -- Langus ( talk) 13:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the instructions at the top of this page, when you have followed all of the requirements for filing your issue here than we might have a look at this in detail. However, prima facie your case seems very weak, it does in fact seem that WCM has a point when discussing your actions - and discussing your actions is not ad hom, BTW. Beware the boomerang. - Nick Thorne talk 23:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG Langus didn't bother to extend me the most basic courtesy of informing me of this thread. I found out about it by a pure fluke that I happened to drop by WP:RSN.

Langus has twice started frivolous thread at WP:ANI seaking sanctions against me. I note that one of these is linked above. Clearly he tried to use WP:ANI to impose content, by reverting content that was stable for 2 weeks and then posting at ANI claiming I was revert warring. It was a fairly blatant attempt to abuse wiki process to impose content.

The post at WP:RSN was not a genuine enquiry about source reliability but another attempt to impose content by having the source declared unreliable. [15] not only shows the authors are respected scholars but gives a clue why he is so keen to have it discredited. Most reasonable editors would not put too much weight on the word of a banned disruptive editor User:Alex79818, blocked indefinitely for persistent sock puppetry and disruptive editing as Langus did at WP:RSN. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, would you happen to have links to the WP:ANI threads? Having more information of past behaviors could be useful. Its usually not very civil to slur or wiki-lawyer against someone, though it happens very often on contentious pages. Its best to limit any such statements to conveying knowledge of past events without assumptions. Also, following someone to other threads can make users uncomfortable even if the edits are productive.
What do you guys think we can do to tone down this wiki war and get more acceptable behavior from both sides? Gsonnenf ( talk) 12:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


[16] The first time and the second [17] and the frivolous RFC [18].
As regards the RFC, [19], the conclusion was my text was a reasonable and cited summary but he has attempted to prevent exactly the same text being used on Luis Vernet, Falkland Islands and Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. Bringing up the same arguments three times on three separate articles and now forum shopping at WP:RSN.
The above is an independent comment from User:Wikifan12345 at 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC).
I didn't follow him, that happens to be an area where I've edited extensively. If you look at my edits, it happens to correspond with my area of interest. I edited a complete separate piece of the article and he actually followed me see [20], [21] and [22]. As Nick has already noted above, my comments have a point, I have given him the benefit of the doubt too many times now. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, first of all, I believed this was the place were one would come when they felt they were being treated uncivilly. As such, my stance is that a) attacking an editor whenever he rises content concerns, (i.e. repeatedly) or when differences in POV difficult progress, leaving aside what was being discussed and shifting the focus to editors, is not acceptable behavior; implying in this definition that b) allegations of bad faith behind editor's actions, accusation of socket puppetry, repeated suggestions of association to well-known disruptive editors ("guilt by association"), misrepresentation of past actions, etc. does constitute personal attacks.
So, the first thing I want to honestly ask (because otherwise there's no point in continuing) is: Am I correct regarding points above?
Nick, "discussing your actions is not ad hom", I agree, but not when these discussions start to happen often and in the middle of content discussion. I am very aware of the boomerang, but as I said, I don't think I can put up with this behavior for a long period of time.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the requirements" but I did ask WCM to refrain from personalizing the discussions, and every time that such accusations arise I'm trying to avoid responding to them as much as possible, to not add fuel to the fire.
The personal comments by WCM which I find out of place are the ones below. These started on 22 January, the day I opened a thread at WP:ANI because WCM and I were edit warring over content:
22 January 2012 - Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands
22 January 2012 - WP:ANI
22 January 2012 - User talk:Senra
22 January 2012 - WP:ANI (note the meat-puppetry accusation)
26 February 2012- Talk:Falkland Islands
And right now:
March 2012 - WP:RS/N
March 2012 - WP:Wikiquette_assistance
Now, take note of what happens next: I have put a lot of effort, a lot of words (tiring you and any passers-by in the process) to defend myself from WCM's misrepresentations. This is exactly the problem. This may be in fact the first time that these accusations come to the point (i.e., we're actually discussing behavior), so here it goes:
  • First ANI: the link above is broken, this is the correct one: [23] I admit that it wasn't the right course of action, but bear in mind that those were my firsts days in Wikipedia. You can see the full conversation there so I won't explain it here.
  • RFC: you can read it here. I called for it because in the previous section [24] WCM and I discussed an issue without reaching a consensus. Probably a WP:3O would've been better, but again, that was back in June and I didn't know that yet. I was just looking for a way to reach a consensus; the important thing to note is that I didn't disrupt the article, even being inexperienced.
  • Second ANI: full discussion here. This one is recent and the one that started (or heavily worsened) these kind of responses by WCM. I opened it because WCM and I were edit warring over article content. It was never intended to sanction him, only to stop the warring and resume the talks (as the other editors of the article seemed to stand aside). As a side note, I still doubt that there are reliable secondary sources for Capt. Duncan's version, but as someone else stepped in satisfied with the questionable sources, I just let go...
If you briefly checked the ANIs and the RFC, you'll now know that I didn't repeat "the same arguments three times on three separate articles". See? That's what I'm talking about when I say 'misrepresentations'.
"I edited a complete separate piece of the article and he actually followed me" this is a blatant lie or a gross error. Just check again my contributions to that article and WCM's contributions to that article and you'll see that the first one is mine (4 March). WCM never edited there before me. Again, misrepresentations.
"Langus didn't bother to extend me the most basic courtesy of informing me of this thread" I did that here!
As for the negative comment from User:Wikifan12345 in the RFC (which WCM has posted in 4 different talk pages now), you can get lots of negative comments about WCM is you just go through his talk page history and look for the reversions. -- Langus ( talk) 08:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN is not User talk:Wee Curry Monster. I was not informed, I found out by accident. Langus and the now blocked editor User:Alex79818/ User:Abenyosef have made many disparaging remarks and negative comments, so yes you'll find plenty of negative comments. I'm somewhat bemused by an editor complaining of "incivility" drawing attention to the sustained campaign of mockery, intimidation and incivility that has been taking place. Langus has been behaving disruptively and has aligned himself on several occasions with the long term disruption from User:Alex79818. Watch out for that WP:BOOMERANG. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok this is your collection of complaints on your talk page for the last two months: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] (excluding the ones made from an IP)
Stop trying to defame me by association with banned editors. For your ease of mind, I've already asked for a user check on myself. -- Langus ( talk) 13:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I would be grateful if editors would hold of from responding. You may find my response to the above quite illuminating. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who edits in controversial areas will collect a number of unfounded complaints and warnings on their talk page it kind of goes with the territory. Lets have a look at the examples that Langus has culled from my talk page:

[32] User:Chiton magnificus, well I'm not sure why he chose to comment, I was having a perfectly civil conversation with Marshall, who I was not attacking in any way. The warning was totally unwarranted and misplaced, WP:AGF I assume he misunderstood. However, his comments that I was being discussed on other forums was a bit creepy.
[33] & [34] User:Kai445 edited Occupy Marines, please refer to the edit history for his habit of editing in unencyclopedic material and edit warring to keep it. More on Occupy Marines later. Some of User:Kai445's edits [35] note edit summary "douchebag" and [36] "Go fuck yourself". Charming.
[37] User:Mabuska see Talk:Falklands War#WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV Note that the very first post is rather personal.
[38] User:Hudicourt is complaining about this WP:ANI thread [39] for this [40] blatant personal attack against User:Nick-D.
[41] User:Lecen, well just read that message, which lead to this WP:WQA thread [42] which lead to discussion at WP:ANI and a week long block for incivility [43]
[44] User:Nowa who repeatedly removed tags from Occupy Marines concerning the overly promotional nature of the piece, where a non-notable group were using Wikipedia for self-publicity.

So let us summarise. Langus has combed my talk page for complaints in an effort to paint me as a problematic editor. If you examine these cases I was subjected to a number of personal attacks but I kept my cool and did not respond in kind. Above I comment that he has aligned himself with the disruptive editor User:Alex79818/ User:Abenyosef, currently blocked for sock puppetry, personal attacks, incivility and tendentious edting. The list above of "negative comments" from my talk page include an editor who jumped in with both feet having misunderstood a conversation to which he was not a party, two editors intent on keeping an overly promotional article on a non-notable group, a editor blocked for being grossly uncivil (the very complaint linked sparked his block) and an editor complaining about me reporting his grossly uncivil personal attack to WP:ANI. I think Langus has proved my case for me that he aligns himself with disruptive editors.

Further I note this, [45], where Langus accuses me of "lying", which is rather ironic given he is inviting me to comment on a thread where is alleging I've been uncivil. WP:PETARD springs to mind, I have given Langus the benefit of the doubt many times, I've proffered the olive branch but now it looks like WP:TURNIP time. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

My gosh... I didn't want to paint you as disruptive, I showed that list because you said "Langus and the now blocked editorUser:Alex79818/User:Abenyosef have made many disparaging remarks and negative comments, so yes you'll find plenty of negative comments". That turned out to be false, as you just proved: there were plenty of negative comments, but it wasn't because of me. Can you see that it's all in itself, like every comment you left here, an illustration of my point? Mischaracterizations, assumptions of bad faith, pushing and pushing for mental association with disruptive editors, etc.
On the other hand... I do apologize for that outburst in the noticeboard. You have to understand that these "discussions", in which I have to face never-ending accusations, by someone who dominates a language that's foreign to me, in a place where words is all there is, it's EXTREMELY stressful and frustrating. I've said this before: you should open a RfC on me instead of defaming me everywhere I go. To me, that constitues harassing. There's no other word that describes better my feelings when I see you arriving at a discussion with the same arguments about me, flooding the conversation with words and words to a point that nobody remembers what was the original question, and they just walk away to avoid problems. What I really hate of this tactic is that I can't remain silent, because that way it looks like I'm accepting the twisted version of facts. I have to go on, and on, and on responding to you, while Nick Thorne and Gsonnenf and every other person here has probably got tired of this cycle. -- Langus ( talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've reviewed the ANIs and RFCs and other content. It appears Langus is making a good faith effort to include more specific and accurate information regarding the subject matter. In the RfC, it appears most editors support some sort of change to the lead. Authors did not agree on what that change should be. Langus's attempt to build consensus for a specific change is valid. In the 2nd ANI, it appears his position had the support of a good portion of authors and it was not ruled frivolous.
In regards to the page following accusation, Langus edited the page for the first time March 4. Wee Curry edited for the first time March 5th. There was no extensive editing prior.
After looking at the current evidence, It appears the statements Langus initially complained about do misrepresent the actions of Langus. I would suggest not calling Langus's RfC or 2nd ANI disruptive or frivolous, as they do not appear so. He appear to be a positive contributing author, with an agreeable demeanor, and a valid content based dispute.. Gsonnenf ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I previously edited under my real name. I changed it due to harassment from Argentine and Spanish nationalists off-wiki. Prior to that I edited as an IP. As regards your endorsement of his accusation of "Page following", he edited a comment about Germany, I edited about self-determination, territorial integrity and the Falkland Islands; that being my area of expertise, Langus then went after my edits. He followed me, I didn't touch any area we he had edited.
If I'd edited his text you might have a point, clearly I didn't. Show me where it says I can't edit an article if he has edited it?
Above Langus calls me a LIAR, this passes off without a comment. Are you endorsing his accusation? Please answer I would like to know.
As Nick noted above, there was merit in my comments. The 2nd ANI was clearly a disruptive tactic. He edited text that had been stable for 2 weeks, replaced it with text that is demonstrably POV and favouring Argentina's sovereignty claim, removed text that is representative of the literature, which offered a counter balancing viewpoint and then went straight to WP:ANI to chill any editing discussion. He hadn't edited in the talk discussion for 2 months. If you can't see that, then you are naive indeed.
As regard your endorsement of Langus, he trawls my talk page looking for "negative comments" from other editors, then presents them in a manner to blacken my name. Plain and simple, you say nothing about that tactic effectively endorsing his conduct. You can bet he will do exactly the same thing again and again. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree you edited a separate section, but its not considered following/hounding if you make edits to an opposition author edits if you were active on the article first. I believe he referred to this post as a blatant lie or a gross error: "I didn't follow him.... he actually followed me...". I believe your definition of follow isn't one used by wiki standards, so he wasn't entirely off base. If he's calling you liar somewhere else, we can address that.
WQA's are about behavior, so a lot of the evidence is somewhat valid, but not useful ( like his post about negative remarks on your page, or your statements that he aligning himself with a banned author ). Langus apologized for some of his behavior and author's vent all the the time on the WQA page. Unless i see a clear policy violation in WQA, I ignore it and focus on talk/article, where the discussion should be content and not behavior. If you feel he's violating WP:BRD we can address that. If you feel he's violating WP:3RR there is a board for that. Gsonnenf ( talk) 17:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea he'd made this edit, [46], one minor edit on an article over a day before I made a series of edits to improve the article. The two edits are completely unrelated but you'll note I'm editing in an area I consistently edit. Are there any other examples in his contribution history?
No I don't think thats what he's referring to, I could easily have called him a liar, he didn't inform me he'd done this as he claimed, he left a remark at WP:RSN, which I was unlikely to spot. On Talk:Falkland Islands he claims I didn't supply a source for an edit I proposed . Kind of foolish since its right there on the page. Have I done so? No because it violates WP:CIVIL. And its not like its not the first time Langus has chosen to flat out accuse me of dishonesty [47] - ie its been going on for a while. TBH I've had enough of it.
Not following WP:BRD is a recurring problem with this editor.
[48] Langus posts at WP:ANI, his very next edit, [49] Langus removes the text concerning the report of the Lexington which does contradict the Argentine claim the settlement was destroyed. He wikilawyers that we can't cite the Lexington's report as a WP:PRIMARY source so this comment can't be included. The basic facts went into Falkland Islands on 28 March 2011 [50]. He has disputed exactly the same text on Falkland Islands, eventually an RFC concluded he was incorrect, when I moved on to improving Luis Vernet again, he disputed it there [51], then again on Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands [52]. Its got to be the best text on wikipedia the number of times its been discussed.
He complains that I'm following him around but at one point virtually every article I edited, there he was reverting me. An example [53] - is that improving the article and this is just an example. He tries to play the victim claiming I'm harassing him, when if you actually look he is usually the instigator of conflict.
The whole wikilawyer thing is tedious. He demands a source, often for an uncontroversial point, you supply one, he tries to argue the source says different, then he finds an excuse for not using it example [54], then he goes to WP:RSN trying to discredit the source [55] (Ironically he got it wrong as the source is in fact a US academic). Both occasions where he visited WP:ANI rather than achieving consensus in talk he is trying to lobby to have his text imposed.
What it boils down to, is that in almost every case he is not lobbying for a neutral text, he is trying to skew the POV to favour Argentina's sovereignty claim. [56] "It NEEDS that level of detail because the events in those months are important for the Argentine sovereignty claim over the islands.". Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I left you a notification on the RSN because I knew you would see it. And you did, didn't you? Because if you missed it and you are not following me, then how did you arrive here?
I am Argentine and I do care about Argentine POV, as much as you care about British POV. The fact is that you can't stand that. Challenging an interpretation or questioning a source shouldn't be called 'disruptive' in a place where NPOV is one its pillars (given, of course, that it's done in good faith, like I do, even if you don't believe me). I can show instances in which WCM would fight a change till the very last consequences, even with clear consensus against his opinion. Does that make you disruptive? After all, you do carry restrictions regarding Gibraltar articles.
I'm not sure whether or not I should respond to the points above... I'll leave it that way, as I honestly don't have the time. I'll just address the WP:BRD issue:
1. He expanded a section (on 31 October): [57]
2. and I started a new section in talk and partially reverted : [58]
3. then he reverted me: [59]
4. then I proposed a modification as suggested in talk page: [60]
5. he reverted again: [61]
6. I reverted and linked to talk page: [62]
7. after almost two months (23 December) WCM included the text again: [63]
8. I reverted: [64]
9. He insisted: [65]
10. I reverted: [66]
11. he insisted: [67]
12. I reverted: [68]
13. and requested for help at [WP:ANI] (21 January): [69]
What else could I do? We were down to edit warring... -- Langus ( talk) 03:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Big difference, WP:BRD is about working to a consensus, you see it as a means of filibustering to keep the text you prefer. Same text, 3 different articles and months of pointless argument to prevent it being added. I don't care about the British POV actually, I care about writing from a NPOV and don't let my POV skew my writing. What else could you do? Drop the WP:STICK for starters and you were the one edit warring to keep text that failed NPOV promoting the Argentine POV.
Mentioning Gibraltar, there is a low blow. In 2009 I had a bit of a meltdown with my mental health, I happen to suffer from PTSD. I was tormented for months, I said a few things in talk that were completely uncharacteristic - one admin User:Atama who knew me had the courage to speak out and say as much. Although I'd apologised and taken a break I still got sanctioned as a result. There is also a clause in our civility policy about not raking up past sanctions.
I see no point in participating further in this WQA, your conduct is disruptive and you're using WQA to attack me. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears you both maintain different version of what is majority POV on a controversial area. Looking at several more discussion, it appears you are deadlocked on the majority POV. I see 2 v 2 on on one edit war, and 2v2 on the establishment vs re-establishments as title of the page. When making changes to controversial areas expect a great deal of discussion. I don't see much violation of WP:BRD. No consensus is being reached for the reverted edits (typically 1v1, or 2v2). When no consensus or majority is reached, preference goes first to agreed compromise, then to prior version. You'd expect a 1 v 3 before considering WP:STICK.
It appears there is not enough outside input. You need more knowledgeable editors on these articles to break your dead lock. I would suggest more RFCs which include content based arguments and/or a post on the NPOV board. Also, be sure to follow guidelines on comment on content not contributor, I saw several suggestions of this from authors on these presented threads. It is a good idea to listen to this advice.
For both of you, I would suggest no undos on reverts of new content. If your content is reverted, ask others on the talk page to re-add and make a case for it. Let outside authors handle whether the new content should be included. If they choose not to participate, it should not be included until they do. Gsonnenf ( talk) 15:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry you are very naive if you think thats a solution, its a recipe for Langus to continue disrupting and blocking the improvement of articles on Falklands topics. You're ignoring the very basic point that Langus seeks, by his own admission, to project an Argentine not a NEUTRAL POV. He started an RFC on a piece of text, the RFC concluded my version was acceptable. But that doesn't stop him trying to block reuse of the same text on two other articles. If you can't see that is tendentious editing and obstruction then I give up on WQA altogether. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
If other authors share your POV, they will add it back, problem solved. If they won't, you don't have consensus. Each article maintains its own content. Adding the phrase to other articles after such a mixed RfC result is fairly aggressive. If outside authors believe it is right for the article they will support you. If he continues reverts after outside author action then you have a case for WP:STICK. If other authors won't support you with action, you don't have a case for your content. Gsonnenf ( talk) 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest for your reading list, WP:OWB, especially No. 3. Adding a piece of text, reflecting a NPOV to articles which don't is not aggressive. I didn't start an aggressive RFC, I remained cool throughout some very unpleasant exchanges. Langus following me to other articles, reverting and demanding we start the whole unpleasant process again is rather aggressive but you've just lauded him as a wonderful wikipedian. He might at some point, when he learns to put aside his own POV, but whilst people like you re-inforce his behaviour as acceptable, he'll continue till he tests the communities patience too far and he'll be blocked. Just like his friend User:Alex79818. He aligned himself with the guy, I didn't but I note in your comments above you equate Alex with productive editors (2 v 2).
Can I ask something, do you plan to run for admin? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I was counting Pfainuk as someone who supported some of Langus's changes to the lead ( though not all of them ). He also had pointed out several issues that needed to be addressed at the end of the RfC. I understand the issues in WP:OWB. I agree endless bickering wastes time. Also I don't think the RfC was agressive. That was fine. Putting the content into other articles was a bit aggressive because the RfC had very little outside contribution. I see endless bickering all the time from all sides, with each side seeing themselves as right and the other as WP:FILIBUSTERS / WP:STICK / WP:DISRUPTIVE. Trying to wikilawyer or ad hom through this is what causes the 100's of lost hours. When disputed in these other articles, go directly to support from other editors. your opposition should do the same. If people don't agree with you, then you might have a problem with your own content/behavior. Also, I haven't even thought of running for admin. Gsonnenf ( talk) 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I respect immensely Pfainuk's opinion, and I always listen to it. We're going to have to disagree I think, correcting NPOV errors with text from neutral text from another article is not aggressive. Repeatedly raising the same objection is WP:TE. You also miss the point. Langus complained here I was following him, he's followed me, multiple times and you've not commented on it. I don't see any comment from you about that. I move on and he's following me, thats harassment. See also WP:OWB No. 7. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Is he following you to pages where you didn't add content from the RfC? Gsonnenf ( talk) 20:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, [70] for example. I can name many articles where he has done it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That is a bad example. He joined that example article about the same time he he joined the Re-establishment article. Its also on the same subject manner. I think this is becoming a wild goose chase. I am going to repeat the same advise as I did before. Comment on content, and find other authors to undo his revert before edit warring. Gsonnenf ( talk) 05:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. User Contributions [71], [72] and Diffs [73], [74]. He's clearly following me - even back in October. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Third Party Input Regarding User:Fæ's Accusations that I Find Editors Calling Others Homophobic Acceptable

Fae ( User:Fæ) has made the following accusation about me. "I am puzzled why you would think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable." [ [75]]

This seems to stem from her his misunderstanding of a discussion between Tryptofish and myself in which I felt that he accused me of bias, and he thought that by "bias" I meant "bias against homosexuals". I never believed that he called me homophobic, and he clearly never called me homophobic. We worked out our misunderstanding in about 40 minutes. [76]

Because I never said that I think accusations of homophobia are acceptable (and in fact, I was the one mistakenly believed to have been on the receiving end of the accusation) I politely asked Fae to remove his comments (note: I don't know if Fae is male or female and am using the generic male pronouns for simplicity only). Fae has refused, while making, what I believe to be, very agressive and uncivil comments about how hard it is to work with me, about my unwillingness to collaborate, and about me exerting ownership of the article. He has also repeatedly rejected my requests to remove the accusation, or at the very least redact it. Discussion here "homophobic"

I have hatted the conversation, but I thought I would seek third party opinions as to whether my request is unreasonable and whether Fae's comments are uncivil and/or should be removed/redacted. LedRush ( talk) 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Slight factual correction to the above, where LedRush says "Fae has refused" this seems to fail to mention my earlier offer of striking a hypothetical part of the statement that LedRush has objected to, and this was indeed struck 20 minutes before this request was raised ( diff). By the way, me being puzzled as to why accusations or assumptions of being homophobic would be an acceptable tone in an article talk page discussion is not quite the same thing as "Accusations of Homophobia" as this request has (in what appears a rather inflammatory way) been titled. By the way, I find it odd being referred to as "her" and "he" in the same text. Fæ ( talk) 23:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
When I said above that you "refused" to remove your comments, the object was was the quotation above. Because you had somewhat addressed another, related concern that I have not mentioned here, I decided not to involve everyone with the minutiae of that part of our disagreement. Of course, they can see what you have said and haven't said in the links I provided. Furthermore, the quote above seems to do more than you indicate.
With this edit I am changing the title above to make it more descriptive, per your implied request. It is now quite unwieldly, but if you think it is still inaccurate, feel free to change it yourself. LedRush ( talk) 23:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
On the evidence you have presented here, the contention that Fae has made "very aggressive and uncivil comments" would appear to be rather wide of the mark. Exok ( talk) 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean that you find her accusation regarding my beliefs to be fair and accurate, and consequently should not be deleted or redacted? LedRush ( talk) 02:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is unwarranted to describe "you have said...editors have cherry-picked information to support a POV...If those weren't intended to be accusations of bias, I am sorry" as "accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic" and that you'd consider this acceptable. This misconstruction of your views can be perceived as an 'attack' as it relates to a sensitive topic, and I'd recommend removal of these allegations.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork ( talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
AnkhMorpork, you appear to be comparing parts of the dialogue that were not under discussion. User talk:Fæ#Your comment regarding "homophobic" highlights the relevant quotes. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

From reading through the diffs, it does seem that two editors encountered a misunderstanding which was resolved quickly and was not crying out for an outside opinion. "I am puzzled why you would think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable" ought probably to be shrugged off as an example of the nonsense you sometimes have to put up with when editing Wikipedia. But it doesn't appear to be warranted, since there is no indication that LedRush finds such accusations or assumptions to be acceptable.

I would add, though, that they can be, accusations at least. Not relevant to these circumstances, but can be perfectly legitimate to call out unambiguous homophobia. So the basis of the high-horsedness is a bit shaky in the first place. -- FormerIP ( talk) 02:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I just found this thread, and would like to offer a couple of comments. It seems to me that this episode resulted from a series of consecutive misunderstandings, with each successive misunderstanding compounding the misunderstandings that came before.
  • Fae used to contribute to that page, and I have always found Fae's contributions there to be very helpful. I'm really sorry that Fae seems to have decided to leave the page. I can also very much understand how (following a recent RfC/U, as well as some unfair things that have been directed at Fae) Fae would feel sensitive about any discussion that veers into using the word "homophobia", and I appreciate Fae's concern that the article talk page not appear unwelcoming to new editors.
  • LedRush and I very often disagree there, as to where NPOV really is located, but we generally work together pretty well, and I am confident that neither of us thinks the other is homophobic. LedRush is, legitimately, concerned per WP:BLP that we not misrepresent information about the defendant in the trial that has grown out of the suicide. As a result, he tends to argue for content that suggests that the suicide might have been caused by other things. I disagree frequently about how prominently to present that content, and I think that it is understandable that some editors might misconstrue LedRush's position as being unsympathetic to Clementi and/or to gay people, but I am confident that this would be a misreading of LedRush's actual intent, which is about BLP and interpretation of sources.
  • I raised what I think was a reasonable question about an edit of mine that LedRush had reverted, and, in the first misunderstanding, LedRush took it personally, saying that I had accused him of bias. In fact, I was trying to explain that the edit I had made was removing some quotes that had been pieced together (by an IP) in such as way as to make Clementi's mother misleadingly sound homophobic. There was nothing there about any editor being homophobic, nothing at all. However, in the next misunderstanding, I mistook LedRush's concern that I was accusing him of bias as a concern that I was accusing him of bias against gays, which of course I wasn't. We eventually sorted these misunderstandings out, but, in the third misunderstanding, Fae saw the discussion and was concerned that accusations of homophobia were being made, and apparently conflated that concern with the observation that LedRush's position about BLP can be misconstrued as unsympathetic to Clementi. All of this was an escalating series of misunderstandings.
  • I hope that Fae will understand my explanation of the misunderstanding. I also hope that Fae will again feel welcome to help edit that article.
  • LedRush opened this discussion with a request for opinions from other editors. In that spirit, let me suggest to LedRush that you let Fae's comments pass as a misunderstanding, and not continue to be bothered by them. Let me also suggest that, in your editing interaction with me, you be a little slower to revert, and a little quicker to discuss on talk. I'm pretty sure that will lead more quickly to good resolutions, since we seem to always find good compromises when we discuss things.
Tryptofish, thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. While I disagree with some minor points/characterizations, I generally agree with all that you wrote. However, I continue to ask that Fae remove his accusation. If it is based on his misunderstanding, as you and others argue, it doesn't help that it remain. Seeing as it involves a highly sensitive topic, I don't wish such an accusation to be left for posterity, especially when it has been specifically and emphatically refuted. I am not asking that he apologize for accusing me of not working collaboratively (despite what you and Rivertorch have said to the contrary). I am not asking that he apologize for accusing me of article ownership. I am not asking that he apologize for accusing me of incivility or creating a hostile talk page. I am not asking that he apologize for accusing me of wikilawyering because I don't like being holding beliefs I don't have. I am not even asking that he apologize for making the false accusation itself. I merely want the false accusation deleted (or at the very least redacted). LedRush ( talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Continous Harassment and accusations

Situation: The user TopGUn has been wrongly accusing me since long for Wikihounding,wikistalking, sockpuppetry,meat-puppetry, canvassing (and what not) and has tried to get me blocked and has failed everytime, even then he feels it appropriate to accuse me of these things every now and then. just few days back we had discussed here TopGuns accusations towards me and inspite of a lot of dicussion then the above user has today accused me of wikihounding at [77], The above user also accuses that my edits are escalating the content dispute while in reality i have steered clear of the dispute although nothing stops me from editing the article in question.

Proof(diffs)

  1. Accusation for Wikihounding/wikistalking
  2. Accusing me of Canvassing
  3. accusing me of coming out of nowhere for my comment on a talk page of an article already on my watchlist and to which i had participated earlier [78]
  4. Filing multiple frivolous Sockpuppet cases against me to blame me for sockpuppetry
  5. accusing me of Meatpuppetry
  6. wikihounding me to helpdesk and then nominates the article i created for deletion [79]
  7. Constantly accuses me on other editors talk pages [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]
  8. Link to the recent discussion on Wikiquette -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 21:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

AIM: I would like the user to be notified not to hurl such mindless accusations towards me and wp:AGF although everytime he claims to have lost goodfaith hundred times already.-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 13:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no way (that I could see) that this user would have reached the article in question, so I left a civil note on his talk page asking for an explanation on if he got their from my talk page discussion/contributions since that would be hounding. Instead of giving a civil reply he starts accusing me harassment and 'blatant accusations'. I can certainly not have good faith in those edits after that if he can not answer a simple civil question. There have been previous incidents of such incivility. I tried to get an explanation as I said in my comment on the previous discussion at WQA, to help resolve it at his talk page... instead I get aggressive replies. DBigXray should be told to stop following my edits. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ( edit conflict)I consider the comment in question as not just a simple question but a Accusation for wikihounding/Wikistalking which I am not, besides i am sick of this attitude from TopGun and obviously dont appreciate his incorrect accusations on various talk pages every now and then, so i have came here to put and end to it, -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Also i request the admins to please clarify how continuous harassment and wrong accusations of Wikihounding, sockpuppetry, canvassing etc are considered CIVIL and comment reply on 'Daydreaming' as UNCIVILITY -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 13:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

May be an uninvolved editor can see my first comment (or even the second) here to see if it was uncivil by any definition. I did not accuse you of sock puppetry or other stuff, that was an old case... and the closing administrator did acknowledge the meat puppetry. Anyway, that case was closed and was by no way uncivil as I went through the given procedure. The WQA that went along with it clearly explained that there's no need to make aggressive personal attacks in reply to civil notes. I did exactly as I said there, asked you on your talk page without any accusations. Your reply in return is evidently uncivil. And then you come here refusing to make any justifications for your edits. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  • And yes i forgot the meat-puppetry part, of course, TopGun knew that it was a frivolous SPI report and report was accordingly rejected and all the admin gave was a doubt due to same country.even then TopGun specifically mentions did acknowledge the meat puppetry , besides it is clear case continuous BAD FAITH, any one can check the geolocation of IPS in question (which clearly belong to remote parts of the country)and TopGuns BAD FAITH accusations on the SPI report in question are here [87]. -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 14:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It was not rejected. The closing comment was it is probably meat puppetry but not as much disruption to block. But this is not related to this case. It was already discussed at WQA then. There's no need to go into history of all times every time. This was done last time as well and the incident being reported was WP:SOUPed in between. Remain on the topic. And let an uninvolved editor take it from here. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
OK the pair of you STOP NOW. Post nothing more here, let uninvolved folks review what you have each done via your edit histories. Stop spamming this thread right now. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
From what I see, it seems highly likely that this edit by DBXR came from DBXR watching TopGun's talk page or contributions. TG described this as hounding/stalking with this edit. But it was not in my view a case of "hurling mindless accusations" - the post was reasonably worded. I suspect DBXR is following TG's contributions, much as TG was doing the same to DBXR which led to a discussion here. I strongly suggest that each volunteers a total interaction ban with the other, to include one another's talk pages and contributions. The pair of them (and one or two others) are becoming too frequent visitors here and to AN/ANI for my liking and I can see very little difference between the behaviour of any of them. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Or he may have gotten there from my talk page, which in the past he has said is on his watch list. Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
And right on cue, here comes the third person I was thinking of above but didn't mention by name. Make that a three way interaction ban to go, please.... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I made it clear in my comments at WQA before that I would help resolve, if issues arise again... and since you agree my question was reasonably posed, I meant to resolve this too. I can't be held responsible for DBXR's actions. On the last WQA, I said I got to the article through help desk (with diffs where I replied to the post). I also said I'll try to stay away from his edits since he is too aggressive. It is very easy for me to stay away from DBXR on my own (I did after the last edits), but I can't do that on my own when he follows me. I can not self impose an actual interaction ban with DBXR since there are mutual articles.. but I did stay away from his edits. You'll have to convince DBXR not to make aggressive uncivil comments, like he did now, and this will all be easily resolved. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 15:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

@ DBigXray: Where are the diffs of this harassment? Vague comments are not going to get anywhere.
@ TopGun: Take Kim Dent-Brown's advice: Please stop writing. You need to respond to concrete accusations, not the vague ones offered here. However, don't ask users how they got to a page and don't demand answers from them. It's not polite. Also, WP:WIKIHOUNDING is not as you describe. Please read the section of the policy again.
@ both parties: If either of you have a concrete accusation of hounding or other harassment, it should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as it is harassment. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I should point you two to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct if you're unsure whether the other user's behaviour is harassment or not. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not demand it, I asked it politely, the reason was the previous WQA. His edits were related to a revert to my additions there... so I asked. The replies were really blunt and full of accusations in return. I'm over with this... this thread was created just to further escalate when it could simply have been cleared at his talk page. I'll not waste anymore time. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 03:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I would say you demanded it. When you go to someone's talk page to ask the question, it's not really politely asking. It's an accusation that has to be defended. I'm not sure though why you focused on that one phrase. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Walter i had given the links in the first comment. I am giving it again. Pointwise this time. Please see the DIFF Section on top. All i asked last time on WIkiquette discussion was topgun should stop his accusations to me. Is it too much to ask for ? and this started again so i reported it here
( edit conflict):*another thing to note is TG repeatedly says that my edit [88] on Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir creating a content dispute but as you can clearly see, i just updated the infobox with a correct and reasonable entry that everyone agrees to and my edit still remains. ANother thing to note is i decided not to take part in the content dispute but even then TG feels it right to accuse me again [89]. -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 12:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This is becoming a re-iteration of previous WQA discussion and all these were already discussed there, better see my replies there... Walter's probably right, I don't need to reply to this ridiculous cherry picking. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 12:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • no this is not. walter asked me the diffs and i have provided the recent ones(from past 15 days (except point7)), its not meant for you but for the Admins to see. Unless we get a solution from this discussion , the situtaion wont improve and we have seen it already [90]-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 12:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep pulling you two, take as much rope as you want. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I was asked specifically to give proof/diffs and so i gave, i wasnt commenting earlier to this thread and will not, now -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 12:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If you two are finished bickering, some of the proof against DBigXray is found in reporting locations. Editors must have the ability to bring cases against another editor when discussing with admins or neutral bodies such as this. The other actions are mild, but they do demonstrate a bias against you, but that's not bad Wikiquette, it's just a bias, and without proof may I add. As for hounding, I don't know that you have a case for that, at least not based on these edits. An admin may see it differently.

As for bad blood between the two of you, I think that you should just avoid editing articles where you know the other person will be for a while. That is addressed to both editors. Most importantly, please remember that you should only discuss edits and not editors (except in locations like this). Discuss content and not who is adding it. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking it up. I made my case in previous WQA and didn't want to do the flooding as this was already becoming a flooded thread. I think your conclusion above is enough to point it out to the editors. Please close this thread. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 22:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Anders Behring Breivik, Can he still be called a terrorist?

My post in the talk page of the article about Anders Behring Breivik was deleted three times. The contents of my post are below.

Wikipedia is dominated by Muslims and their left-wing sympathizers. Almost all terrorists are Muslims, and yet Wikipedia does not call them terrorists. Wikipedia calls Osama bin Laden "the founder of the militant Islamist organization." The Wikipedia article about Carlos the Jackal begins with a statement that Israel is a terrorist nation, but it does not call Carlos the Jackal a terrorist. Many Europeans believe that Islam will bring rivers of blood into European cities. They call Breivik a hero who fired the first shot in the civil war between Muslim invaders and indigenous Europeans. The sooner the civil war begins, the better are the odds that the indigenous Europeans will win the war. Nobody should be surprised by the fact that Breivik has millions of fans. Many of our heroes are terrorists. Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat were terrorists killing civilians, and yet they received the Nobel Peace Prize. In an Al-Jazeera survey on September 11, 2006, 49.9% of the respondents avowed that they did indeed support Osama bin Laden. ( source: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28733 ). Before we call anyone a terrorist, we must agree what this word means. My favorite definition of terrorism is a definition proposed by Boaz Ganor: "Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends." ( source: http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief004-26.htm ) Quinacrine ( talk) 20:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Quinacrine ( talk) 20:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTAFORUM And given the fairly racist crap you wrote it is not surprising it was deleted, I would have remove it as well. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless a reason is given to keep this on here, I'd say it'd be a good idea to remove this thread. If the user continues to fail to get WP:NOTSOAPBOX, maybe an admin could help them not post this crap? Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with removing it. Though I must agree that Breivik was not in fact a terrorist, he was just an asshole who murdered a lot of innocent people Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Dude poses with an automatic rifle and a patch that says "Marxist Hunter" and then attacks a Social Democratic youth camp and murders 85 kids and he's "Just an asshole who murdered a lot of innocent people"?!?! What exactly is your definition of political terrorism???? Yeah, NOTAFORUM, but gimme a break!!! That's too asinine a statement to let pass unremarked... Carrite ( talk) 05:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Although Quinacrine's position has very little likelihood of garnering consensus, and even though their opinions are highly unsavory to many editors, as I see it, the post has been inappropriately removed from the talk page of the Anders Behring Breivik article now by four editors. WP:TPO gives a comprehensive mandate for removing users' posts at talk pages, but I do not see any of the provisions outlined there being met in the present matter. Could the editors who support the removal of Quinacrine's post please provide a clearer rationale for their position, quoting relevant policies, other than simply characterizing it rather as "fairly racist crap" and other reasons that seem to have more of a visceral origin than having been adequately thought through? __ meco ( talk) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:TPNO, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic." In WP:TPO, "It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above." Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
As one of those that reverted, I'd say that it should be self-evident that we don't want pig-ignorant fascist trolls asserting their hero-worship of mass-murderers on article talk pages, particularly those likely to be visited by relatives of the mass-murderer's victims. A look through Quinacrine's edit history shows multiple instances of such obnoxious talk-page soapboxing (e.g [91], [92] etc) and given his opinions of other Wikipedia contributors, he should be shown the door. AndyTheGrump ( talk)
(involved) Agree with Ian & Andy. This is a rant (<== policy) and clearly should be removed. He can bring back sources or suggestions to improve the article but his rantings aren't welcome. Meco, the fact that several editors have been reverting him should be a clue.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The post in question begins with "Wikipedia is dominated by Muslims and their left-wing sympathizers." I would just laugh at it, or ask for evidence, but the latter would be feeding the troll, or idiot, not sure which, and the former doesn't work online. So deletion is probably best. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Calling people "pig-ignorant fascist trolls" isn't really proper Wikiquette either. Wikipedia should offer people a chance to document all points of view, and documenting means, when we are able, not letting a quick hostile reaction deprive us of a chance to understand the underlying mind-set. For example, in this case, I'm genuinely curious how an Islamophobe gets over the detail that Breivik didn't shoot Muslims? This is a general characteristic of such radical groups - usually the KKK ends up shooting some white guy, al Qaida blows up mostly if not entirely Muslims, etcetera. And it mystifies me every time. Maybe the talk page is not the right place for such a discussion, but this guy should have some forum for dialogue, even if he has to take it to Wikiversity. We should always have faith in the truth to prevail in free and open dialogue. Wnt ( talk) 23:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an online encyclopaedia, not a psychiatrist's couch. If Quinacrine was actually interested in dialogue, he wouldn't be spamming talk pages with rants. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
In response to Quinacrine's complaint, I've added mention that Carlos the Jackal is a terrorist prominently in the article. According to WP:TERRORIST, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." With famous cases like Sanchez and Breivik, these sources are not at all difficult to come by. Wnt ( talk) 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why any of this is in this forum, but I noticed Wnt's edits to the Carlos article. In the past I fought vigorously against labeling him a terrorist, and although I still think it's inappropriate in the Carlos article, Wnt did a better job than others to support the label. Frankly, I just don't see why we need labels like that period. The reliably sourced facts as to what the article subjects did are reported, and that should be sufficient for readers. The media is very loose with such labels, and they don't have a clear meaning anyway. BTW, if someone else wants to look at the Carlos article to see if they agree with Wnt's edits, knock yourself out.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Wnt is a vocal opponent of, and rejects the WP:BLP policy. I have stated previously and requested him to stop editing articles and content related to living people, he rejects my request and at some point a topic ban will be required. His edits have been reverted. - Youreally can 17:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
If an editor can be topic banned for calling Carlos the Jackal a terrorist, maybe Quinacrine is right about Wikipedia. But I don't think so! And why doesn't anybody hold this debate on the article's talk page instead of scattered all over Wikipedia? You're all cordially invited to Talk:Carlos_the_Jackal#Terrorist to express your positions. Wnt ( talk) 23:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses WP:RS to establish if someone is a terrorist. If someone is called a terrorist by a majority view of sources, he can be attributed as a terrorist under wikipedias voice. If its controversial, but still weighted, the term terrorist should be attributed to sources in article text.(other policies such as WP:BLP still apply ). If you establish a definition of terrorists, (e.g. 1. Is violent towards civilians, 2. Is politically motivated in his actions) and find sources that include these two, and conclude he's a terrorist thats WP:OR and should not be done. Gsonnenf ( talk) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User: Tfortwo214

Hello, A few days ago I gave TforTwo214 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a warning about repeatedly adding incorrect information onto ADHD predominantly inattentive that was obvious misinformation. He then removed the warning and left an edit summary saying "Get off my talk page asshole". I undid his edit and warned him about using inappropriate edit summaries. Again, he removed my comment and wrote "This is MY talk page...leave me alone." I gave him another warning about maintaining civility, where he wrote "gayyyyyyyy leave me alone." in his edit summary. I'm not sure how exactly to deal with this. Any comments? -- GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 18:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say leave them alone. Their vandalism has been noticed and dealt with by other editors and they appear to be perfectly aware that they are behaving inappropriately, so warnings seem pointless. Danger High voltage! 19:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
He's been warned, leave his talk page alone WP:DONTFEED. If you feel he's vandalizing go here and report him. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Gsonnenf ( talk) 21:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Xerographica's conduct in relation to articles in the domain of Libertarianism

User:Xerographica ( notified) has a problem with WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and making personal attacks in the form of ad hominem political characterisations in relation to articles around Libertarianism. I'd like someone to chat with them about appropriate conduct in discussions. In particular I'd like someone to discuss with them why ad hominem attacks and characterising others' political views is deeply offensive. Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Byelf2007 ( talk) 7 March 2012
Please show diffs and links to where you have tried to resolve this as required in the instructions at the top of this page. - Nick Thorne talk 00:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nick for clarifying the procedure I should follow, I'm sorry that I didn't follow this previously:
Direct discussion regarding problem behaviour [93] [94] [95] [96]
Attempts to move discussion back to article improvement by focusing on the editor's positive contributions [97] [98]
I attempted these simultaneously, replying in different sections so as to move discussion away from the problem issue towards non-problem issues. The first did not work, and caused the user to increase their problematic conduct. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't find the diffs provided above concerning Xerographica particularly problematic in light of a lot of thoughtful and insightful input on the Talk page of the Libertarianism article. I am weighing the improper labeling of other editors as "anarchists" against what seems good quality and thought-provoking and seemingly (to me) knowledgeable discussion there. Bus stop ( talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
They're developing as an editor; but, this isn't a disciplinary environment to weigh conduct against preventative measures. This is an environment to improve an editor's relationship with other editors ( [99]). Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Xerographica is guilty of not beating around the bush. Xerographica says "So you're a statist?" in response to "I'm not an anarchist." I don't think this is akin to name-calling. This is shorthand communication because "statist" and "anarchist" are political stances. Bus stop ( talk) 04:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It is a very offensive claim to imply that editors are writing based on their POVs and not on reliable sources; it is also offensive to make assertions about other's politics. Making ad hominem arguments—arguments regarding the character and quality of those you're in discussion with—distracts from making encyclopaedic arguments. It would be an improvement to their conduct, and remove an unnecessary distraction from article process if they stopped doing so. Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The edits by X are clear personal attacks and are disruptive to improving the article. TFD ( talk) 05:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, I'm not using the term "anarchist" nor the term "statist" in a derogatory manner. Is an editor's political orientation relevant? Obviously it wouldn't be if we were editing an article that had absolutely nothing to do with political ideologies. Nor would it be if the editor in question hadn't offered three experts that all happened to be anarchists. Nor would it be if the article on libertarianism wasn't clearly skewed towards anarchist ideologies. That being said, we've established that outside of the US "libertarianism" can be argued to be synonymous with anarchism while here in the US it is synonymous with limited government statism. So the problem is that we're trying to force one article to cover two very different meanings of the word "libertarianism". As a solution some of us will start working on an article Libertarianism (limited government) that is solely dedicated to limited government statism. -- Xerographica ( talk) 10:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


I fail to see all the "ad homs" of which the editor stands accused - and they certainly do not merit a WQA complaint as far as I can tell. Have a large pot of tea folks. Collect ( talk) 11:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Think of WQA as place where editors can come to get a pot of tea with a little friendly advice from the waitstaff. Nobody Ent 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any serious violations, but its probably a better idea not to refer to a editors as a POV group like anarchists repeatedly. Xero, Your frustration is understandable, but when you start heading towards an uncivil pattern its best to identify then correct. I'm sure you can make your point by referring to alleged content or behavioral violations ( instead of "George Woodcock was an anarchist.... Clearly your biases are clouding your judgement.", try "The anarchists you cite are of minority view, the following citations show this[x][x][x].'" ). I hope this WQA helps to deescalate any conflicts. Gsonnenf ( talk) 12:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Concur: Comment on content, not on the contributor Nobody Ent 13:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't full disclosure a good thing? It's kind of hard to go wrong with transparency. The thing is...I already tried your preferred approach... Scope of Government...but clearly it didn't work. The "opposition" wants to pretend that we're not dealing with different meanings of the word "libertarianism". What do they have to gain from pretending that "libertarianism" means both anarchism AND limited statism? Well...they get to use the article on "libertarianism" to promote anarchism. Or maybe I'm just trying to use the article on "libertarianism" to promote limited statism? Or maybe I just think it's ridiculous to pretend that a political ideology could simultaneously advocate both anarchism AND limited statism? Or maybe I think it's ridiculous that there's already articles dedicated to anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism but they want to also dedicate the article on libertarianism to anarchism. Do we really need two articles dedicated to anarchism? Anyways, like I said...they can have the article...err...well...continue to have the article on libertarianism...and I'll focus on writing the article on Libertarianism (limited government). -- Xerographica ( talk) 14:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Fifelfoo—these are all problems of degree. That may seem trite but it especially applies here. You say that "It is a very offensive claim to imply that editors are writing based on their POVs…" These are all Points Of View. Libertarianism, anarchism, statism—are points of view. The subject matter is such that I think the subject matter is very much concerned with "points of view". The subject matter at hand is "points of view". You say "it is also offensive to make assertions about other's politics". In this context it is slightly less so. "Politics" is basically the subject matter at hand. You refer to "character". You refer to "arguments regarding the character and quality of those you're in discussion with". Character is in fact not invoked by Xerographica. He/she merely points out that your arguments are based on political positions. Sorry, but I don't have all that much sympathy for those carping about the accurate designation of the political stances maintained by those encountered in disagreements. There is little "assassination of character." There is just the establishing of nomenclature applicable to positions that are maintained by participants in a disagreement. I hear your complaint but in my opinion your "adversary" is just communicating clearly and not beating around the bush about the factors that in my opinion pertain to the disagreement. Bus stop ( talk) 14:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Nope

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

—  English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
Nobody Ent 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"He/she merely points out that your arguments are based on political positions." My arguments are based on the content of multiple high quality reliable sources published in the scholarly mode, each from a different scholarly discipline focusing on the object. The editor in question does not specify taxonomy out of the highest quality scholarly surveys available; and, personal inspiration has no place in taxonomy or analysis of source bias. I do not like being accused of possessing a politics in a pejorative manner; or accused of editing on a political basis. I do deserve this courtesy. Fifelfoo ( talk) 21:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

When using sources, the beliefs of the writers are irrelevant. While these authors may not be neutral (no authors are) we can expect based on the publishers that the facts would be accurate and complete and that it would provide a good summary of the various interpretations as well as explaining the degree to which scholars have accepted different views. I never look up the poltiical beliefs of writers before using their books as sources, because it is irrelevant. It may be that social sciences are tilted toward the left, but that is not something that we can correct here. TFD ( talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo—I'm not quite seeing the "…arguments regarding the character and quality of those…in discussion…" Is Xerographica saying anything about the "character" or the "quality" of another editor? Bus stop ( talk) 00:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggesting that personal politics "you anarchists" dictates editing. If you're unable to assist, stop contributing here. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
You can't prove that I was using the term "anarchists" derogatorily and I can't prove that I wasn't. Therefore, all we can do is look at context. All the three subject matter experts you referenced are anarchists of some type. This led me to the conclusion that you are an anarchist. Does you being an anarchist have any bearing on the article? Well...clearly if all the subject matter experts you cite happen to be anarchists then I am led to believe that it does have some bearing. What other explanation could there be for an article on "libertarianism" to be so skewed towards "anarchism"? -- Xerographica ( talk) 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with derogatory, you're assigning political traits to individuals. Per se, its only a bit disruptive, but these POV assigning statements can escalate into flame wars. The policies of Wikipedia are designed to stop this escalation. You can probably comment on the authors to the extend that you feel they often add [wp:undue]] content that slants towards anarchism. That's borderline, but probably wouldn't get you in trouble.
On .I already tried your preferred approach... but clearly it didn't work.. Calling the oppositions anarchists will not work either. Your best bet is an RfC or post on the NPOV board. Make a clear argument about why WP:NPOV is occurring and show with evidence what the majority POV is. If these don't work, you'd best take a break until the page editors shifts to the POV you assessed as majority view (which may or may not happen). Gsonnenf ( talk) 02:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
As the user's conduct is escalating ( [100]), I have noted their behaviour at AN/I. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User: MikeWazowski


I posted a notice regarding internet security on user:MikeWazowski" talk, he deleted it. I have been hounded by him for weeks. When I inserted citations (that he finally accepted as ok) without logging today I guess my IP was recorded. Mike made an unprofessional edit summary and used MY REAL NAME thus associating it with my IP address and thus physical address. I'm really surprised at how demeaning some editors are on here. Those of us that are new to Wiki do sometimes make mistakes so just give your opinion about citations, etc and DON'T call a person out by their real name- thus intentionally trying to create a security situation for them. After I was nearly beaten to death by a stranger in 2008 via a track down re:internet, I can tell you that it isn't okay to attempt to jeopardize someone's security just because you don't like their articles. Honestly, the constant attention any edits I make by 'MikeWazowski" are to the point of stalkerish and makes me wonder who he really is. Lastly, user:MikeWazowski even defends himself to another editor saying "I'm not hounding her (regarding me!) but.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory ( talk • contribs)

Kmhistory is a new editor with a history of problem contributions. She tried to create an autobiographical article about herself, tried to vandalize the AfD discussion on that same article by removing comments from multiple editors under false claims of harassment and/or spam (?!?> - see [101], [102], [103] for examples. She has created an article about an organization she has an admitted COI in (although she tries to claim that her COI is not a COI, just because she wants it that way), and she's already had a sockpuppet investigation filed on her by a separate uninvolved editor. While I did call her by her first name, this is something that she gave away herself in this edit - an IP address, by the way, that she had used to add fraudulent comments to the AFD on the article on herself, by claiming to be someone else. My edit history existed long before this editor showed up, and my contributions continue to be on a wide range away from articles that interest Kmhistory. As for deleting messages on my talk page, I addressed her concerns in the edit summary, considering that if she's so worried about her identity, I would remove it from my talk page - besides, if you're so concerned about your identity, Kmhistory, why did you create a very public Wikipedia page about yourself? And finally, I'll point out to Kmhistory that I am allowed to removed items from my talk page. I will continue to keep an eye on the pages in question, though, as Kmhistory has shown a marked misunderstanding of maintenance templates and her own conflict of interest, and this needs to monitored.
Without getting into the details of the beef, if she used her name in an edit under an IP address, that wouldn't be the same as using her name logged in. As such, any attempt to use her name and connect it to her wikipedia username would be an attempt at outing, a serious violation of wikipedia procedures, and something I personally believe should subject an editor to a lengthy block. However, I am not at all clear yet that that is what has happened. Also, this is the WQA, and no administrative action could be taken regarding the potential outing. This may be better placed at the ANI. I see that she commented on her own article saying why she was notable, thus outing herself and making all my comments above moot. LedRush ( talk) 22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I created a wiki about myself 'using km history' NOT my ip address. These are not the same thing. I did not out my ip address. I then asked for a speedy deletion nearly a week ago for that article as one is not allowed to write article about oneself. Mike then put in tags saying it was not eligible for speedy delete. However, I am notable in my field and as such have the right to utilize social media. Nothing was included in my wiki that included my IP address. Mike, please resist to the urge to question one's personal security measures. I want all edit summaries to my IP address that include my name "Karen" to be deleted. It in UNNECESSARY to put a user's real name in the edit summary. Also, I HAVE NEVER claimed to be anyone else. Vivian is a person I have worked for and she does reside in San Diego but consults for the same UK company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory ( talk • contribs)
Can you explain why, in this edit, this IP "signed" using your username, then? -- Kinu  t/ c 23:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, you connect this IP to your username in this sequence of edits around this edit, in given the dialogue via edit summary between you, this IP, and MikeWazowski. I fail to see how this can be considered "outing" given that you yourself appear to admit using this IP. -- Kinu  t/ c 23:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I wrote that article with kmhistory, not my IP. Kmhistory ( talk) 01:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You do not understand the point. Before making comments, do some investigation. Articles that I write under kmhistory don't contain my IP. When I did some editing today- TO CORRECT CITATIONS THAT WERE ACCEPTABLE- I was not logged in. So I guess it took my IP address. User Mike thinks this was on purpose, when in actuality I wasn't auto signed in and, in his incorrect and spiteful edit summaries, outed me by my first name. Looking back in the history, it would be easy to find my full name on Wiki now. My user name kmhistory and my IP address were never connected until he decided to use my name in the edit summary. This was completely unnecessary. If someone wants to claim a cite is wrong, fine, tag it. But DO NOT put their name in the edit summary along with a snarky comment. This is a security breach. Kmhistory ( talk) 01:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    Do not strike out other editors' comments, as you did here. You have already been warned about this. -- Kinu  t/ c 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    What about your comments at the AfD? You posted a comment about an article about yourself. You say "it would be easy to find my full name" on Wikipedia now, but that was the case before any action on MikeWazowski's part as soon as you posted this. Likewise, your edits, comments in edit summaries, etc., are what connected you to the IP. Also, you state above that this is "my IP address" but also include the contradictory statement that this same IP belongs to someone named Vivian who allegedly commented in the AfD discussion. Which is it? I still fail to see how this is MikeWazowski's fault; he merely put a very obvious two and two together. That's not outing, that's behavioral evidence. Notwithstanding, your username and IP address were connected as soon as you posted this. Finally, the lack of honesty about the alleged sockpuppetry and the presumption of bad faith toward MikeWazowski on your part here is making me feel as if there is no action that can be taken here that would be satisfactory to you. -- Kinu  t/ c 01:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Kinu, I see that you are an unemployed economist, not a psychologist. As a secular humanist, I am a very honest person. Please discontinue writing about you"feelings". They are irrelevant to this discussion. Kmhistory ( talk) 01:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    What I am is an administrator here and theoretically in a position to help you if you so choose. But personal attacks will not be tolerated. Ironic, considering this is the Wikiquette board. -- Kinu  t/ c 01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean this as a personal attack. There are several unemployed economists. My point is this is not the place to post about your feelings. Your feelings do nothing to address the subject at hand. Kmhistory ( talk) 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't tell who's saying what or when here - please sign your edits by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. - Nick Thorne talk 23:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Karen, Mike figured out it was your IP address because you did a terrible job at sockpuppetry (sockpuppetry is something we don't like for editors to do, by the way). Anyone could have figured it out, you might as well get angry at Mike for announcing that the sky was blue. If you were being honest, you would not have deleted other's comments with completely false edit summaries, and you would not have pretended to be someone else while logged out, or you would at least admit that you did all that and that it was wrong of you. This is just a petty attempt to get at Mike because you probably feel you are "losing." Grow up, admit you made mistakes, and accept the advice of Kinu (who is trying to help you). It's stuff like this that makes me tempted to suggest adding something to WP:BLOCK to the effect of "feel free to indef anyone who makes an article about themselves." Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Seriously, I have no idea what sockpuppetry is and I did not engage in it. I do not know Mike (in fact I think his user name is a cartoon character) and if you took the time to read the comments, you will see that his using my name in the edit summaries is inappropriate. I AKSED for a "speedy delete" for my karen article awhile ago and it was removed! Mike said it didn't qualify! Instead, you guys wanted to keep it on to pick at the bones. I do not feel I am "losing" (Mike's main edits are erotic video games and Starwars) to anyone. I don't know you people and certainly trust you not. I do not understand your 'losing' comments; are you saying that Wiki is instigating quarrels in order to define a 'loser'. This is utter nonsense. Lastly, free fell to add whatever suggestions to wiki block- why you felt I would care that you are 'tempted' to do so is beyond me and again has nothing to do with the situation. Lastly, I have had my own comments deleted and struck out so I did not know this was not allowed.I suppose this is only for those who have been on wiki longer than a week? Kmhistory ( talk) 02:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the assertion that Kmhistory requested a speedy delete, I see no evidence of that in the history of either the article in question or its talk page. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I can see the deleted history of the article in question, and, while I might have missed that edit, I do not see any indication that you requested its deletion, speedily or otherwise; on the other hand, you removed the proposed deletion tag, and your comments on the now-deleted talk page and at the AfD are in support of retaining the article. Likewise, the only comments of yours that were struck at the AfD were (a) a double !vote to keep the article, which is a legitimate use of a strike, and (b) a !vote by the IP in question here, which was shown to be you and which you have admitted is you. In the past you might not have known what sockpuppetry was, but now you do: you used both an IP (which you admit is your IP address above) and your logged-in account in an attempt to influence the AfD discussion. I'm assuming good faith on your part here and trusting you not to do something similar again. That being said, no one is instigating a quarrel here; indeed, you were the one who opened this discussion, and it is up to you to provide us with evidence indicating some sort of fault on the part of the other editor. At this stage, several other editors have indicated that you have failed to do so. On the other hand, you're only propagating the amount of information on Wikipedia discussing the connection between this IP and your account by lengthening this discussion. If you are explicitly looking for a remedy, I would state what you want here; if not, I do not see any action to be taken. -- Kinu  t/ c 02:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I did put in 'speed delete' tags and remove the 'propsed deletion' tag- this is how I understood it from the speedy deletion instructional page (slow versus fast deletion). The page is deleted- finally and I am happy not to hear of it again. What I want: my name, karen, removed from ALL edit summaries that Mike posted. To say I shouldn't have mentioned it is like saying I someone robbed my house and I shouldn't have reported it to the police. The damage has been done- by him. While you may feel it is easy to track my IP and name the average wiki is not able to do that except of course when they see my name next to the ip- and check it against the kmhistory file. Lastly , I assumed I was logged in for 180 days. I have no reason - NOR DID I WANT TO- use my IP. I have much to add to wiki and frankly wiki needs more pro-science professionals. Kmhistory ( talk) 02:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    All right, that's not an unreasonable remedy, and I'm happy to assist you with it. I only see the one diff with your name in it here and have removed its edit summary from the logs. For the reasons above, and because this isn't WP:ANI, I see no reason that Mike should be sanctioned or even trouted, as part of the issue is that none of this would've happened had you not edited in a manner similar to your account while logged out; to extend your police analogy, you might feel as if someone robbed your house, but you did leave the door open. That being said, I'm going to trust you to be more careful and ensure that you are logged in (always check the upper-right corner while editing, and signing your posts using ~~~~ and hitting "show preview" will help with that because it will fill in your username if you are logged in); this will avoid any such issues in the future and to ensure that you aren't accused of sockpuppetry, since I know that isn't your intent. -- Kinu  t/ c 02:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Odiriuss

User:Odiriuss has repeatedly accused me of vandalism, [104] [105] arrogance [106], misuse of administrator power, [107] [108] and had implied I have no reason. [109] I just wanted to say I don't see this as the right way to go. A user warning would be in place. -- Eleassar my talk 15:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear wikipedians,I have accused User:Eleassar for these things because i feel that is precisely what he is doing. I have also submitted an official complaint on User:Eleassar at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Missuse_of_admin_power and explained my case there, feel free to see my reasoning for these actions. I would also like to state that i was never uncivil to User:Eleassar even though he repeatedly neglected the evidence i put forth,and claimed only the Slovenian sources were correct and that the rest of the world is wrong,i find that ridiculous and thus have taken actions against User:Eleassar. I will also take this dispute to WP:DRN,to end it once and for all.

Yours truly,

Odiriuss ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with me, but per NPA, serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. -- Eleassar my talk 17:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The accusation of Admin abuse of power is properly being closed as being without merit. Generally, even if true, one should make one's arguments based on content, not references to the individual editor. Without getting to the basis of the dispute, it seems that Odiriuss could use a warning that he should comment on edits and policy, not editors. LedRush ( talk) 17:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Drive" genre

Hey there,

On the Drive (2011 film) page, in the past day there have been several editors changing the genre of the film completely. Before hand it was previously Action with either Drama or Romance in at certain times, or all of them. It had been like this for a while and everyone was happy, but these editors in the past day have came on the page and changed it. There is an 'anon' with an IP "187.35.39.81" who is claiming that I am 'genre warrior' for changing the genre to genre to how it had been before (and everyone was happy with this in the genre for a while). He and the other editors are this so called 'genre warrior' as they keep changing it themselves. The 'anon' said threatened he would report me for changing the genre back, even though it was like that for a while, and like I said, everyone was happy. I have started a new section on Drive's talk page because as the 'anon' obviously isn't registered Wikipedian I can't message him directly on his talk page as he doesn't have one.

Charlr6 ( talk) 22:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Actions at Jose Antonio Vargas Article

Due to an elongated discussion that lead other editors to stop assuming good faith regarding my actions, and from what I perceive as creating a local consensus that does not abide by BLP and NPOV, it has lead other editors to stop following at times WP:CIVIL and to not discuss issues regarding the content of the article.

Recently, I had tagged a section regarding a statement, differing from the previous issue which created the local consensus above, that I felt did not match NPOV. This was only after I had been bold and made the statement more neutral and added a wikilink to the article subject which the sentence was talking about per WP:UNDERLINK; see diff here. This POV statement was readded by Nomoskedasticity. I began a discussion and tagged the section per WP:BRD, to which the tag was removed by Bbb23 (who in a previous statement specifically stated that AGF would not be followed by the editor regarding myself). It appears that there was an assumption that the tag was regarding the previous issue, for which the tag was not. I reverted the tag, and added a tag regarding the specific content under discussion, which again was reverted.

Seeing as how there appears to be a breakdown of AGF, CIVIL, and BRD regarding this discussion, and after having the mediation cabal not take up the case regarding the previous issue, I have opened up a request for assistance here. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, this looks like a run of the mill content dispute. Unless you can provide specific diffs for any civility issues there is nothing for us to do here. - Nick Thorne talk 07:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this present discussion there has not yet been any incivility (unless one counts lack of AGF), as there was in the past. Perhaps a suggestion where to go regarding this content dispute would be helpful? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, you could take it to six different noticeboards. Oh wait -- you've already done that. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There have been no additional editors who have come from those notices. The point of posting at noticeboards is to get additional opinions regarding content dispute discussions, as no additional opinions were received those postings did not contribute to any further discussion. Rather, as I stated above my attempts to improve the article, and initiate discussion have been meet with reversion and no further discussion on the talk page of the article in question.
Is there no further discussion regarding the reversions linked here and the lack of AGF towards myself?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an instance of a very stubborn editor who doesn't agree with the consensus on the Vargas article and won't let go. Nothing really more to say.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:STICK comes to mind. - Nick Thorne talk 02:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem I see is this is a new issue regarding a different part of the article. Other editors have reverted the edit with a claim that my edit is not keeping with WP:NEU. Since this is a new issue I have followed WP:BRD appropriately and have remained civil. By not entering into a new discussion other editors are continuing to support language that does not keep with NEU:

about the effects of Alabama's severe anti-immigration legislation.

If others don't want to continue discussion that flies in the face of the two pillars of NEU and AGF.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It's still not a WQA issue. You have a content dispute with the other editors of that page. No breach of civility has occured so far as I can see. Other editors are not required to respond to any of your posts, you do not have the right to require other editors to do anything. The only editor over whom you have any control is yourself. WP:STICK applies, as I said before. - Nick Thorne talk 04:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive116&oldid=1144586308"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Calling "Jewish" a source or an article improperly and without any valid reason

Resolved
 – Closed per request by Jeffro77 and Ceci n'est pas une pipe
  1. Jeffro77 refers to the Wikipedia article Righteous Among the Nations as to a "Jewish article".
  2. I have asked him to avoid this kind of remarks which I find rather abusive. I must say that I misunderstood his initial assertion: I thought he was referring to the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations.
  3. John Carter has intervened to say that it's OK to refer to that Encyclopedia as to a "Jewish article" because it is an Encyclopedia with a Jewish learning (sic!).

I have no idea what relevance these remarks have on the topic we were discussing. I perceive this as an abuse. Is there anything that can be done or shall we accept that somebody else refers to the article Homosexuality as to a "homosexual article", to Romani people as to a "Gypsy article", to National Socialism as to a "Nazi article"?

This is not essential but, by the way, both of them keep denying the simple fact that the source (the Encyclopedia) explicitly mentions the religious affiliation of two Jehovah's Witnesses as their motivation for hiding a young Jewish woman during the Shoah. How do you talk to someone who refuses to read the sources while at the same time qualifying them as "Jewish"?

-- Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77 and John Carter's remarks are reasonable in the context they were made -- discussion of an article listing individuals who saved individuals of the Jewish faith during the Holocaust. Nobody Ent 11:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Ceci n'est pas une pipe seems to imagine that it is somehow offensive to specify the context of an article that is plainly related to Jewish people. I have no idea why he imagines that to be some kind of indictment of Jews or anyone else. Aside from that, no one has 'denied' that the encyclopedia to which he refers makes mention of the religion of a couple of people who helped one Jewish girl. The point is that their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves), because people of any religion are equally likely to consider their religion to be a motive for helping others. Righteous Among the Nations does not give any special attention to the religious affiliation of others who helped Jewish people during the Holocaust, including those who helped hundreds or even thousands of Jews. It seems that Ceci n'est pas une pipe's entire basis for raising this complaint may be a retributive action for his edit not being retained at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments [1] See User talk:Jeffro77#Re and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Notable Jehovah's Witnesses.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling it a jewish article isn't entirely accurate but it is civil. It would be better described as a "Judaism related article". Comparing calling an aricle jewish to calling an article homosexual, nazi or gypsy is a bit over the top. It seems like your implying they are all pejorative which isn't the case. Gsonnenf ( talk) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77—why are you referring to the Righteous among the Nations article as a "Jewish article"? Bus stop ( talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Already answered. Nobody Ent 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it may be slightly more accurate to refer to a Judaism-related article, but Jewish article is entirely valid shorthand for same. The term was used quite clearly to establish context. It should be quite clear that I was not implying that a digital file on a database possesses any particular ethnicity. Sigh.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Jeffro77 —I think it is not advisable to pigeonhole articles as "Jewish articles". I think such a reference tends to be dismissive of the article so referrenced. An article is a complex entity referring to many identities including in this case non-Jews. Those who extended kindness at great personal risk to Jews during the holocaust, referenced for instance in this section, are also the subject of that article. I'm heartened by your characterization of your language as merely "shorthand" as I understand the exigencies of quickly dashing off written communication on Talk pages. Nevertheless I understand the objection raised here to the encapsulation of a complex topic covered as if it were merely of concern to Jews, as this article highlights many non-Jews as well. Bus stop ( talk) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article not calling it a Jewish article, 'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths. Gsonnenf ( talk) 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The context in which it I referred to as a 'Jewish article' is quite clear. Some of you are behaving as if this is wording I've tried to use in article. Please just stop.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 07:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

After this and this - which can well be right and I have not questioned - I have decided to add this in the talk of the Project related to the JWs: if users more skilled/knowledgeable than myself are interested to add this piece of information to Wikipedia they have the opportunity to discuss about it, as it is unlikely that I will intervene any longer on this subject anyway, with maybe few exceptions.

Jeffro77 reacted with a certain irritation: «As you've already been told …» which is not exactly an elegant way to talk to anyone. After all, what I have been told is only his opinion (over and over again, actually) - opinion which is objectively wrong, a mere provocation: Jeffro77 is openly denying the content of a source which reports that the two Belarusians in question were «devout JWs» and that «they believed that their deed of rescue was a commandment from God» while Jeffro77 keeps repeating over and over again that «their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves)». What is he trying to say? That the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations (ERAN) is not a relevant source? He has never tried to explain why, according to him, what the ERAN finds notable should be ignored/discarded. He keeps repeating that the 2 JWs saved only 1 Jew while many others have saved thousands. What is he trying to say? That the two didn't deserve the honorific "Righteous Among the Nations"? That the honorific itself is not especially notable? He proposed to add the two Belarusians in a Polish list (?!). This is the context in which he added that ambiguous inaccurate «Jewish article». If you allow me, I have noted too much ambiguous inaccuracy accompanied by the presumption that he is obviously right and I'm obviously wrong. If he is obviously right, how come he is being so inaccurate and on similar delicate issues?

In English, Jewish article means an article that has been written with a Jewish point of view which, related to a Wikipedia article, means that it is a bad article, at least if Wikipedia articles aim at being "neutral". The same is true for "homosexual article" or "Nazi article" or any other "x article" of the same kind. It is wrong and there can be absolutely no doubt about this. Together with the rest, included the fact that he keeps defending his inaccuracy, it makes me think it was not a simple accidental inaccuracy, and this will remain my permanent opinion about Jeffro77.

I feel quite disappointed by the kind of comments I have read here. I expect from someone endowed with the slightest common sense to at least say something like: «Jewish article is wrong and potentially very ambiguous. No hard feelings, but please avoid such remarks in the future». But I agree that common sense is not so common after all. 1 Case closed for me. -- Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 'denying' anything. I am stating that the religion of the 2 people who helped one Jewish girl is not especially notable. I am also stating that Righteous Among the Nations does not note the religious affiliation of other people who helped hundreds or thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. I am therefore stating that it would constitute undue weight to give special attention to the fact that the religion of these two people is more significant than the religious affiliation of many other people of various religions who helped Jews during the Holocaust. Regarding his further claim that I've suggested the honorific is not notable, I have also previously stated that the numbers for these two should be included at Righteous Among the Nations in the same manner as all the others. The Encyclopedia says that the 2 people considered their religion to be their motive for helping the Jewish girl; that could be said of people of any religion, and does not warrant special attention in the Wikipedia article. It certainly would be biased to make a special point of the honorific being conveyed upon JWs when no such special point is made in the article about members of other religions, as if it should be 'surprising' that JWs would receive the honorific.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe seems to be on a crusade about questioning my motives on something for which everyone else clearly recognised the intended context and that such—while not an accurate description for article content—was not objectionable. Jewish article in English means "an article that is of or pertaining to Jews or Judaism." I have no idea why Ceci n'est pas une pipe determines that such an article must therefore be 'bad'. (I should also note that the value judgement Ceci n'est pas une pipe places on 'homosexual articles' as 'bad' is also discriminatory.)-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 01:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have provided clear evidence that Jeffro77 is lying: he says that «their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves)» knowing that the ERAN says that, when the situation became extremely dangerous, they kept protecting their ward because «they believed that their deed of rescue was a commandment from God», i.e. their religious affiliation is especially notable for ERAN which mentions only this as explanation for their motive. Since ERAN is not written by the two belarusian JWs, Jeffro77 is lying because he knows that what he is stating is false. Of course that doesn't mean that what ERAN finds notable should be considered notable by Wikipedia as well, I have never suggested this automatism.
Since Jeffro77 cannot defend himself from the evidence, he changes subject to deviate from the point: his "undue weight" argument is completely empty, given that I have never proposed to mention the story of the two JWs in Righteous among the Nations. My opinion is that a short paragraph could - not should - be added in some article related to the behaviour of Jehovah's Witnesses during WWII, in particular their very clear and rather compact refusal of the Nazi regime. For an interesting point of view, read here.
The idea that "Jewish article", when referred to a Wikipedia article, means "an article that is of or pertaining to Jews or Judaism" is silly and I shall not answer. A "homosexual article" is an article that is of or pertaining to homosexuals? Simply ridiculous. Normal people do not use these expressions unless they intend to be offensive. If they do not intend to be offensive they do not persist defending such ambiguous expressions.
When a user refers to a Wikipedia article as to a "Jewish article", the least that can be noted is that, by saying so, he is accusing the contributors of that article of partisanship/dishonesty/disregard for the neutrality policies. If the attached attribute is sensitive - like "Jewish" or "homosexual" - then this is likely to be also abusive towards these communities.
Also, it should be noted that the article in question - Righteous among the Nations - is not a Judaism-related article, being related to the Shoah, Antisemitism, World War II, Israel, Yad Vashem, etc. Certainly not to Judaism, no more than to Jewish atheism (the Nazi plan included the entire Jewish people, not only the followers of the religion called Judaism).
The rest is a ridiculous, totally unsubstantiated accuse made by Jeffro77 against my person («(I should also note …»): I request that it is removed from history.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 16:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you is not lying and expressing an opinion is not a criminal allegation. It is not going to be a good use of your time discussing the article content here; the issue you've asked our opinion on is whether the use of the term "Jewish article" is incivil and there is not a consensus that it is. Nobody Ent 16:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I require that the user withdraws his claim about libel.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I also just noticed his statement that I had "proposed to add the two Belarusians in a Polish list". As I immediately explained after I realised I'd made a minor error [2], I had innocuously thought a place name in his text was in Poland rather than Belarus. I have no opinion or vested interest regarding the politics of Poland or Belarus, and am not aware that the incidental error was "delicate". (However, on closer inspection, the Wilno District was in fact part of Poland at the beginning of World War II. [3])-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the false syllogism between the words Jewish and homosexual, words pertaining to nationalities are ordinarily (and non-judgementally) used in the sense of pertaining to. Italian food. French architecture. No one routinely refers to homosexual food or homosexual architecture. The only reason for selecting the term homosexual for such a comparison is to suggest that such a term is inherently negative.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
(I just noticed another editor had marked this section as resolved prior to my last comment. I considered deleting the post-resolved comment, but as it is related to a separate attack on my motives, I feel it is better to leave intact, with some adjustment.)-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
We can change it to stuck if you'd like. It appears outside authors have stated their opinions. For something relatively minor like this, findings of WQA just give you an outside opinion. Hopefully you can benefit from the outside perspective. Gsonnenf ( talk) 11:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Jeffro77, after resolution, has taken advantage to keep attacking me with ridiculous nonsensical non-arguments, I reckon one last reply is only due.
Now Jeffro77 says that referring to a Wikipedia article as to a "Jewish article" is comparable to talking about Italian food (sic!). He must have surely been thinking hard about it.
He also says that for him it is routine to refer to a Wikipedia article as to a Jewish article, while for some extraordinarily mysterious reason he agrees with me (and fails to acknowledge it) that "homosexual article" would be an intolerable incivility.
He says: «The only reason for selecting the term homosexual for such a comparison is to suggest that such a term is inherently negative». No way: what do Jews and homosexuals (or Gypsies) have in common? They are both minorities under risk of discrimination: the comparison is only too obvious. Thus also the last desperate attempt to deviate attention from his inaccurate expression evaporates into thin air. -- Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 14:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. You seem to have misused 'sic'.
  2. You know (or should reasonably know) that words describing nationalities are commonly used as descriptors, as in the examples provided.
  3. I did not say I agree with your negative implication about "homosexual article", I said that to come up with the comparison in the first place suggests a negative view of that topic, and it ignores the stated distinction demonstrating the way in which nationality descriptors are commonly used.
  4. Your attack here seems entirely retributive in nature as a result of your edit being removed from an article.
  5. I used the term Jewish in an appropriate manner for a Talk page, and everyone else clearly understands the intended meaning. It is not particularly important or relevant that you continue to object. Now please go and do something productive, like complain vehemently about Jewish cuisine.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 14:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
While Jewish cuisine is a perfectly no-nonsense notion, "Jewish article" - when referred to a Wikipedia article - is certainly not. People with non-hostile attitudes don't say that. Polite people withdraw it without any problem, if found ambiguous, they don't persist for days and days.
If Wikipedia community accepts your ambiguous expressions, it's perfectly ok for me, I don't live on Wikipedia. I don't need assistance to identify your expressions and your obstinacy to defend them as improper: I will remain happy with that.
I find it quite touching that you started by saying that your "Jewish" was related to "Judaism" and now you end up claiming that yours was a reference to a nationality (which, in particular, and of whom? -- I'd be curious to know). But - you say - not to an ethnicity. In short, you don't have yourself the slightest idea of what you meant by that "Jewish article". Whoa! You might find beneficial to do some reading. Also you could try to focus a minute or two on the meaning of that " among the Nations": it's there for a reason after all.
-- Ceci n'est pas une pipe ( talk) 16:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You incorrectly inferred something about my use of Jewish article. You also incorrectly inferred that my reference to the Wikipedia article Righteous Among the Nations was actually about The Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations. You were then upset by your own incorrect inferences. The context of my use of Jewish article was clear from the outset (as confirmed by other editors), yet you continue to claim special knowledge of my thoughts. You have assumed an awful lot. The only thing you have not assumed is good faith.
But let's go step back a bit and look at where I happened to use this supposedly terrible phrase. Was it a frequent characterisation of articles related to Jews or Judaism? No. Was it in an article? No. Was it even at article Talk? Well, actually, no, it wasn't. This shocking phrase was actually used in a single comment in response to Ceci n'est pas une pipe at my User Talk page, directly in relation to establishing the correct context of information Ceci n'est pas une pipe had added to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. The context of the original 'offensive' statement was "My best guess from the place names was Poland [Wilno was in fact in Poland at the beginning of WWII]. Whatever the location, it only warrants mentioning within the context of Righteous among the Nations or directly related articles. The account [of two Jehovah's Witnesses helping a Jewish girl] has nothing at all to do with the attitude of governments toward JWs. Nor is there any indication in the account that the action of two JWs is representative of the religion itself. If their status as JWs is relevant in the context of the Jewish article , I have no concern about it being mentioned."-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, I did not "[start] by saying that [my use of] "Jewish" was related to "Judaism""; I actually said at this page that a Jewish article means an article pertaining to Jews or Judaism. Distinction between culture, nationality or ethnicity is entirely beside the point, as no negative connotation was ever intended. The fact remains that Righteous Among the Nations is plainly a Jewish topic (in the sense used in the original statement), relating to an honorific bestowed by Jews on people of other nations for helping Jews. If you (or anyone else) imagine that somehow suggests something negative about Jews, that is essentially your problem. I simply do not automatically attribute negative implications to normal English words.
My entire obligation to Ceci n'est pas une pipe in this matter is to acknowledge that he made an incorrect inference about my response to him at my User Talk page. I will proceed to an ANI if he continues to attack my motives.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have removed what appeared to be a biased summary by Gsonnenf. In view of his own contributions, it seems advisable that Gsonnenf should not close discussions on matters concerned with Judaism. Recently he has been significantly involved in similar matters on this page. His summary seemed WP:POINTY. Please leave it up to disinterested regulars. Mathsci ( talk) 07:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
WQA editors have already suggested Jeffro77 use the term "jewish related article" instead of "jewish article" when referring multi-cultural articles. Jefrro77 is free to believe what he wants as long as he's not violating wiki policy. If he continues to refer to multi-cultural article as a "Jewish article", and you feel this breaches wiki policy, I would suggest taking it to a message board with binding resolutions. Gsonnenf ( talk) 07:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. This noticeboard is being misused by a number of users, beyond the purposes for which it was intended. Please do not restore your biased summary. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Mathsci, I understand we've had differences on several occasions, but please do not disrupt this WQA process to make a point about your feelings towards me. Thank you. Gsonnenf ( talk) 07:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, given your own editing history, it is probably better not to involve yourself in this WP:POINTY way. The discussion does not seem to have ended yet. My own view is that on talk pages language is often so imprecise and ungrammatical that this minor nit-picking serves little or no purpose. The imprecision does not involve comments about any particular user on wikipedia. I cannot see how incivility or wikiquette enter here. Mathsci ( talk) 07:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to recap. The initial reporter made a complaint about two editors, only one of whom has responded here. Nobody Ent did not think the objection was valid. Apart from Gsonnenf himself and the original reporter, the only other editor to intervene has been Bus Stop. Now I have made a statement, more or less in agreement with Nobody Ent. What consensus is there here, except that this is a minor linguistic issue on a talk page that was probably not worth reporting here? Mathsci ( talk) 08:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, I don't see why you see any bias in the resolution.

Opinions

  • Not uncivil - Nobodyent, Gsonnenf, Mathsci
  • Better referred as X-related article instead of X article - Bus Stop, gsonnenf

I'm pretty much just summarizing here, no WP:POINT at all. Last WQA author besides me (and now you) posted 5 days ago. Also, there is a link [4] to the admin recommending removal of the term libel which occurred during this dispute. Hopefully the authors will stop debating this WQA and do something more beneficial since we concluded the WQA. Gsonnenf ( talk) 08:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The original complaint was a misuse of this noticeboard. Since Jeffro77 is still adding comments, I do not see that the matter has yet been concluded. Mathsci ( talk) 10:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I've exercised my right of reply. The matter can be closed.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've retagged the request per the WQA volunteer instructions Nobody Ent 11:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really 'stuck'. The complaint was based on an incorrect inference on the part of the complainant, and the circumstances and correct intended meaning have all been very clearly explained. No further action is necessary.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 12:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Jeffro77—"Righteous among the Nations" is nominally a Jewish article because included in its material are topics that involve Jews, among other people. But "Righteous among the Nations" is not an article that has a Jewish perspective. If it were, it would probably be in violation of important WP principles such as WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. I don't think it would be incorrect to say that Wiki does not have Jewish articles, Muslim articles, or Christian articles. The choosing of language is of obvious importance. Referring to the "Righteous among the Nations" article as a Jewish article has the unintended consequence of implying that it has a Jewish perspective. Bus stop ( talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The context of the usage of the term at my User Talk page was unambiguous, limited in scope, and had an intended audience of one. I see no reason to change it.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 12:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The initial complaint was a valid use of the board. Ceci n'est pas une pipe felt Jeffro77 was being uncivil because he found the comment offensive. The board gave him good feed back that the community did not see it as uncivil. The board also gave guidance for resolving the situation. I'm glad we could give input that helped resolve the situation. Gsonnenf ( talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Gsonnenf, please stop sermonising. Hardly anybody commented, nothing happened, no relevant guidance was given, ... Is it not time to beat your swords into ploughshares? Mathsci ( talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Lets continue this on a talk page if you'd like to discuss our disagreement. Gsonnenf ( talk) 21:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Gsonnenf—you post under a post of mine that: "I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article, 'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths."
I have bolded the word "also" in the above quote.
You are concurring with me in the second half of your sentence but not concurring with me in the first half of your sentence.
You correctly paraphrase me in your assertion "…'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths".
But you are not at all reflecting anything I said in the first half of your sentence: "I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article…"
I want to make it clear that I did not "recommend calling it a judaism-related article…" Bus stop ( talk) 18:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. In the interesting of finding a solution, I assumed you would be alright with Judaism related article because the article relates to judaism. Problem fixed. Gsonnenf ( talk) 01:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
OMG! This is still going? I used an informal expression at my own User Talk page. End of story. It's done and dusted.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Roux at the village pump

In a section labelled "Please clarify", study the conversation between me and Roux. Please read the whole discussion and make sure you know both of us well and see if it really makes sense that I'm as bad of a Wikipedian as Roux thinks I am. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also study all edits Roux has made since then. He even carried it over to my talk page. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please drop this futile bickering. Fences& Windows 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. I never said you were a 'bad Wikipedian,' I implied that you are not competent to edit here, as you are still raising the same question which someone answered for you six years ago. Fail.
  2. When I suggested that you read WP:COMPETENCE, you further indicated how incompetent you are by failing to actually read the page and instead go on some weird clicking to other pages which had absolutely no bearing. Fail.
  3. You were required to notify me that you had posted here. You failed at that, too, and I can only guess it's because you appear to have less than no interest in actually reading anything.
  4. I will treat this nonsense with the contempt it deserves and will not be watching this page.

→  ROUX  ₪  21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Georgia guy, why have you brought this here? You aired this at the Village pump. Fences closed the discussion as "going nowhere". And here you are wanting to go nowhere yet again?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up before the Village pump section was closed. I was sent here from my talk page as the right place to go to warn others of Roux's edits. But I have calmed down now. Georgia guy ( talk) 21:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, this is my very first time with this particular page. So please help me nicely with good etiquette. Georgia guy ( talk) 21:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Easy. Just let it go. Stop keeping this topic alive. Don't bring it up anywhere else. Find an article that needs improvement and edit it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Start by assuming good faith on the part of Roux. Start by assuming that other editors who appear to be siding with Roux know what they're talking about. Start by stepping back and thoroughly reviewing the policies and best practices of the community. If you don't throw the first stone and come to the table with an open mind you might just be surprised at the level of good faith other editors are willing to extend to you. Hasteur ( talk) 22:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you clarify what "on the part of Roux" means?? Does it mean first assume Roux is good?? Please explain. Georgia guy ( talk) 22:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me Google that for you... It's an idiom. Are you a native English speaker? If you aren't this might explain some of the difficulties you've had in communicating with various people. Hasteur ( talk) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That's how I actually did start, for a little while, until somehow I slowly began to believe Roux was bad. (And yes, I'm a native English speaker.) Georgia guy ( talk) 23:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • comment From reading the village pump posts, It looks like Roux was a bit rude and uncivil. I would suggest we advise him to be less rude and more civil and then promptly close this thread. Gsonnenf ( talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Roux needs any advice. He wasn't being rude or uncivil. He was being blunt. He explained. When Georgia guy didn't get it, Roux got frustrated and was more forceful. I'm a big fan of civility, but there's nothing that requires Roux to be warm and fuzzy. And Georgia guy should just give it up. I do agree that this topic should be closed - it should never have been opened.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Roux was being incivil -- would have been better if they had walked away. That said, it was certainly understandable under the circumstances so I'm certainly not going to say anything to them about it. Georgia guy was specifically told at the Village Pump to post to WQA if they had concerns, so the WQA should have been opened. Nobody Ent 00:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
First, there is a difference between being uncivil and it being a better idea to walk away. I agree with your walk away comment. Second, you're right about the WQA suggestion. I missed that; thank you for pointing it out.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Before all y'all have a merry old time claiming I was rude--I wasn't; as said above I was blunt and there is absolutely nothing requiring me to mollycoddle those who insist on bullshit--you should have a look at this particular bit of nonsense, which is a flat-out and deliberate lie about my behaviour. Prior to today, as far as I know the sum total of my interactions with this editor were when he appeared out of nowhere to revert spam on my talkpage. →  ROUX  ₪  08:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Whether "blunt" or "rude" - I will just ask if the tone used was the most appropriate to achieve a satisfactory close to the initial incident and ask Roux to consider whether a different approach might not have led to a different state where none of us would be here? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Your tone was no different. In fact, you were openly mocking. Is that different somehow? Either way, that is utterly irrelevant to the issue of an editor who is either a very subtle troll or incompetent deliberately lying about me. →  ROUX  ₪  19:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, come on, there's nothing to be gained by ratcheting this up. Don't accuse editors of being trolls or liars. You're just going to attract more attention against you and keep this thread open for that much longer.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Given how this whole thing started, trolling is almost certainly what's going on. Georgia guy claimed that he'd noticed something while reverting vandalism, then posted to VP.. which doesn't really explain why in the edit summary reverting the vandalism he pointed people to VP when he hadn't even posted a topic yet.
As for calling him a liar, he said something which he knows to be factually untrue. Do you have another word for it? 'Politician' has roughly the same meaning, I suppose. Point being, he comes here whining about me with no basis, but when I point out that he has very specifically made an accusation which is not borne out by anything in the real world, you tell me to shut up. WTF is wrong with you people? →  ROUX  ₪  19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't tell if Georgia guy is trolling or has genuine issues understanding what vandalism is. I'm sure he's received many definitions from many users. If he is trolling i suggest WP:DENY, if he isn't trolling let someone spend 30 seconds answering his redundant question. It is less disruptive. I again suggest we close this discussion. Gsonnenf ( talk) 20:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
People have been trying to explain to him what vandalism is and is not since 2006. WP:VAND contains all the definitions, and several of us have pointed him there, to no avail. At this point it is either trolling or incompetence. →  ROUX  ₪  20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was never trolling. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You did, however, lie. That is not in dispute--you cannot possibly dispute that you were lying when you claimed I was 'following you around.' You going to retract your lies or not? →  ROUX  ₪  20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
To clarify what I meant when I said you were following me around, I mean that often when I make an edit relating to this discussion, you make one in response. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
1) Bullshit; 2) do you know what the word 'discussion' means?; 3) Do you know what the watchlist is?; 4) Do you understand that when you are talking about someone, especially when you are doing so dishonestly, they are going to respond?
Go re-read WP:COMPETENCE. Except this time, actually read the bloody page instead of clicking away. That means read and understand all the words from top to bottom. Then re-evaluate whether, given that it's been six years and you still have no clue what 'vandalism' means, let alone your obvious other difficulties with comprehension of really basic things like 'how to use words to say what you claim you actually meant, instead of using words which say something entirely and completely different,' you actually have the skillset required to edit here. For God's sake. →  ROUX  ₪  21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I read the article and one section says:
Bias-based incompetence: Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate. Try this first before going for a site ban, because some people can make valuable contributions in places other than their pet topic. For some reason, it is very difficult to see your own biased editing, though it is easy to see others' biased editing.
Per the last sentence in this section, I see Roux's editing easily. It definitely appears biased. Georgia guy ( talk) 21:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
You have got to be fucking joking. →  ROUX  ₪  21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This thread started with Georgia guy wanting to know if other editors agreed with Roux's negative assessment of him. Not really the right kind of thing to bring to WQA (yeah, I know, someone told him to), but whatever. Then, just because we are at WQA, it devolved into questioning Roux's civility, and to the extent he was uncivil, whether it was justifiable because of Georgia guy's supposed inability to grasp certain concepts. Now, it has deteriorated rapidly with Roux demonstrating that he is uncivil and continuing his attack on Georgia guy as incompetent (which again doesn't really belong here). None of this is doing anyone any good. If someone wants to counsel Roux to get off his high horse, to treat editors with respect, and to stop digging himself deeper into a hole, fine. Otherwise, I don't know why we're here except to witness further pointless unpleasantness.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We're here because GG is incapable of comprehending anything which he is told, including when he is told to go and read the very page which discusses that issue. →  ROUX  ₪  21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • People are actually... discussing this? I thought it was apparent that Georgia guy is a either a troll or perhaps not quite competent. In either case it's getting disruptive. Killiondude ( talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm seriously not a troll. This discussion all began with me posting a serious question at the village pump. Roux responded to it in a biased way. Something to say: I have studied Roux's edits in all WP pages related to this discussion and I can tell that he is someone pretending to be civil. Have you triple-checked this discussion to find out what the truth is?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        • My comments in this discussion are biased how exactly? I await a cogent response with breathless anticipation. Thus far you have accused me of following you around (untrue), pretending.. something (also untrue), and now bias. We all know that's untrue as well, and I am going to have to demand that you actually explain precisely how my edits to this discussion are biased, or remove the stupid accusation immediately. Is that crystal clear? →  ROUX  ₪  21:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You better watch out, Killiondude. Saying that someone is incompetent--despite the overwhelming evidence--is apparently a personal attack now. At least according to Bbb23. →  ROUX  ₪  21:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This does it. I think it's about time to close this discussion now. Any objections?? Georgia guy ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I object. You have made multiple spurious accusations. You are now required to provide actual evidence supporting them, or retract them--and quite frankly, issue an apology for making them in the first place. →  ROUX  ₪  22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Georgia Guy, per WP:VANDAL: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Roux is correct that an editor with over 6,000 mainspace and six years experience should know this by now, so it's unclear what you were attempting to do at the Village Pump, especially since you said you knew what vandalism is [5]. You said you want to close the conversation -- WQA participation is voluntary so you can just leave this conversation and go back to your content work. To answer you question: Is Roux a good Wikipedian? Absolutely. He's made over 6,000 mainspace edits and is currently under no sanctions. Nobody Ent 22:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, I know what vandalism is; it's exactly what you said. But now let me explain what I was intending to do. Shortly before I made the post, I noticed a new MediaWiki message saying "If you're undoing an edit that is not vandalism..." I was curious on an improvement to the message so that it will be clear than anyone who undoes the edit will know what it means, even Wikipedians who don't know what vandalism is. Georgia guy ( talk) 22:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
What wording would you propose? Nobody Ent 22:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no real suggestion. Perhaps a phrase "(see the link for details)" added to the text in the MediaWiki message can do. (The word link is a reference to the link that the word vandalism points to. I also suggest that the link should link to the "What is not vandalism" section of the WP:VAND page because that's the section most relevant to understanding the statement the message mentions.) Georgia guy ( talk) 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the fact the word vandalism is in the hyperlink color is sufficient indication to the editor they can click on it. What section of the page would be most useful to a particular editor would depend on the editor, don't you think? Nobody Ent 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Notice the contents of WP:VAND. I know it varies depending on the editor; I agree with you. Go to section 7 in the contents and notice sub-sections 7.1 to 7.13 and that it can be any of those sub-sections of section 7 depending on the editor, but they're all in section 7 and that's where it be linked. Georgia guy ( talk) 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
That would be good for the person who learns best through lots of concrete examples; there are other people for whom the statement at the top of the page would be best. Also, that allows edits to scroll down and see the table of contents. Nobody Ent 23:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict) So, NE, you want to extend this exercise in how-to-waste-everyone's-time-on Wikipedia? As if there weren't countless ways to do that already. So, let's quibble. Having 6,000 edits and not currently under sanctions is NOT necessarily the "definition" of a good editor. I pass no judgment on Roux's article edits, but at this point I've lost any confidence in his good judgment otherwise. He should have stuck to his guns at the beginning when he said he wasn't going to watch this page (was that a "lie", Roux?). Roux wants to have it both ways. He wants to declare GG to be incompetent and yet accuse him of all sorts of things that would only make sense if GG were competent. Everyone should walk away from this topic (including me, and this is my last comment).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was not watching this page until GG decided to start lying about me elsewhere. The only things I am accusing GG of--with excellent evidence--are 1) incompetence, 2) lying, or alternatively 3) trolling. One notices that not one fucking person here has asked GG to back up his false and bullshit allegations.n Not one. →  ROUX  ₪  08:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the board for Wikiquette assistance and it says at the top: "Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks." I think any prospect of a mutually agreed solution between these two editors has vanished some time ago. It looks as though GG effectively withdrew from this discussion yesterday. Roux, if you want to pursue your own complaint above, it looks like this is not the place for it - suggest you try a board with more teeth. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
So you're saying it's perfectly okay for someone to come here, to lie repeatedly, and make baseless accusations without any evidence whatsoever, without anyone saying one fucking word about it? Really?
I'm going to have a lot of fun with this page then. →  ROUX  ₪  08:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
If that's what has happened, of course it's not ok. But the behaviour needs taking elsewhere, eg to WP:ANI if you feel that strongly about it. But my candid advice is that you are over-reacting and that people's unwillingness to come to your aid is because you make your case in a shrill, over-the-top manner. If you do go to ANI, make your case more calmly. If you stay here and disrupt the Wikiquette board (if that's what fun implies) then WP:POINT will apply. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you completely failed to understand anything I said. GG has made unsubstantiated allegations about me, yes or no? (hint: he has). Nobody here has asked him to back up the shit he is spewing. Ergo, it is obviously okay for anyone to say whatever they want here without basis and without fear of reprisal. If it is not okay, then please explain why nobody--except, you know, the person he's being a jerk to--has asked him to substantiate what he is saying.
It's either okay to make baseless accusations or it is not. pick one. →  ROUX  ₪  09:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
A corollary of anyone can edit is that anyone will edit: we can all see what has happened here, and there is no need to drive a stake into anyone's heart to make a point. Please drop the matter—this is just a website, and no benefit would come from taking this any further. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

GG did make, as far I've been able to find, a single unsubstantiated comment regarding Roux's edits, on a third party's (Red Pen of Doom's) talk page. RPoD dealt with the comment well by suggesting GG (paraphrasing here) take a wikibreak. Regarding "okay to make accusations or not": no, Wikipedia is not a binary place -- it fact it's most gray. Lack of reaction to GG's statement is not an endorsement of the behavior, rather it's dealing with it as recommended by the policy page, ignoring it.

I concur that it can be difficult to parse out what GG means in some of their posts. The best solutions to that are either strong application of AGF and asking clarifying questions, or keeping in mind that, with few exceptions, we're not required to answer questions from individual editors and that disenaging from an unproductive conversation is always a possible option and frequently the best one. (Agreeing with Johnuniq).

An important connotation of lie is that a falsehood must be intentional; as it is essentially impossible to truly know another's intention when they make a post, it is a term best avoided as unnecessary inflammatory. Nobody Ent 14:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually he's made several, including accusing me of bias--yet another bullshit allegation that none of you lot have bothered asking him to substantiate. As for the lie, of course it was intentional: he claimed I was 'always' following him around when he knew that was absolutely not the case. →  ROUX  ₪  17:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears Georgia Guy was asking for people's opinions on what is wp:vandalism because it is a topic that interests him. If he wants to civilly debate the fine points of vandalism with others, that is OK. It is uncivil to be combative in order to stifle his discussion.
"Incivility consists of one of more of the following behaviors: personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours---when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict."
Gsonnenf ( talk) 11:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that Georgia Guy lacks the ability to communicate effectively that is required to be an editor here. If this continues, I suggest that a more substantial review of his contributions is called for - A cursory review of the content presented here shows someone who is actively disruptive. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Diasystem and Dale Chock

It seems as though User:Dale Chock is attempting to WP:OWN the article diasystem through reversions and talk page hostility. On Feb 19, Dale rewrote the article by adding mostly agreeable content but also deleting a significant portion of cited material. I incorporated the two versions in this edit, which Dale promptly reverted on Feb 23 before adding another mix of mostly agreeable content on March 1. I, again, attempted to reincorporate the content here, as well as clean up what Dale had added, which was then reverted again.

To be fair, this does come amid talk page discussion, but Dale's behavior in the talk page amounts to hostility (even to neutral parties [6]) and a focus on editors (mostly myself) over content [7]. Needless to say, Dale's vested interest in portraying other participants as incompetent [8] [9] means that he finds it easy to dismiss or ignore points made by others. I thus have been unable to edit the article without being reverted and am unable to discuss the matter without being insulted. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  • This description closely resembles my own past experiences with Dale Chock. If you review his editing history you will see that almost all of his edits are framed as personal victories over whoever wrote the previous text. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 22:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I started to review, but didn't finish reading his rants, which had little to do with content. Dale became hostile and threatening when I told him he needed to address the content rather than the people. — kwami ( talk) 03:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Dale seems to know his stuff content-wise, but still needs time to learn how to interact productively with other editors. I was surprised by his accusatory tone with Aeusoes1, and a little perplexed with his negative reaction to my intervention in the early stages of the dispute. I think this may be an indication of a battleground mentality which will not stand him in good stead in future interactions, and I hope this thread can help him to recognise that he needs to change his behaviour. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In response to the four preceding comments.
    • AEsos himself got started with the article by tossing out everything in it and starting over, in June 2010—a fact he even acknowledged on Talk:Diasystem sometime late in February 2012. AEsos was virtually the only editor of Diasystem and Diaphoneme for a year and a half (June 2010 to Feb. 2012), ergo his accusation of WP:OWN is an example that the best defense is a good offense.
    • For an example of Dale's participation in linguistics articles that contradicts the above opinions, see two years of editing Mongolian language (31 Aug 2009 to 8 Nov 2011; includes content edits).
    • Strad's intervention was chirpy, premature, and refused to address content issues. He professes bafflement that his behavior was found to be unconstructive.
    • A bullet point list of the content failures by AEsos—seven items—is provided by Dale—me—at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics#Requests_for_attention 2 March 2012. I had discussed these issues at Talk:Diasystem already in February—giving the lie to Kwami's accusation.
    • Much of the opposition to article discussion by Dale—me—comes from the entrenched current in Wikipedia that tolerates misinformation in articles. I recall the celebrity Liz Smith recounting how Wikipedia reported her having once been married to someone she'd never been married to, and it took ten months to get Wikipedia to clean up its act. If someone were to write at WP that the U.S. Civil War started in 1858; if someone were to describe Einstein as a classical physicist; if someone were to confuse the positions of Darwin and Lamarck, that someone would be slammed, by dozens of Wikipedians, for mucking up article content. That hasn't been happening with linguistics articles, but only because too few Wikipedians participate in the linguistics articles. Notice that the three of the four of you above are three regular participants in the Linguistics Project who have shown little to no academic proficiency in the discipline, and two of those three don't even make content edits, as far as i can tell.
    • Kwami is engaging in backing up a fellow scribe. He and AEsos are two people who spend 365 days a year making housekeeping edits to linguistics articles. First, look at how Kwami joined the dispute:

      "Dale, I didn't bother to read your diatribe. You might try discussing content rather that making personal attacks, as Stradivarius has requested. Otherwise I'll conclude you're being a WP:DICK and revert you. WP is a cooperative enterprise. — kwami (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)"

      Well, by that day, there had been almost two weeks of comments by Dale—by me; so it's impossible to know which one Kwami was referring to. Anyway, next go to the very first two paragraphs of the dispute:

      "This article was poorly researched. It contradicted the verdict of linguists. The notion of diasystem fell into disuse a generation ago. Another academic objection is that one poorly written sentence can be interpreted to suggest that the inventor of the concept himself, Weinreich, was inspired by generative phonology. Of course, when Weinreich published his paper in 1954, generative phonology did not even exist yet. [new paragraph] The immediate previous version was seven years in the making (it hadn't been edited in the last 13 months). In that version, there was a conspicuous failure to consult textbooks in the field, or (with the exception of a discipline dictionary) to consult relevant works more recent that 34 years ago, this in a young, fast changing discipline. (An article from 31 years ago was cited only to attribute the use of terminology, and a source from 22 years ago was a dictionary, not a linguistics research work). Moreover, half the article was taken up with a digression on the diaphoneme, although there is already a separate article on that. Dale Chock (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"

      Then read everything in between. You see that Kwami is a bullying administrator. He just refuses to read comments that are there to be read. Dale Chock ( talk) 01:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What you routinely do Dale is to arrive at an article where someone has been working, notice something that could be improved, proceed to berate and denigrate those who wrote i,t and then when they react negatively to being demeaned you accuse them of ownership. The reason you didn't have that experience at Mongolian language was not because you didn't act like that but because G. Purevdorj who had written and maintained that article over several years and is a linguist specializing in Mongolian is an extremely agreeable person who didn't react negatively to your antics. You cannot expect all people to react with such angelic patience to your agressive and incivil style of argumentation as he did. Kwami is not a bully, you are. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Maunus, I'm not seeing that at Mongolian language (diffs?). From what I can tell, Dale has indeed been gracious, humble, and professional when editing and discussing at that page. This tells me that he knows the difference between civil and uncivil behavior, though there may be something else going on. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You're missing the point, Dale. I haven't prevented anyone from editing the article, you have. Being the only contributor to an article is not a violation of WP:OWN. Do you really see your behavior in the talk page as civil? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If Einstein had post E=mc2 on Wikipedia in 1916, it would have been reverted as original research. Does Wikipedia have an accuracy problem? explains the reasoning behind our policies quite well. So, while we welcome expert editors, it's because experts presumably know what and where the reliable sources are and can provides references to them, and additionally rephrase field specific terminology into explanations understandable to the general reader. The anonymous nature of Wikipedia editors and lack of resources means we have no way of distinguishing between the next Einstein and and the next quack. Therefore, aggressively asserting a position, regardless of its veracity, is counterproductive and disruptive. If Dale Chock finds the manner in which Wikipedia operates unacceptable I'd recommend they find other pursuits. Nobody Ent 21:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incivility by Defacto

User:DeFacto replaced the existing text in the section Metrication in the United Kingdom#Legal Requirements with his own text. The principal source of original text was a summary of UK legislation which was published by an official UK authority complete with official summary. DeFacto, who has a track record of hostility to metrication, is insisting that his version is more accurate. When I tried to reinstate the original version ( here), DeFacto reverted with the comment: "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable (see talk) - more references pending" (15:13 23 February 2012). I refused to discuss the matter with him until I had received an unconditional apology for his behaviour. The best that he did was to restate why he believed his version was better - something which I rejected. After I tried again to reinstate the original version, he revoked, calling the original version "discredited" (19:48 3 March 2012). I demanded an apology, but none was forthcoming.

Immediately before this episode took place, DeFacto's proposals regarding more prominent use of imperial measure in the Hindhead Tunnel article ( here) and on WP:MOSNUM ( here) had been rejected. He then totally removed a section from the article Metrication in the United Kingdom (since restored) and added banners to four other section ( diffs here]. The dispute above was initiated when I removed the banner from the article "Legal Requirements" and reinstated the section that he had removed.

Finally, while I was preparing this argument, Defacto twice trespassed on my userspace and deleted the draft. Martinvl ( talk) 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for Defacto's deletion of the draft of Martinvl's report [10], [11]. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 13:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. "Incivility? Oh the irony! I think what you are actually complaining about is my ongoing clean-up of the " Metrication in the United Kingdom" article which, evidenced by your constant mass reversions and attacks, you seem to be asserting ownership of. -- de Facto ( talk). 17:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 2. And talking about "civility"; you posted this entry here, but with scant regard for the etiquette and common decency conventions associated with such reports. You ignored the advice given at the top of the page here in the box entitled "Request etiquette assistance".

  • You did not first make "a polite attempt to to discuss the problem with the other editor". Instead you issued inflammatory threats and ultimatums: here and here and in discussion on the article's talkpage here.
  • You did not "Try to phrase it in neutral and non-judgemental language". Instead you made the misrepresentative and misleading statement we see above (and learn more about below).
  • You did not "Include diffs that show the situation", instead you selected a diff of an unrelated event to do with the 'history' section and one of my recent attempt (Revision as of 19:48 3 March 2012) to restore the article after you corrupted it by dumping into it an old obsolete version of a section, and then dishonestly assigned an edit summary from 15:13 23 February 2012 to it! Do you think people reading this are stupid, or are you hoping that they won't look too closely at your behaviour and realise what the situation actually is?
  • You did not even "Notify the involved user(s)". I found out about this after reading this curious comment you gave on your talkpage. Were you afraid that I would expose your agenda?

-- de Facto ( talk). 18:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Background. Let's add a background timeline of some events that might explain this witch-hunt:

-- de Facto ( talk). 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to DeFcto by Martinvl
Q1:Why did I not inform DeFacto that I filing this request?
A1: I honestly believed that when I added his name to the template at the top of the form, he would be informed automatically. I apologise for this.
Q2: Why did I not enter into dialogue with him regarding his changes?
A2: Given what had happened in the previous few days, I judged that he was behaving like a two year old having a tantrum. I treated him accordingly. Uninvolved editors should decide for themselves whether, given the circumstances, I was justified in taking this approach.
Q3: DeFacto’s "Background Material"
A3: We all, including DeFacto, have a past. The issue at the moment is not about the past, but about the present, so bringing up the past diverts attention from the present. The participants in this discussion are uninvolved editors, not the accuser or the accused, so I ask DeFacto to please let them have their say.
Martinvl ( talk) 07:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Martinvl, did you "forget" to try to answer the other 2 points too?
You wrote: "The issue at the moment is not about the past, but about the present". In your account above you introduced an unrelated event in an unrelated article ( Hindhead Tunnel) from the past - why?
This report, I believe, is nothing more than an attempt to discredit me - as a reaction to my cleaning up of the article, and my refusal to submit to your threats, intimidation and rudeness in your desperate attempt to keep your original wording in place (complete with characteristic OR/SYNTH and heavily pro-metrication POV).
Please don't treat reviewers here as idiots, if they decide to even entertain your complaint, they will not swallow your bluster. They will: look at the article history and your actions and edit summaries; look at the article talkpage and its history and see your assertions, threats, intolerant language and rudeness; look at our respective account talkpages and their histories and see how bitter you have been. They may even look at your recent contributions elsewhere and see your failed attempt to get me blocked, your failed attempt to mediation to support your opinions and your warnings for ad-hominem attacks and false accusations of vandalism against me and your very recent question on the WP:Verifiability talkpage about allowing the use of OR to discredit a reliable source! -- de Facto ( talk). 10:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've reviewed the many allegations regarding this, it appears there is uncivility on both sides. The question is how can we tone down the incivility while still allowing the authors to debate and reach actionable conclusion in a reasonable period of time. Any suggestions? (Also if you are preparing an RfC/U, this wouldn't be the best place to address it.) Gsonnenf ( talk) 07:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Accusation in pushing personal opinion

I have no desire to mention anyone's concrete name so far; my question is more general. What is the best way to resolve the following situation:

  1. Some user declares that the point I am trying to make is just my personal meme (personal opinion, synthesis, etc) and that this my thesis is not supported by mainstream reliable sources.
  2. I provide needed sources, which directly support my statements, and ask my opponent to withdraw his allegations and apologise;
  3. My opponent ignores my request and goes into minor details.
  4. Upon some time, the ##1-3 repeat as if no sources had been provided by me.

Thank you in advance.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you might benefit from some outside voices in working to establish consensus. I've found WP:RfC to be helpful in such cases. — Eustress talk 19:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem is that RfCs in this area do not lead to any significant external input. In addition, my question is not regarding the content dispute itself. I am asking if such behaviour is acceptable per our Wikiquette rules. To me, it looks like a refusal to get the point. Am I right?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Once you've made reasonable, good faith replies to another editor's queries, your obligation is complete, regardless of whether they understand or like your answer. If Rfc's aren't helpful for the content I'd further suggest WP:DRN ... the volunteers there generally do a good job providing structured discussion and additional viewpoints. Nobody Ent 21:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

It seems it has turned into a habit for Wee Curry Monster to attack me (by bad faith accusations and mischaracterization) instead of content whenever I rise a question or proposal. A few days ago he jumped into a discussion at RSN and filled it with bad faith accusations, using 87 words to address the question and 199 to sling mud at me!! This is not the first time he does this. [12] I'm honestly feeling harassed, this defamation process is slowly putting me out of Wikipedia... moreover, he's now following as you can see from [13] [14] I don't mind being followed, but I need him to PLEASE stop the defamation!! Nothing constructive can emerge from a conversation where he enters shooting at me... -- Langus ( talk) 13:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the instructions at the top of this page, when you have followed all of the requirements for filing your issue here than we might have a look at this in detail. However, prima facie your case seems very weak, it does in fact seem that WCM has a point when discussing your actions - and discussing your actions is not ad hom, BTW. Beware the boomerang. - Nick Thorne talk 23:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG Langus didn't bother to extend me the most basic courtesy of informing me of this thread. I found out about it by a pure fluke that I happened to drop by WP:RSN.

Langus has twice started frivolous thread at WP:ANI seaking sanctions against me. I note that one of these is linked above. Clearly he tried to use WP:ANI to impose content, by reverting content that was stable for 2 weeks and then posting at ANI claiming I was revert warring. It was a fairly blatant attempt to abuse wiki process to impose content.

The post at WP:RSN was not a genuine enquiry about source reliability but another attempt to impose content by having the source declared unreliable. [15] not only shows the authors are respected scholars but gives a clue why he is so keen to have it discredited. Most reasonable editors would not put too much weight on the word of a banned disruptive editor User:Alex79818, blocked indefinitely for persistent sock puppetry and disruptive editing as Langus did at WP:RSN. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, would you happen to have links to the WP:ANI threads? Having more information of past behaviors could be useful. Its usually not very civil to slur or wiki-lawyer against someone, though it happens very often on contentious pages. Its best to limit any such statements to conveying knowledge of past events without assumptions. Also, following someone to other threads can make users uncomfortable even if the edits are productive.
What do you guys think we can do to tone down this wiki war and get more acceptable behavior from both sides? Gsonnenf ( talk) 12:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


[16] The first time and the second [17] and the frivolous RFC [18].
As regards the RFC, [19], the conclusion was my text was a reasonable and cited summary but he has attempted to prevent exactly the same text being used on Luis Vernet, Falkland Islands and Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. Bringing up the same arguments three times on three separate articles and now forum shopping at WP:RSN.
The above is an independent comment from User:Wikifan12345 at 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC).
I didn't follow him, that happens to be an area where I've edited extensively. If you look at my edits, it happens to correspond with my area of interest. I edited a complete separate piece of the article and he actually followed me see [20], [21] and [22]. As Nick has already noted above, my comments have a point, I have given him the benefit of the doubt too many times now. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, first of all, I believed this was the place were one would come when they felt they were being treated uncivilly. As such, my stance is that a) attacking an editor whenever he rises content concerns, (i.e. repeatedly) or when differences in POV difficult progress, leaving aside what was being discussed and shifting the focus to editors, is not acceptable behavior; implying in this definition that b) allegations of bad faith behind editor's actions, accusation of socket puppetry, repeated suggestions of association to well-known disruptive editors ("guilt by association"), misrepresentation of past actions, etc. does constitute personal attacks.
So, the first thing I want to honestly ask (because otherwise there's no point in continuing) is: Am I correct regarding points above?
Nick, "discussing your actions is not ad hom", I agree, but not when these discussions start to happen often and in the middle of content discussion. I am very aware of the boomerang, but as I said, I don't think I can put up with this behavior for a long period of time.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the requirements" but I did ask WCM to refrain from personalizing the discussions, and every time that such accusations arise I'm trying to avoid responding to them as much as possible, to not add fuel to the fire.
The personal comments by WCM which I find out of place are the ones below. These started on 22 January, the day I opened a thread at WP:ANI because WCM and I were edit warring over content:
22 January 2012 - Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands
22 January 2012 - WP:ANI
22 January 2012 - User talk:Senra
22 January 2012 - WP:ANI (note the meat-puppetry accusation)
26 February 2012- Talk:Falkland Islands
And right now:
March 2012 - WP:RS/N
March 2012 - WP:Wikiquette_assistance
Now, take note of what happens next: I have put a lot of effort, a lot of words (tiring you and any passers-by in the process) to defend myself from WCM's misrepresentations. This is exactly the problem. This may be in fact the first time that these accusations come to the point (i.e., we're actually discussing behavior), so here it goes:
  • First ANI: the link above is broken, this is the correct one: [23] I admit that it wasn't the right course of action, but bear in mind that those were my firsts days in Wikipedia. You can see the full conversation there so I won't explain it here.
  • RFC: you can read it here. I called for it because in the previous section [24] WCM and I discussed an issue without reaching a consensus. Probably a WP:3O would've been better, but again, that was back in June and I didn't know that yet. I was just looking for a way to reach a consensus; the important thing to note is that I didn't disrupt the article, even being inexperienced.
  • Second ANI: full discussion here. This one is recent and the one that started (or heavily worsened) these kind of responses by WCM. I opened it because WCM and I were edit warring over article content. It was never intended to sanction him, only to stop the warring and resume the talks (as the other editors of the article seemed to stand aside). As a side note, I still doubt that there are reliable secondary sources for Capt. Duncan's version, but as someone else stepped in satisfied with the questionable sources, I just let go...
If you briefly checked the ANIs and the RFC, you'll now know that I didn't repeat "the same arguments three times on three separate articles". See? That's what I'm talking about when I say 'misrepresentations'.
"I edited a complete separate piece of the article and he actually followed me" this is a blatant lie or a gross error. Just check again my contributions to that article and WCM's contributions to that article and you'll see that the first one is mine (4 March). WCM never edited there before me. Again, misrepresentations.
"Langus didn't bother to extend me the most basic courtesy of informing me of this thread" I did that here!
As for the negative comment from User:Wikifan12345 in the RFC (which WCM has posted in 4 different talk pages now), you can get lots of negative comments about WCM is you just go through his talk page history and look for the reversions. -- Langus ( talk) 08:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN is not User talk:Wee Curry Monster. I was not informed, I found out by accident. Langus and the now blocked editor User:Alex79818/ User:Abenyosef have made many disparaging remarks and negative comments, so yes you'll find plenty of negative comments. I'm somewhat bemused by an editor complaining of "incivility" drawing attention to the sustained campaign of mockery, intimidation and incivility that has been taking place. Langus has been behaving disruptively and has aligned himself on several occasions with the long term disruption from User:Alex79818. Watch out for that WP:BOOMERANG. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok this is your collection of complaints on your talk page for the last two months: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] (excluding the ones made from an IP)
Stop trying to defame me by association with banned editors. For your ease of mind, I've already asked for a user check on myself. -- Langus ( talk) 13:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I would be grateful if editors would hold of from responding. You may find my response to the above quite illuminating. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who edits in controversial areas will collect a number of unfounded complaints and warnings on their talk page it kind of goes with the territory. Lets have a look at the examples that Langus has culled from my talk page:

[32] User:Chiton magnificus, well I'm not sure why he chose to comment, I was having a perfectly civil conversation with Marshall, who I was not attacking in any way. The warning was totally unwarranted and misplaced, WP:AGF I assume he misunderstood. However, his comments that I was being discussed on other forums was a bit creepy.
[33] & [34] User:Kai445 edited Occupy Marines, please refer to the edit history for his habit of editing in unencyclopedic material and edit warring to keep it. More on Occupy Marines later. Some of User:Kai445's edits [35] note edit summary "douchebag" and [36] "Go fuck yourself". Charming.
[37] User:Mabuska see Talk:Falklands War#WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV Note that the very first post is rather personal.
[38] User:Hudicourt is complaining about this WP:ANI thread [39] for this [40] blatant personal attack against User:Nick-D.
[41] User:Lecen, well just read that message, which lead to this WP:WQA thread [42] which lead to discussion at WP:ANI and a week long block for incivility [43]
[44] User:Nowa who repeatedly removed tags from Occupy Marines concerning the overly promotional nature of the piece, where a non-notable group were using Wikipedia for self-publicity.

So let us summarise. Langus has combed my talk page for complaints in an effort to paint me as a problematic editor. If you examine these cases I was subjected to a number of personal attacks but I kept my cool and did not respond in kind. Above I comment that he has aligned himself with the disruptive editor User:Alex79818/ User:Abenyosef, currently blocked for sock puppetry, personal attacks, incivility and tendentious edting. The list above of "negative comments" from my talk page include an editor who jumped in with both feet having misunderstood a conversation to which he was not a party, two editors intent on keeping an overly promotional article on a non-notable group, a editor blocked for being grossly uncivil (the very complaint linked sparked his block) and an editor complaining about me reporting his grossly uncivil personal attack to WP:ANI. I think Langus has proved my case for me that he aligns himself with disruptive editors.

Further I note this, [45], where Langus accuses me of "lying", which is rather ironic given he is inviting me to comment on a thread where is alleging I've been uncivil. WP:PETARD springs to mind, I have given Langus the benefit of the doubt many times, I've proffered the olive branch but now it looks like WP:TURNIP time. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

My gosh... I didn't want to paint you as disruptive, I showed that list because you said "Langus and the now blocked editorUser:Alex79818/User:Abenyosef have made many disparaging remarks and negative comments, so yes you'll find plenty of negative comments". That turned out to be false, as you just proved: there were plenty of negative comments, but it wasn't because of me. Can you see that it's all in itself, like every comment you left here, an illustration of my point? Mischaracterizations, assumptions of bad faith, pushing and pushing for mental association with disruptive editors, etc.
On the other hand... I do apologize for that outburst in the noticeboard. You have to understand that these "discussions", in which I have to face never-ending accusations, by someone who dominates a language that's foreign to me, in a place where words is all there is, it's EXTREMELY stressful and frustrating. I've said this before: you should open a RfC on me instead of defaming me everywhere I go. To me, that constitues harassing. There's no other word that describes better my feelings when I see you arriving at a discussion with the same arguments about me, flooding the conversation with words and words to a point that nobody remembers what was the original question, and they just walk away to avoid problems. What I really hate of this tactic is that I can't remain silent, because that way it looks like I'm accepting the twisted version of facts. I have to go on, and on, and on responding to you, while Nick Thorne and Gsonnenf and every other person here has probably got tired of this cycle. -- Langus ( talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've reviewed the ANIs and RFCs and other content. It appears Langus is making a good faith effort to include more specific and accurate information regarding the subject matter. In the RfC, it appears most editors support some sort of change to the lead. Authors did not agree on what that change should be. Langus's attempt to build consensus for a specific change is valid. In the 2nd ANI, it appears his position had the support of a good portion of authors and it was not ruled frivolous.
In regards to the page following accusation, Langus edited the page for the first time March 4. Wee Curry edited for the first time March 5th. There was no extensive editing prior.
After looking at the current evidence, It appears the statements Langus initially complained about do misrepresent the actions of Langus. I would suggest not calling Langus's RfC or 2nd ANI disruptive or frivolous, as they do not appear so. He appear to be a positive contributing author, with an agreeable demeanor, and a valid content based dispute.. Gsonnenf ( talk) 16:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I previously edited under my real name. I changed it due to harassment from Argentine and Spanish nationalists off-wiki. Prior to that I edited as an IP. As regards your endorsement of his accusation of "Page following", he edited a comment about Germany, I edited about self-determination, territorial integrity and the Falkland Islands; that being my area of expertise, Langus then went after my edits. He followed me, I didn't touch any area we he had edited.
If I'd edited his text you might have a point, clearly I didn't. Show me where it says I can't edit an article if he has edited it?
Above Langus calls me a LIAR, this passes off without a comment. Are you endorsing his accusation? Please answer I would like to know.
As Nick noted above, there was merit in my comments. The 2nd ANI was clearly a disruptive tactic. He edited text that had been stable for 2 weeks, replaced it with text that is demonstrably POV and favouring Argentina's sovereignty claim, removed text that is representative of the literature, which offered a counter balancing viewpoint and then went straight to WP:ANI to chill any editing discussion. He hadn't edited in the talk discussion for 2 months. If you can't see that, then you are naive indeed.
As regard your endorsement of Langus, he trawls my talk page looking for "negative comments" from other editors, then presents them in a manner to blacken my name. Plain and simple, you say nothing about that tactic effectively endorsing his conduct. You can bet he will do exactly the same thing again and again. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree you edited a separate section, but its not considered following/hounding if you make edits to an opposition author edits if you were active on the article first. I believe he referred to this post as a blatant lie or a gross error: "I didn't follow him.... he actually followed me...". I believe your definition of follow isn't one used by wiki standards, so he wasn't entirely off base. If he's calling you liar somewhere else, we can address that.
WQA's are about behavior, so a lot of the evidence is somewhat valid, but not useful ( like his post about negative remarks on your page, or your statements that he aligning himself with a banned author ). Langus apologized for some of his behavior and author's vent all the the time on the WQA page. Unless i see a clear policy violation in WQA, I ignore it and focus on talk/article, where the discussion should be content and not behavior. If you feel he's violating WP:BRD we can address that. If you feel he's violating WP:3RR there is a board for that. Gsonnenf ( talk) 17:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea he'd made this edit, [46], one minor edit on an article over a day before I made a series of edits to improve the article. The two edits are completely unrelated but you'll note I'm editing in an area I consistently edit. Are there any other examples in his contribution history?
No I don't think thats what he's referring to, I could easily have called him a liar, he didn't inform me he'd done this as he claimed, he left a remark at WP:RSN, which I was unlikely to spot. On Talk:Falkland Islands he claims I didn't supply a source for an edit I proposed . Kind of foolish since its right there on the page. Have I done so? No because it violates WP:CIVIL. And its not like its not the first time Langus has chosen to flat out accuse me of dishonesty [47] - ie its been going on for a while. TBH I've had enough of it.
Not following WP:BRD is a recurring problem with this editor.
[48] Langus posts at WP:ANI, his very next edit, [49] Langus removes the text concerning the report of the Lexington which does contradict the Argentine claim the settlement was destroyed. He wikilawyers that we can't cite the Lexington's report as a WP:PRIMARY source so this comment can't be included. The basic facts went into Falkland Islands on 28 March 2011 [50]. He has disputed exactly the same text on Falkland Islands, eventually an RFC concluded he was incorrect, when I moved on to improving Luis Vernet again, he disputed it there [51], then again on Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands [52]. Its got to be the best text on wikipedia the number of times its been discussed.
He complains that I'm following him around but at one point virtually every article I edited, there he was reverting me. An example [53] - is that improving the article and this is just an example. He tries to play the victim claiming I'm harassing him, when if you actually look he is usually the instigator of conflict.
The whole wikilawyer thing is tedious. He demands a source, often for an uncontroversial point, you supply one, he tries to argue the source says different, then he finds an excuse for not using it example [54], then he goes to WP:RSN trying to discredit the source [55] (Ironically he got it wrong as the source is in fact a US academic). Both occasions where he visited WP:ANI rather than achieving consensus in talk he is trying to lobby to have his text imposed.
What it boils down to, is that in almost every case he is not lobbying for a neutral text, he is trying to skew the POV to favour Argentina's sovereignty claim. [56] "It NEEDS that level of detail because the events in those months are important for the Argentine sovereignty claim over the islands.". Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I left you a notification on the RSN because I knew you would see it. And you did, didn't you? Because if you missed it and you are not following me, then how did you arrive here?
I am Argentine and I do care about Argentine POV, as much as you care about British POV. The fact is that you can't stand that. Challenging an interpretation or questioning a source shouldn't be called 'disruptive' in a place where NPOV is one its pillars (given, of course, that it's done in good faith, like I do, even if you don't believe me). I can show instances in which WCM would fight a change till the very last consequences, even with clear consensus against his opinion. Does that make you disruptive? After all, you do carry restrictions regarding Gibraltar articles.
I'm not sure whether or not I should respond to the points above... I'll leave it that way, as I honestly don't have the time. I'll just address the WP:BRD issue:
1. He expanded a section (on 31 October): [57]
2. and I started a new section in talk and partially reverted : [58]
3. then he reverted me: [59]
4. then I proposed a modification as suggested in talk page: [60]
5. he reverted again: [61]
6. I reverted and linked to talk page: [62]
7. after almost two months (23 December) WCM included the text again: [63]
8. I reverted: [64]
9. He insisted: [65]
10. I reverted: [66]
11. he insisted: [67]
12. I reverted: [68]
13. and requested for help at [WP:ANI] (21 January): [69]
What else could I do? We were down to edit warring... -- Langus ( talk) 03:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Big difference, WP:BRD is about working to a consensus, you see it as a means of filibustering to keep the text you prefer. Same text, 3 different articles and months of pointless argument to prevent it being added. I don't care about the British POV actually, I care about writing from a NPOV and don't let my POV skew my writing. What else could you do? Drop the WP:STICK for starters and you were the one edit warring to keep text that failed NPOV promoting the Argentine POV.
Mentioning Gibraltar, there is a low blow. In 2009 I had a bit of a meltdown with my mental health, I happen to suffer from PTSD. I was tormented for months, I said a few things in talk that were completely uncharacteristic - one admin User:Atama who knew me had the courage to speak out and say as much. Although I'd apologised and taken a break I still got sanctioned as a result. There is also a clause in our civility policy about not raking up past sanctions.
I see no point in participating further in this WQA, your conduct is disruptive and you're using WQA to attack me. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears you both maintain different version of what is majority POV on a controversial area. Looking at several more discussion, it appears you are deadlocked on the majority POV. I see 2 v 2 on on one edit war, and 2v2 on the establishment vs re-establishments as title of the page. When making changes to controversial areas expect a great deal of discussion. I don't see much violation of WP:BRD. No consensus is being reached for the reverted edits (typically 1v1, or 2v2). When no consensus or majority is reached, preference goes first to agreed compromise, then to prior version. You'd expect a 1 v 3 before considering WP:STICK.
It appears there is not enough outside input. You need more knowledgeable editors on these articles to break your dead lock. I would suggest more RFCs which include content based arguments and/or a post on the NPOV board. Also, be sure to follow guidelines on comment on content not contributor, I saw several suggestions of this from authors on these presented threads. It is a good idea to listen to this advice.
For both of you, I would suggest no undos on reverts of new content. If your content is reverted, ask others on the talk page to re-add and make a case for it. Let outside authors handle whether the new content should be included. If they choose not to participate, it should not be included until they do. Gsonnenf ( talk) 15:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry you are very naive if you think thats a solution, its a recipe for Langus to continue disrupting and blocking the improvement of articles on Falklands topics. You're ignoring the very basic point that Langus seeks, by his own admission, to project an Argentine not a NEUTRAL POV. He started an RFC on a piece of text, the RFC concluded my version was acceptable. But that doesn't stop him trying to block reuse of the same text on two other articles. If you can't see that is tendentious editing and obstruction then I give up on WQA altogether. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
If other authors share your POV, they will add it back, problem solved. If they won't, you don't have consensus. Each article maintains its own content. Adding the phrase to other articles after such a mixed RfC result is fairly aggressive. If outside authors believe it is right for the article they will support you. If he continues reverts after outside author action then you have a case for WP:STICK. If other authors won't support you with action, you don't have a case for your content. Gsonnenf ( talk) 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest for your reading list, WP:OWB, especially No. 3. Adding a piece of text, reflecting a NPOV to articles which don't is not aggressive. I didn't start an aggressive RFC, I remained cool throughout some very unpleasant exchanges. Langus following me to other articles, reverting and demanding we start the whole unpleasant process again is rather aggressive but you've just lauded him as a wonderful wikipedian. He might at some point, when he learns to put aside his own POV, but whilst people like you re-inforce his behaviour as acceptable, he'll continue till he tests the communities patience too far and he'll be blocked. Just like his friend User:Alex79818. He aligned himself with the guy, I didn't but I note in your comments above you equate Alex with productive editors (2 v 2).
Can I ask something, do you plan to run for admin? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I was counting Pfainuk as someone who supported some of Langus's changes to the lead ( though not all of them ). He also had pointed out several issues that needed to be addressed at the end of the RfC. I understand the issues in WP:OWB. I agree endless bickering wastes time. Also I don't think the RfC was agressive. That was fine. Putting the content into other articles was a bit aggressive because the RfC had very little outside contribution. I see endless bickering all the time from all sides, with each side seeing themselves as right and the other as WP:FILIBUSTERS / WP:STICK / WP:DISRUPTIVE. Trying to wikilawyer or ad hom through this is what causes the 100's of lost hours. When disputed in these other articles, go directly to support from other editors. your opposition should do the same. If people don't agree with you, then you might have a problem with your own content/behavior. Also, I haven't even thought of running for admin. Gsonnenf ( talk) 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I respect immensely Pfainuk's opinion, and I always listen to it. We're going to have to disagree I think, correcting NPOV errors with text from neutral text from another article is not aggressive. Repeatedly raising the same objection is WP:TE. You also miss the point. Langus complained here I was following him, he's followed me, multiple times and you've not commented on it. I don't see any comment from you about that. I move on and he's following me, thats harassment. See also WP:OWB No. 7. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Is he following you to pages where you didn't add content from the RfC? Gsonnenf ( talk) 20:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, [70] for example. I can name many articles where he has done it. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That is a bad example. He joined that example article about the same time he he joined the Re-establishment article. Its also on the same subject manner. I think this is becoming a wild goose chase. I am going to repeat the same advise as I did before. Comment on content, and find other authors to undo his revert before edit warring. Gsonnenf ( talk) 05:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. User Contributions [71], [72] and Diffs [73], [74]. He's clearly following me - even back in October. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Third Party Input Regarding User:Fæ's Accusations that I Find Editors Calling Others Homophobic Acceptable

Fae ( User:Fæ) has made the following accusation about me. "I am puzzled why you would think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable." [ [75]]

This seems to stem from her his misunderstanding of a discussion between Tryptofish and myself in which I felt that he accused me of bias, and he thought that by "bias" I meant "bias against homosexuals". I never believed that he called me homophobic, and he clearly never called me homophobic. We worked out our misunderstanding in about 40 minutes. [76]

Because I never said that I think accusations of homophobia are acceptable (and in fact, I was the one mistakenly believed to have been on the receiving end of the accusation) I politely asked Fae to remove his comments (note: I don't know if Fae is male or female and am using the generic male pronouns for simplicity only). Fae has refused, while making, what I believe to be, very agressive and uncivil comments about how hard it is to work with me, about my unwillingness to collaborate, and about me exerting ownership of the article. He has also repeatedly rejected my requests to remove the accusation, or at the very least redact it. Discussion here "homophobic"

I have hatted the conversation, but I thought I would seek third party opinions as to whether my request is unreasonable and whether Fae's comments are uncivil and/or should be removed/redacted. LedRush ( talk) 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Slight factual correction to the above, where LedRush says "Fae has refused" this seems to fail to mention my earlier offer of striking a hypothetical part of the statement that LedRush has objected to, and this was indeed struck 20 minutes before this request was raised ( diff). By the way, me being puzzled as to why accusations or assumptions of being homophobic would be an acceptable tone in an article talk page discussion is not quite the same thing as "Accusations of Homophobia" as this request has (in what appears a rather inflammatory way) been titled. By the way, I find it odd being referred to as "her" and "he" in the same text. Fæ ( talk) 23:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
When I said above that you "refused" to remove your comments, the object was was the quotation above. Because you had somewhat addressed another, related concern that I have not mentioned here, I decided not to involve everyone with the minutiae of that part of our disagreement. Of course, they can see what you have said and haven't said in the links I provided. Furthermore, the quote above seems to do more than you indicate.
With this edit I am changing the title above to make it more descriptive, per your implied request. It is now quite unwieldly, but if you think it is still inaccurate, feel free to change it yourself. LedRush ( talk) 23:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
On the evidence you have presented here, the contention that Fae has made "very aggressive and uncivil comments" would appear to be rather wide of the mark. Exok ( talk) 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean that you find her accusation regarding my beliefs to be fair and accurate, and consequently should not be deleted or redacted? LedRush ( talk) 02:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is unwarranted to describe "you have said...editors have cherry-picked information to support a POV...If those weren't intended to be accusations of bias, I am sorry" as "accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic" and that you'd consider this acceptable. This misconstruction of your views can be perceived as an 'attack' as it relates to a sensitive topic, and I'd recommend removal of these allegations.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork ( talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
AnkhMorpork, you appear to be comparing parts of the dialogue that were not under discussion. User talk:Fæ#Your comment regarding "homophobic" highlights the relevant quotes. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

From reading through the diffs, it does seem that two editors encountered a misunderstanding which was resolved quickly and was not crying out for an outside opinion. "I am puzzled why you would think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable" ought probably to be shrugged off as an example of the nonsense you sometimes have to put up with when editing Wikipedia. But it doesn't appear to be warranted, since there is no indication that LedRush finds such accusations or assumptions to be acceptable.

I would add, though, that they can be, accusations at least. Not relevant to these circumstances, but can be perfectly legitimate to call out unambiguous homophobia. So the basis of the high-horsedness is a bit shaky in the first place. -- FormerIP ( talk) 02:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I just found this thread, and would like to offer a couple of comments. It seems to me that this episode resulted from a series of consecutive misunderstandings, with each successive misunderstanding compounding the misunderstandings that came before.
  • Fae used to contribute to that page, and I have always found Fae's contributions there to be very helpful. I'm really sorry that Fae seems to have decided to leave the page. I can also very much understand how (following a recent RfC/U, as well as some unfair things that have been directed at Fae) Fae would feel sensitive about any discussion that veers into using the word "homophobia", and I appreciate Fae's concern that the article talk page not appear unwelcoming to new editors.
  • LedRush and I very often disagree there, as to where NPOV really is located, but we generally work together pretty well, and I am confident that neither of us thinks the other is homophobic. LedRush is, legitimately, concerned per WP:BLP that we not misrepresent information about the defendant in the trial that has grown out of the suicide. As a result, he tends to argue for content that suggests that the suicide might have been caused by other things. I disagree frequently about how prominently to present that content, and I think that it is understandable that some editors might misconstrue LedRush's position as being unsympathetic to Clementi and/or to gay people, but I am confident that this would be a misreading of LedRush's actual intent, which is about BLP and interpretation of sources.
  • I raised what I think was a reasonable question about an edit of mine that LedRush had reverted, and, in the first misunderstanding, LedRush took it personally, saying that I had accused him of bias. In fact, I was trying to explain that the edit I had made was removing some quotes that had been pieced together (by an IP) in such as way as to make Clementi's mother misleadingly sound homophobic. There was nothing there about any editor being homophobic, nothing at all. However, in the next misunderstanding, I mistook LedRush's concern that I was accusing him of bias as a concern that I was accusing him of bias against gays, which of course I wasn't. We eventually sorted these misunderstandings out, but, in the third misunderstanding, Fae saw the discussion and was concerned that accusations of homophobia were being made, and apparently conflated that concern with the observation that LedRush's position about BLP can be misconstrued as unsympathetic to Clementi. All of this was an escalating series of misunderstandings.
  • I hope that Fae will understand my explanation of the misunderstanding. I also hope that Fae will again feel welcome to help edit that article.
  • LedRush opened this discussion with a request for opinions from other editors. In that spirit, let me suggest to LedRush that you let Fae's comments pass as a misunderstanding, and not continue to be bothered by them. Let me also suggest that, in your editing interaction with me, you be a little slower to revert, and a little quicker to discuss on talk. I'm pretty sure that will lead more quickly to good resolutions, since we seem to always find good compromises when we discuss things.
Tryptofish, thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. While I disagree with some minor points/characterizations, I generally agree with all that you wrote. However, I continue to ask that Fae remove his accusation. If it is based on his misunderstanding, as you and others argue, it doesn't help that it remain. Seeing as it involves a highly sensitive topic, I don't wish such an accusation to be left for posterity, especially when it has been specifically and emphatically refuted. I am not asking that he apologize for accusing me of not working collaboratively (despite what you and Rivertorch have said to the contrary). I am not asking that he apologize for accusing me of article ownership. I am not asking that he apologize for accusing me of incivility or creating a hostile talk page. I am not asking that he apologize for accusing me of wikilawyering because I don't like being holding beliefs I don't have. I am not even asking that he apologize for making the false accusation itself. I merely want the false accusation deleted (or at the very least redacted). LedRush ( talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Continous Harassment and accusations

Situation: The user TopGUn has been wrongly accusing me since long for Wikihounding,wikistalking, sockpuppetry,meat-puppetry, canvassing (and what not) and has tried to get me blocked and has failed everytime, even then he feels it appropriate to accuse me of these things every now and then. just few days back we had discussed here TopGuns accusations towards me and inspite of a lot of dicussion then the above user has today accused me of wikihounding at [77], The above user also accuses that my edits are escalating the content dispute while in reality i have steered clear of the dispute although nothing stops me from editing the article in question.

Proof(diffs)

  1. Accusation for Wikihounding/wikistalking
  2. Accusing me of Canvassing
  3. accusing me of coming out of nowhere for my comment on a talk page of an article already on my watchlist and to which i had participated earlier [78]
  4. Filing multiple frivolous Sockpuppet cases against me to blame me for sockpuppetry
  5. accusing me of Meatpuppetry
  6. wikihounding me to helpdesk and then nominates the article i created for deletion [79]
  7. Constantly accuses me on other editors talk pages [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]
  8. Link to the recent discussion on Wikiquette -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 21:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

AIM: I would like the user to be notified not to hurl such mindless accusations towards me and wp:AGF although everytime he claims to have lost goodfaith hundred times already.-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 13:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no way (that I could see) that this user would have reached the article in question, so I left a civil note on his talk page asking for an explanation on if he got their from my talk page discussion/contributions since that would be hounding. Instead of giving a civil reply he starts accusing me harassment and 'blatant accusations'. I can certainly not have good faith in those edits after that if he can not answer a simple civil question. There have been previous incidents of such incivility. I tried to get an explanation as I said in my comment on the previous discussion at WQA, to help resolve it at his talk page... instead I get aggressive replies. DBigXray should be told to stop following my edits. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ( edit conflict)I consider the comment in question as not just a simple question but a Accusation for wikihounding/Wikistalking which I am not, besides i am sick of this attitude from TopGun and obviously dont appreciate his incorrect accusations on various talk pages every now and then, so i have came here to put and end to it, -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Also i request the admins to please clarify how continuous harassment and wrong accusations of Wikihounding, sockpuppetry, canvassing etc are considered CIVIL and comment reply on 'Daydreaming' as UNCIVILITY -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 13:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

May be an uninvolved editor can see my first comment (or even the second) here to see if it was uncivil by any definition. I did not accuse you of sock puppetry or other stuff, that was an old case... and the closing administrator did acknowledge the meat puppetry. Anyway, that case was closed and was by no way uncivil as I went through the given procedure. The WQA that went along with it clearly explained that there's no need to make aggressive personal attacks in reply to civil notes. I did exactly as I said there, asked you on your talk page without any accusations. Your reply in return is evidently uncivil. And then you come here refusing to make any justifications for your edits. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  • And yes i forgot the meat-puppetry part, of course, TopGun knew that it was a frivolous SPI report and report was accordingly rejected and all the admin gave was a doubt due to same country.even then TopGun specifically mentions did acknowledge the meat puppetry , besides it is clear case continuous BAD FAITH, any one can check the geolocation of IPS in question (which clearly belong to remote parts of the country)and TopGuns BAD FAITH accusations on the SPI report in question are here [87]. -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 14:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It was not rejected. The closing comment was it is probably meat puppetry but not as much disruption to block. But this is not related to this case. It was already discussed at WQA then. There's no need to go into history of all times every time. This was done last time as well and the incident being reported was WP:SOUPed in between. Remain on the topic. And let an uninvolved editor take it from here. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
OK the pair of you STOP NOW. Post nothing more here, let uninvolved folks review what you have each done via your edit histories. Stop spamming this thread right now. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
From what I see, it seems highly likely that this edit by DBXR came from DBXR watching TopGun's talk page or contributions. TG described this as hounding/stalking with this edit. But it was not in my view a case of "hurling mindless accusations" - the post was reasonably worded. I suspect DBXR is following TG's contributions, much as TG was doing the same to DBXR which led to a discussion here. I strongly suggest that each volunteers a total interaction ban with the other, to include one another's talk pages and contributions. The pair of them (and one or two others) are becoming too frequent visitors here and to AN/ANI for my liking and I can see very little difference between the behaviour of any of them. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Or he may have gotten there from my talk page, which in the past he has said is on his watch list. Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
And right on cue, here comes the third person I was thinking of above but didn't mention by name. Make that a three way interaction ban to go, please.... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I made it clear in my comments at WQA before that I would help resolve, if issues arise again... and since you agree my question was reasonably posed, I meant to resolve this too. I can't be held responsible for DBXR's actions. On the last WQA, I said I got to the article through help desk (with diffs where I replied to the post). I also said I'll try to stay away from his edits since he is too aggressive. It is very easy for me to stay away from DBXR on my own (I did after the last edits), but I can't do that on my own when he follows me. I can not self impose an actual interaction ban with DBXR since there are mutual articles.. but I did stay away from his edits. You'll have to convince DBXR not to make aggressive uncivil comments, like he did now, and this will all be easily resolved. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 15:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

@ DBigXray: Where are the diffs of this harassment? Vague comments are not going to get anywhere.
@ TopGun: Take Kim Dent-Brown's advice: Please stop writing. You need to respond to concrete accusations, not the vague ones offered here. However, don't ask users how they got to a page and don't demand answers from them. It's not polite. Also, WP:WIKIHOUNDING is not as you describe. Please read the section of the policy again.
@ both parties: If either of you have a concrete accusation of hounding or other harassment, it should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as it is harassment. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I should point you two to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct if you're unsure whether the other user's behaviour is harassment or not. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not demand it, I asked it politely, the reason was the previous WQA. His edits were related to a revert to my additions there... so I asked. The replies were really blunt and full of accusations in return. I'm over with this... this thread was created just to further escalate when it could simply have been cleared at his talk page. I'll not waste anymore time. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 03:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I would say you demanded it. When you go to someone's talk page to ask the question, it's not really politely asking. It's an accusation that has to be defended. I'm not sure though why you focused on that one phrase. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Walter i had given the links in the first comment. I am giving it again. Pointwise this time. Please see the DIFF Section on top. All i asked last time on WIkiquette discussion was topgun should stop his accusations to me. Is it too much to ask for ? and this started again so i reported it here
( edit conflict):*another thing to note is TG repeatedly says that my edit [88] on Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir creating a content dispute but as you can clearly see, i just updated the infobox with a correct and reasonable entry that everyone agrees to and my edit still remains. ANother thing to note is i decided not to take part in the content dispute but even then TG feels it right to accuse me again [89]. -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 12:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
This is becoming a re-iteration of previous WQA discussion and all these were already discussed there, better see my replies there... Walter's probably right, I don't need to reply to this ridiculous cherry picking. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 12:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • no this is not. walter asked me the diffs and i have provided the recent ones(from past 15 days (except point7)), its not meant for you but for the Admins to see. Unless we get a solution from this discussion , the situtaion wont improve and we have seen it already [90]-- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 12:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep pulling you two, take as much rope as you want. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I was asked specifically to give proof/diffs and so i gave, i wasnt commenting earlier to this thread and will not, now -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 12:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If you two are finished bickering, some of the proof against DBigXray is found in reporting locations. Editors must have the ability to bring cases against another editor when discussing with admins or neutral bodies such as this. The other actions are mild, but they do demonstrate a bias against you, but that's not bad Wikiquette, it's just a bias, and without proof may I add. As for hounding, I don't know that you have a case for that, at least not based on these edits. An admin may see it differently.

As for bad blood between the two of you, I think that you should just avoid editing articles where you know the other person will be for a while. That is addressed to both editors. Most importantly, please remember that you should only discuss edits and not editors (except in locations like this). Discuss content and not who is adding it. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking it up. I made my case in previous WQA and didn't want to do the flooding as this was already becoming a flooded thread. I think your conclusion above is enough to point it out to the editors. Please close this thread. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 22:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Anders Behring Breivik, Can he still be called a terrorist?

My post in the talk page of the article about Anders Behring Breivik was deleted three times. The contents of my post are below.

Wikipedia is dominated by Muslims and their left-wing sympathizers. Almost all terrorists are Muslims, and yet Wikipedia does not call them terrorists. Wikipedia calls Osama bin Laden "the founder of the militant Islamist organization." The Wikipedia article about Carlos the Jackal begins with a statement that Israel is a terrorist nation, but it does not call Carlos the Jackal a terrorist. Many Europeans believe that Islam will bring rivers of blood into European cities. They call Breivik a hero who fired the first shot in the civil war between Muslim invaders and indigenous Europeans. The sooner the civil war begins, the better are the odds that the indigenous Europeans will win the war. Nobody should be surprised by the fact that Breivik has millions of fans. Many of our heroes are terrorists. Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat were terrorists killing civilians, and yet they received the Nobel Peace Prize. In an Al-Jazeera survey on September 11, 2006, 49.9% of the respondents avowed that they did indeed support Osama bin Laden. ( source: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28733 ). Before we call anyone a terrorist, we must agree what this word means. My favorite definition of terrorism is a definition proposed by Boaz Ganor: "Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends." ( source: http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief004-26.htm ) Quinacrine ( talk) 20:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Quinacrine ( talk) 20:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTAFORUM And given the fairly racist crap you wrote it is not surprising it was deleted, I would have remove it as well. Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless a reason is given to keep this on here, I'd say it'd be a good idea to remove this thread. If the user continues to fail to get WP:NOTSOAPBOX, maybe an admin could help them not post this crap? Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with removing it. Though I must agree that Breivik was not in fact a terrorist, he was just an asshole who murdered a lot of innocent people Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Dude poses with an automatic rifle and a patch that says "Marxist Hunter" and then attacks a Social Democratic youth camp and murders 85 kids and he's "Just an asshole who murdered a lot of innocent people"?!?! What exactly is your definition of political terrorism???? Yeah, NOTAFORUM, but gimme a break!!! That's too asinine a statement to let pass unremarked... Carrite ( talk) 05:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Although Quinacrine's position has very little likelihood of garnering consensus, and even though their opinions are highly unsavory to many editors, as I see it, the post has been inappropriately removed from the talk page of the Anders Behring Breivik article now by four editors. WP:TPO gives a comprehensive mandate for removing users' posts at talk pages, but I do not see any of the provisions outlined there being met in the present matter. Could the editors who support the removal of Quinacrine's post please provide a clearer rationale for their position, quoting relevant policies, other than simply characterizing it rather as "fairly racist crap" and other reasons that seem to have more of a visceral origin than having been adequately thought through? __ meco ( talk) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:TPNO, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic." In WP:TPO, "It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above." Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
As one of those that reverted, I'd say that it should be self-evident that we don't want pig-ignorant fascist trolls asserting their hero-worship of mass-murderers on article talk pages, particularly those likely to be visited by relatives of the mass-murderer's victims. A look through Quinacrine's edit history shows multiple instances of such obnoxious talk-page soapboxing (e.g [91], [92] etc) and given his opinions of other Wikipedia contributors, he should be shown the door. AndyTheGrump ( talk)
(involved) Agree with Ian & Andy. This is a rant (<== policy) and clearly should be removed. He can bring back sources or suggestions to improve the article but his rantings aren't welcome. Meco, the fact that several editors have been reverting him should be a clue.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The post in question begins with "Wikipedia is dominated by Muslims and their left-wing sympathizers." I would just laugh at it, or ask for evidence, but the latter would be feeding the troll, or idiot, not sure which, and the former doesn't work online. So deletion is probably best. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Calling people "pig-ignorant fascist trolls" isn't really proper Wikiquette either. Wikipedia should offer people a chance to document all points of view, and documenting means, when we are able, not letting a quick hostile reaction deprive us of a chance to understand the underlying mind-set. For example, in this case, I'm genuinely curious how an Islamophobe gets over the detail that Breivik didn't shoot Muslims? This is a general characteristic of such radical groups - usually the KKK ends up shooting some white guy, al Qaida blows up mostly if not entirely Muslims, etcetera. And it mystifies me every time. Maybe the talk page is not the right place for such a discussion, but this guy should have some forum for dialogue, even if he has to take it to Wikiversity. We should always have faith in the truth to prevail in free and open dialogue. Wnt ( talk) 23:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an online encyclopaedia, not a psychiatrist's couch. If Quinacrine was actually interested in dialogue, he wouldn't be spamming talk pages with rants. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
In response to Quinacrine's complaint, I've added mention that Carlos the Jackal is a terrorist prominently in the article. According to WP:TERRORIST, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." With famous cases like Sanchez and Breivik, these sources are not at all difficult to come by. Wnt ( talk) 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why any of this is in this forum, but I noticed Wnt's edits to the Carlos article. In the past I fought vigorously against labeling him a terrorist, and although I still think it's inappropriate in the Carlos article, Wnt did a better job than others to support the label. Frankly, I just don't see why we need labels like that period. The reliably sourced facts as to what the article subjects did are reported, and that should be sufficient for readers. The media is very loose with such labels, and they don't have a clear meaning anyway. BTW, if someone else wants to look at the Carlos article to see if they agree with Wnt's edits, knock yourself out.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Wnt is a vocal opponent of, and rejects the WP:BLP policy. I have stated previously and requested him to stop editing articles and content related to living people, he rejects my request and at some point a topic ban will be required. His edits have been reverted. - Youreally can 17:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
If an editor can be topic banned for calling Carlos the Jackal a terrorist, maybe Quinacrine is right about Wikipedia. But I don't think so! And why doesn't anybody hold this debate on the article's talk page instead of scattered all over Wikipedia? You're all cordially invited to Talk:Carlos_the_Jackal#Terrorist to express your positions. Wnt ( talk) 23:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses WP:RS to establish if someone is a terrorist. If someone is called a terrorist by a majority view of sources, he can be attributed as a terrorist under wikipedias voice. If its controversial, but still weighted, the term terrorist should be attributed to sources in article text.(other policies such as WP:BLP still apply ). If you establish a definition of terrorists, (e.g. 1. Is violent towards civilians, 2. Is politically motivated in his actions) and find sources that include these two, and conclude he's a terrorist thats WP:OR and should not be done. Gsonnenf ( talk) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User: Tfortwo214

Hello, A few days ago I gave TforTwo214 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a warning about repeatedly adding incorrect information onto ADHD predominantly inattentive that was obvious misinformation. He then removed the warning and left an edit summary saying "Get off my talk page asshole". I undid his edit and warned him about using inappropriate edit summaries. Again, he removed my comment and wrote "This is MY talk page...leave me alone." I gave him another warning about maintaining civility, where he wrote "gayyyyyyyy leave me alone." in his edit summary. I'm not sure how exactly to deal with this. Any comments? -- GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 18:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say leave them alone. Their vandalism has been noticed and dealt with by other editors and they appear to be perfectly aware that they are behaving inappropriately, so warnings seem pointless. Danger High voltage! 19:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
He's been warned, leave his talk page alone WP:DONTFEED. If you feel he's vandalizing go here and report him. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Gsonnenf ( talk) 21:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Xerographica's conduct in relation to articles in the domain of Libertarianism

User:Xerographica ( notified) has a problem with WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and making personal attacks in the form of ad hominem political characterisations in relation to articles around Libertarianism. I'd like someone to chat with them about appropriate conduct in discussions. In particular I'd like someone to discuss with them why ad hominem attacks and characterising others' political views is deeply offensive. Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Byelf2007 ( talk) 7 March 2012
Please show diffs and links to where you have tried to resolve this as required in the instructions at the top of this page. - Nick Thorne talk 00:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nick for clarifying the procedure I should follow, I'm sorry that I didn't follow this previously:
Direct discussion regarding problem behaviour [93] [94] [95] [96]
Attempts to move discussion back to article improvement by focusing on the editor's positive contributions [97] [98]
I attempted these simultaneously, replying in different sections so as to move discussion away from the problem issue towards non-problem issues. The first did not work, and caused the user to increase their problematic conduct. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't find the diffs provided above concerning Xerographica particularly problematic in light of a lot of thoughtful and insightful input on the Talk page of the Libertarianism article. I am weighing the improper labeling of other editors as "anarchists" against what seems good quality and thought-provoking and seemingly (to me) knowledgeable discussion there. Bus stop ( talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
They're developing as an editor; but, this isn't a disciplinary environment to weigh conduct against preventative measures. This is an environment to improve an editor's relationship with other editors ( [99]). Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I think Xerographica is guilty of not beating around the bush. Xerographica says "So you're a statist?" in response to "I'm not an anarchist." I don't think this is akin to name-calling. This is shorthand communication because "statist" and "anarchist" are political stances. Bus stop ( talk) 04:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It is a very offensive claim to imply that editors are writing based on their POVs and not on reliable sources; it is also offensive to make assertions about other's politics. Making ad hominem arguments—arguments regarding the character and quality of those you're in discussion with—distracts from making encyclopaedic arguments. It would be an improvement to their conduct, and remove an unnecessary distraction from article process if they stopped doing so. Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The edits by X are clear personal attacks and are disruptive to improving the article. TFD ( talk) 05:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, I'm not using the term "anarchist" nor the term "statist" in a derogatory manner. Is an editor's political orientation relevant? Obviously it wouldn't be if we were editing an article that had absolutely nothing to do with political ideologies. Nor would it be if the editor in question hadn't offered three experts that all happened to be anarchists. Nor would it be if the article on libertarianism wasn't clearly skewed towards anarchist ideologies. That being said, we've established that outside of the US "libertarianism" can be argued to be synonymous with anarchism while here in the US it is synonymous with limited government statism. So the problem is that we're trying to force one article to cover two very different meanings of the word "libertarianism". As a solution some of us will start working on an article Libertarianism (limited government) that is solely dedicated to limited government statism. -- Xerographica ( talk) 10:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


I fail to see all the "ad homs" of which the editor stands accused - and they certainly do not merit a WQA complaint as far as I can tell. Have a large pot of tea folks. Collect ( talk) 11:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Think of WQA as place where editors can come to get a pot of tea with a little friendly advice from the waitstaff. Nobody Ent 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any serious violations, but its probably a better idea not to refer to a editors as a POV group like anarchists repeatedly. Xero, Your frustration is understandable, but when you start heading towards an uncivil pattern its best to identify then correct. I'm sure you can make your point by referring to alleged content or behavioral violations ( instead of "George Woodcock was an anarchist.... Clearly your biases are clouding your judgement.", try "The anarchists you cite are of minority view, the following citations show this[x][x][x].'" ). I hope this WQA helps to deescalate any conflicts. Gsonnenf ( talk) 12:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Concur: Comment on content, not on the contributor Nobody Ent 13:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Isn't full disclosure a good thing? It's kind of hard to go wrong with transparency. The thing is...I already tried your preferred approach... Scope of Government...but clearly it didn't work. The "opposition" wants to pretend that we're not dealing with different meanings of the word "libertarianism". What do they have to gain from pretending that "libertarianism" means both anarchism AND limited statism? Well...they get to use the article on "libertarianism" to promote anarchism. Or maybe I'm just trying to use the article on "libertarianism" to promote limited statism? Or maybe I just think it's ridiculous to pretend that a political ideology could simultaneously advocate both anarchism AND limited statism? Or maybe I think it's ridiculous that there's already articles dedicated to anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism but they want to also dedicate the article on libertarianism to anarchism. Do we really need two articles dedicated to anarchism? Anyways, like I said...they can have the article...err...well...continue to have the article on libertarianism...and I'll focus on writing the article on Libertarianism (limited government). -- Xerographica ( talk) 14:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Fifelfoo—these are all problems of degree. That may seem trite but it especially applies here. You say that "It is a very offensive claim to imply that editors are writing based on their POVs…" These are all Points Of View. Libertarianism, anarchism, statism—are points of view. The subject matter is such that I think the subject matter is very much concerned with "points of view". The subject matter at hand is "points of view". You say "it is also offensive to make assertions about other's politics". In this context it is slightly less so. "Politics" is basically the subject matter at hand. You refer to "character". You refer to "arguments regarding the character and quality of those you're in discussion with". Character is in fact not invoked by Xerographica. He/she merely points out that your arguments are based on political positions. Sorry, but I don't have all that much sympathy for those carping about the accurate designation of the political stances maintained by those encountered in disagreements. There is little "assassination of character." There is just the establishing of nomenclature applicable to positions that are maintained by participants in a disagreement. I hear your complaint but in my opinion your "adversary" is just communicating clearly and not beating around the bush about the factors that in my opinion pertain to the disagreement. Bus stop ( talk) 14:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Nope

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

—  English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
Nobody Ent 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"He/she merely points out that your arguments are based on political positions." My arguments are based on the content of multiple high quality reliable sources published in the scholarly mode, each from a different scholarly discipline focusing on the object. The editor in question does not specify taxonomy out of the highest quality scholarly surveys available; and, personal inspiration has no place in taxonomy or analysis of source bias. I do not like being accused of possessing a politics in a pejorative manner; or accused of editing on a political basis. I do deserve this courtesy. Fifelfoo ( talk) 21:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

When using sources, the beliefs of the writers are irrelevant. While these authors may not be neutral (no authors are) we can expect based on the publishers that the facts would be accurate and complete and that it would provide a good summary of the various interpretations as well as explaining the degree to which scholars have accepted different views. I never look up the poltiical beliefs of writers before using their books as sources, because it is irrelevant. It may be that social sciences are tilted toward the left, but that is not something that we can correct here. TFD ( talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo—I'm not quite seeing the "…arguments regarding the character and quality of those…in discussion…" Is Xerographica saying anything about the "character" or the "quality" of another editor? Bus stop ( talk) 00:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggesting that personal politics "you anarchists" dictates editing. If you're unable to assist, stop contributing here. Fifelfoo ( talk) 00:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
You can't prove that I was using the term "anarchists" derogatorily and I can't prove that I wasn't. Therefore, all we can do is look at context. All the three subject matter experts you referenced are anarchists of some type. This led me to the conclusion that you are an anarchist. Does you being an anarchist have any bearing on the article? Well...clearly if all the subject matter experts you cite happen to be anarchists then I am led to believe that it does have some bearing. What other explanation could there be for an article on "libertarianism" to be so skewed towards "anarchism"? -- Xerographica ( talk) 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with derogatory, you're assigning political traits to individuals. Per se, its only a bit disruptive, but these POV assigning statements can escalate into flame wars. The policies of Wikipedia are designed to stop this escalation. You can probably comment on the authors to the extend that you feel they often add [wp:undue]] content that slants towards anarchism. That's borderline, but probably wouldn't get you in trouble.
On .I already tried your preferred approach... but clearly it didn't work.. Calling the oppositions anarchists will not work either. Your best bet is an RfC or post on the NPOV board. Make a clear argument about why WP:NPOV is occurring and show with evidence what the majority POV is. If these don't work, you'd best take a break until the page editors shifts to the POV you assessed as majority view (which may or may not happen). Gsonnenf ( talk) 02:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
As the user's conduct is escalating ( [100]), I have noted their behaviour at AN/I. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

User: MikeWazowski


I posted a notice regarding internet security on user:MikeWazowski" talk, he deleted it. I have been hounded by him for weeks. When I inserted citations (that he finally accepted as ok) without logging today I guess my IP was recorded. Mike made an unprofessional edit summary and used MY REAL NAME thus associating it with my IP address and thus physical address. I'm really surprised at how demeaning some editors are on here. Those of us that are new to Wiki do sometimes make mistakes so just give your opinion about citations, etc and DON'T call a person out by their real name- thus intentionally trying to create a security situation for them. After I was nearly beaten to death by a stranger in 2008 via a track down re:internet, I can tell you that it isn't okay to attempt to jeopardize someone's security just because you don't like their articles. Honestly, the constant attention any edits I make by 'MikeWazowski" are to the point of stalkerish and makes me wonder who he really is. Lastly, user:MikeWazowski even defends himself to another editor saying "I'm not hounding her (regarding me!) but.....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory ( talk • contribs)

Kmhistory is a new editor with a history of problem contributions. She tried to create an autobiographical article about herself, tried to vandalize the AfD discussion on that same article by removing comments from multiple editors under false claims of harassment and/or spam (?!?> - see [101], [102], [103] for examples. She has created an article about an organization she has an admitted COI in (although she tries to claim that her COI is not a COI, just because she wants it that way), and she's already had a sockpuppet investigation filed on her by a separate uninvolved editor. While I did call her by her first name, this is something that she gave away herself in this edit - an IP address, by the way, that she had used to add fraudulent comments to the AFD on the article on herself, by claiming to be someone else. My edit history existed long before this editor showed up, and my contributions continue to be on a wide range away from articles that interest Kmhistory. As for deleting messages on my talk page, I addressed her concerns in the edit summary, considering that if she's so worried about her identity, I would remove it from my talk page - besides, if you're so concerned about your identity, Kmhistory, why did you create a very public Wikipedia page about yourself? And finally, I'll point out to Kmhistory that I am allowed to removed items from my talk page. I will continue to keep an eye on the pages in question, though, as Kmhistory has shown a marked misunderstanding of maintenance templates and her own conflict of interest, and this needs to monitored.
Without getting into the details of the beef, if she used her name in an edit under an IP address, that wouldn't be the same as using her name logged in. As such, any attempt to use her name and connect it to her wikipedia username would be an attempt at outing, a serious violation of wikipedia procedures, and something I personally believe should subject an editor to a lengthy block. However, I am not at all clear yet that that is what has happened. Also, this is the WQA, and no administrative action could be taken regarding the potential outing. This may be better placed at the ANI. I see that she commented on her own article saying why she was notable, thus outing herself and making all my comments above moot. LedRush ( talk) 22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I created a wiki about myself 'using km history' NOT my ip address. These are not the same thing. I did not out my ip address. I then asked for a speedy deletion nearly a week ago for that article as one is not allowed to write article about oneself. Mike then put in tags saying it was not eligible for speedy delete. However, I am notable in my field and as such have the right to utilize social media. Nothing was included in my wiki that included my IP address. Mike, please resist to the urge to question one's personal security measures. I want all edit summaries to my IP address that include my name "Karen" to be deleted. It in UNNECESSARY to put a user's real name in the edit summary. Also, I HAVE NEVER claimed to be anyone else. Vivian is a person I have worked for and she does reside in San Diego but consults for the same UK company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhistory ( talk • contribs)
Can you explain why, in this edit, this IP "signed" using your username, then? -- Kinu  t/ c 23:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, you connect this IP to your username in this sequence of edits around this edit, in given the dialogue via edit summary between you, this IP, and MikeWazowski. I fail to see how this can be considered "outing" given that you yourself appear to admit using this IP. -- Kinu  t/ c 23:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I wrote that article with kmhistory, not my IP. Kmhistory ( talk) 01:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You do not understand the point. Before making comments, do some investigation. Articles that I write under kmhistory don't contain my IP. When I did some editing today- TO CORRECT CITATIONS THAT WERE ACCEPTABLE- I was not logged in. So I guess it took my IP address. User Mike thinks this was on purpose, when in actuality I wasn't auto signed in and, in his incorrect and spiteful edit summaries, outed me by my first name. Looking back in the history, it would be easy to find my full name on Wiki now. My user name kmhistory and my IP address were never connected until he decided to use my name in the edit summary. This was completely unnecessary. If someone wants to claim a cite is wrong, fine, tag it. But DO NOT put their name in the edit summary along with a snarky comment. This is a security breach. Kmhistory ( talk) 01:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    Do not strike out other editors' comments, as you did here. You have already been warned about this. -- Kinu  t/ c 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    What about your comments at the AfD? You posted a comment about an article about yourself. You say "it would be easy to find my full name" on Wikipedia now, but that was the case before any action on MikeWazowski's part as soon as you posted this. Likewise, your edits, comments in edit summaries, etc., are what connected you to the IP. Also, you state above that this is "my IP address" but also include the contradictory statement that this same IP belongs to someone named Vivian who allegedly commented in the AfD discussion. Which is it? I still fail to see how this is MikeWazowski's fault; he merely put a very obvious two and two together. That's not outing, that's behavioral evidence. Notwithstanding, your username and IP address were connected as soon as you posted this. Finally, the lack of honesty about the alleged sockpuppetry and the presumption of bad faith toward MikeWazowski on your part here is making me feel as if there is no action that can be taken here that would be satisfactory to you. -- Kinu  t/ c 01:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Kinu, I see that you are an unemployed economist, not a psychologist. As a secular humanist, I am a very honest person. Please discontinue writing about you"feelings". They are irrelevant to this discussion. Kmhistory ( talk) 01:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    What I am is an administrator here and theoretically in a position to help you if you so choose. But personal attacks will not be tolerated. Ironic, considering this is the Wikiquette board. -- Kinu  t/ c 01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean this as a personal attack. There are several unemployed economists. My point is this is not the place to post about your feelings. Your feelings do nothing to address the subject at hand. Kmhistory ( talk) 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't tell who's saying what or when here - please sign your edits by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. - Nick Thorne talk 23:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Karen, Mike figured out it was your IP address because you did a terrible job at sockpuppetry (sockpuppetry is something we don't like for editors to do, by the way). Anyone could have figured it out, you might as well get angry at Mike for announcing that the sky was blue. If you were being honest, you would not have deleted other's comments with completely false edit summaries, and you would not have pretended to be someone else while logged out, or you would at least admit that you did all that and that it was wrong of you. This is just a petty attempt to get at Mike because you probably feel you are "losing." Grow up, admit you made mistakes, and accept the advice of Kinu (who is trying to help you). It's stuff like this that makes me tempted to suggest adding something to WP:BLOCK to the effect of "feel free to indef anyone who makes an article about themselves." Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Seriously, I have no idea what sockpuppetry is and I did not engage in it. I do not know Mike (in fact I think his user name is a cartoon character) and if you took the time to read the comments, you will see that his using my name in the edit summaries is inappropriate. I AKSED for a "speedy delete" for my karen article awhile ago and it was removed! Mike said it didn't qualify! Instead, you guys wanted to keep it on to pick at the bones. I do not feel I am "losing" (Mike's main edits are erotic video games and Starwars) to anyone. I don't know you people and certainly trust you not. I do not understand your 'losing' comments; are you saying that Wiki is instigating quarrels in order to define a 'loser'. This is utter nonsense. Lastly, free fell to add whatever suggestions to wiki block- why you felt I would care that you are 'tempted' to do so is beyond me and again has nothing to do with the situation. Lastly, I have had my own comments deleted and struck out so I did not know this was not allowed.I suppose this is only for those who have been on wiki longer than a week? Kmhistory ( talk) 02:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the assertion that Kmhistory requested a speedy delete, I see no evidence of that in the history of either the article in question or its talk page. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I can see the deleted history of the article in question, and, while I might have missed that edit, I do not see any indication that you requested its deletion, speedily or otherwise; on the other hand, you removed the proposed deletion tag, and your comments on the now-deleted talk page and at the AfD are in support of retaining the article. Likewise, the only comments of yours that were struck at the AfD were (a) a double !vote to keep the article, which is a legitimate use of a strike, and (b) a !vote by the IP in question here, which was shown to be you and which you have admitted is you. In the past you might not have known what sockpuppetry was, but now you do: you used both an IP (which you admit is your IP address above) and your logged-in account in an attempt to influence the AfD discussion. I'm assuming good faith on your part here and trusting you not to do something similar again. That being said, no one is instigating a quarrel here; indeed, you were the one who opened this discussion, and it is up to you to provide us with evidence indicating some sort of fault on the part of the other editor. At this stage, several other editors have indicated that you have failed to do so. On the other hand, you're only propagating the amount of information on Wikipedia discussing the connection between this IP and your account by lengthening this discussion. If you are explicitly looking for a remedy, I would state what you want here; if not, I do not see any action to be taken. -- Kinu  t/ c 02:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I did put in 'speed delete' tags and remove the 'propsed deletion' tag- this is how I understood it from the speedy deletion instructional page (slow versus fast deletion). The page is deleted- finally and I am happy not to hear of it again. What I want: my name, karen, removed from ALL edit summaries that Mike posted. To say I shouldn't have mentioned it is like saying I someone robbed my house and I shouldn't have reported it to the police. The damage has been done- by him. While you may feel it is easy to track my IP and name the average wiki is not able to do that except of course when they see my name next to the ip- and check it against the kmhistory file. Lastly , I assumed I was logged in for 180 days. I have no reason - NOR DID I WANT TO- use my IP. I have much to add to wiki and frankly wiki needs more pro-science professionals. Kmhistory ( talk) 02:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    All right, that's not an unreasonable remedy, and I'm happy to assist you with it. I only see the one diff with your name in it here and have removed its edit summary from the logs. For the reasons above, and because this isn't WP:ANI, I see no reason that Mike should be sanctioned or even trouted, as part of the issue is that none of this would've happened had you not edited in a manner similar to your account while logged out; to extend your police analogy, you might feel as if someone robbed your house, but you did leave the door open. That being said, I'm going to trust you to be more careful and ensure that you are logged in (always check the upper-right corner while editing, and signing your posts using ~~~~ and hitting "show preview" will help with that because it will fill in your username if you are logged in); this will avoid any such issues in the future and to ensure that you aren't accused of sockpuppetry, since I know that isn't your intent. -- Kinu  t/ c 02:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Odiriuss

User:Odiriuss has repeatedly accused me of vandalism, [104] [105] arrogance [106], misuse of administrator power, [107] [108] and had implied I have no reason. [109] I just wanted to say I don't see this as the right way to go. A user warning would be in place. -- Eleassar my talk 15:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear wikipedians,I have accused User:Eleassar for these things because i feel that is precisely what he is doing. I have also submitted an official complaint on User:Eleassar at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Missuse_of_admin_power and explained my case there, feel free to see my reasoning for these actions. I would also like to state that i was never uncivil to User:Eleassar even though he repeatedly neglected the evidence i put forth,and claimed only the Slovenian sources were correct and that the rest of the world is wrong,i find that ridiculous and thus have taken actions against User:Eleassar. I will also take this dispute to WP:DRN,to end it once and for all.

Yours truly,

Odiriuss ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with me, but per NPA, serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. -- Eleassar my talk 17:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The accusation of Admin abuse of power is properly being closed as being without merit. Generally, even if true, one should make one's arguments based on content, not references to the individual editor. Without getting to the basis of the dispute, it seems that Odiriuss could use a warning that he should comment on edits and policy, not editors. LedRush ( talk) 17:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Drive" genre

Hey there,

On the Drive (2011 film) page, in the past day there have been several editors changing the genre of the film completely. Before hand it was previously Action with either Drama or Romance in at certain times, or all of them. It had been like this for a while and everyone was happy, but these editors in the past day have came on the page and changed it. There is an 'anon' with an IP "187.35.39.81" who is claiming that I am 'genre warrior' for changing the genre to genre to how it had been before (and everyone was happy with this in the genre for a while). He and the other editors are this so called 'genre warrior' as they keep changing it themselves. The 'anon' said threatened he would report me for changing the genre back, even though it was like that for a while, and like I said, everyone was happy. I have started a new section on Drive's talk page because as the 'anon' obviously isn't registered Wikipedian I can't message him directly on his talk page as he doesn't have one.

Charlr6 ( talk) 22:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Actions at Jose Antonio Vargas Article

Due to an elongated discussion that lead other editors to stop assuming good faith regarding my actions, and from what I perceive as creating a local consensus that does not abide by BLP and NPOV, it has lead other editors to stop following at times WP:CIVIL and to not discuss issues regarding the content of the article.

Recently, I had tagged a section regarding a statement, differing from the previous issue which created the local consensus above, that I felt did not match NPOV. This was only after I had been bold and made the statement more neutral and added a wikilink to the article subject which the sentence was talking about per WP:UNDERLINK; see diff here. This POV statement was readded by Nomoskedasticity. I began a discussion and tagged the section per WP:BRD, to which the tag was removed by Bbb23 (who in a previous statement specifically stated that AGF would not be followed by the editor regarding myself). It appears that there was an assumption that the tag was regarding the previous issue, for which the tag was not. I reverted the tag, and added a tag regarding the specific content under discussion, which again was reverted.

Seeing as how there appears to be a breakdown of AGF, CIVIL, and BRD regarding this discussion, and after having the mediation cabal not take up the case regarding the previous issue, I have opened up a request for assistance here. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, this looks like a run of the mill content dispute. Unless you can provide specific diffs for any civility issues there is nothing for us to do here. - Nick Thorne talk 07:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this present discussion there has not yet been any incivility (unless one counts lack of AGF), as there was in the past. Perhaps a suggestion where to go regarding this content dispute would be helpful? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 08:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, you could take it to six different noticeboards. Oh wait -- you've already done that. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There have been no additional editors who have come from those notices. The point of posting at noticeboards is to get additional opinions regarding content dispute discussions, as no additional opinions were received those postings did not contribute to any further discussion. Rather, as I stated above my attempts to improve the article, and initiate discussion have been meet with reversion and no further discussion on the talk page of the article in question.
Is there no further discussion regarding the reversions linked here and the lack of AGF towards myself?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an instance of a very stubborn editor who doesn't agree with the consensus on the Vargas article and won't let go. Nothing really more to say.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:STICK comes to mind. - Nick Thorne talk 02:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem I see is this is a new issue regarding a different part of the article. Other editors have reverted the edit with a claim that my edit is not keeping with WP:NEU. Since this is a new issue I have followed WP:BRD appropriately and have remained civil. By not entering into a new discussion other editors are continuing to support language that does not keep with NEU:

about the effects of Alabama's severe anti-immigration legislation.

If others don't want to continue discussion that flies in the face of the two pillars of NEU and AGF.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It's still not a WQA issue. You have a content dispute with the other editors of that page. No breach of civility has occured so far as I can see. Other editors are not required to respond to any of your posts, you do not have the right to require other editors to do anything. The only editor over whom you have any control is yourself. WP:STICK applies, as I said before. - Nick Thorne talk 04:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive116&oldid=1144586308"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE