This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User is not adhering to WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors have opposed the inclusion of four links as per WP:EL, but Domer48 is ignoring the policy. More specifically, one link is a blog, and three links should be used as refs. Links were added here, and readded here and here. Discussion is at Talk:Segi#Links removed because not neutral. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A quick glance of both the Talk Page and the Article will clearly illustrate how HelloAnnyong is mixing up two seperate issues. Issues 1) The use of references, Issue 2) Links (which I have added). There is no consensus on issue (1). Now issue (2), HelloAnnyong is trying to use WP:EL to remove the links, while I maintain that the links are covered by WP:EL. Input would be welcome by other editors. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Were is this "group of editors with a clear explanation of policy in this matter?" "The links you are adding do not appear to meet WP:EL by any stretch." What, are you not sure? As to your comment on my Talk Page, I've responded there and on your talk page. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No Diff's to back up your opinion? Not to worrie, I've removed your comments from my talk page, as you could not provide diff's there either. -- Domer48 ( talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that User:Domer48 has forked this discussion to my talk page here. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
User repeatedly vandalizes the article with unverified, original research and POV material. User appears to be the subject of the article. I've asked user to remove things they consider untrue, but instead user insists on a flatter piece for the article. User also appears to be using sock puppets, and has made threats and personal insults towards me, as well as challenging me to a fight. -- Mista-X ( talk) 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check and comment on our behaviours in this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177856023
Hu12 comment: rmv trolling & Disruptive editing
The following comments are censored and edited out by the admin:
WP:NOTABILITY only applies when a webhost wants to create an article on its own, NOT a reference/mentioning in a comparison page
WP:NOTABILITY is set here as absolute rules for entries being added in this comparison page (of course I argue that it is applying the wrong principle in the wrong situations - messing up the article itself and a tiny entry of the whole page).
After all, read carefully. It is just a guideline: “ NOTABILITY is merely a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ”
Read the last sentence. Use common sense.
Hu12 says Wikipedia is NOT an internet guide or directory page but... “ "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." ”
This is an comparison page. A reference here is to contribute to the comparison table. These entries are highly relevant. What is the point of having a comparison table if nearly no entry can be added into it?
Another case where a so-called rule or guideline is rigidly applied without some common senses. ;) Odd Master (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177857754
Hu12 comment: remove blatent vandalism/insertion of my post
I realise I made a mistake here. I forgot to sign this message (because I'm talking too much in this discussion). But it is clearly not an intention of a blatant vandalism/insertion of his post. Otherwise it will be done more sneakily. Why adding a block of statements which can be realised easily? Instead of accusing me as a blatant vandal, he may simply fix it by adding my signauture back. But he chose to censor my comments again.
The message censored by the admin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177859356
Hu12 comment: rmv unauthorised refactoring of my comment, another attempt by Odd Master editing of other users' comments to substantially change their meaning
He actually edited his own comment. I haven't edit anyone's comments to substantially change their meaning. A complete frame-up!
He banned me after the incident.
I registered as Odd_Master2 and reported this incident.
After all, please comment about the appropriateness of the following:
Thank you.
PS: Sorry that the report may look ugly. I found it hard to discuss here. Wikipedia should install a proper forum software to prevent this kinds of problems in future. But I believe it won't be realised in any forseeable future.
Whilst talk pages may lack the structure of forums, they work OK for most people Mayalld ( talk) 14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor under 70.112.185.154 used profanity toward another editor (probably me) in the edit summary log of the Dana DeArmond article. The abuse is obvious although the motivation for such incivility is unclear. Vinh1313 ( talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over the article Swedish language which primarily involves myself and panda, but has lately expanded to include many other editors. It's centered mostly around the content of the Swedish langugae article and to a great extent referencing, but also a lot of other minor issues like date formatting and the likes. The problem as I perceive it is that panda is tackling the business of trying to improve the article by nitpicking certain issues to death. Often there is a distinct feeling that there is an acute lack of experience or knowledge of the linguistic topics debated. When confronted with replies that argue his points, the reaction for the most part has been to keep arguing with new, yet mostly irrelevant ad hoc arguments, or to cite policy over and over again. Another very disconcerting tactic is to simply turn every single argument presented to him around and throw it back at his opponent. All of this is often followed by claims that failure to comply with panda's suggestion (or anyone else's opinions that he happens to agree with) is tantamount to being biased, trying to own the article and breeching guidelines or policies.
There's not so much a problem of name-calling and overt rudeness as a frustrating lack of tact in the fact of counter-arguments, no matter how good or bad they may be. I have lost my temper with panda more than once, but I have apologized for it at his talk page.
Examples of the behavior that I find most problematic can be found in these threads:
Peter Isotalo 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
From my interactions with him, also on Swedish language, Panda is a tenacious editor who will rarely concede a point and will continue to flog the horse far too long. He has a confrontational attitude and is quick to point to his opponents transgressions (as you can see above), while not recognizing that a less confrontational attitude may be more productive. His comments are generally civil and on topic, but often include accusations of bias and quoting of policy, and little or no attempts at deescalation and finding a compromise. Like Peter, I've found this to be frustrating.
I believe that Panda is genuinely trying to improve the articles he works on, but I wish he would adopt a different attitude while trying to do so. henrik• talk 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Both Peter and Henrik have made many accusations and I will address each of them below.
For disclosure purposes, Henrik has backed Peter on just about everything in the Swedish language article. Henrik has "collaborated with Peter before and respect him as a good article writer" [25] and has even claimed that I've "made some questionable decisions before regarding this article and has driven the main author to a wikibreak" [26], without any evidence of the so-called questionable decisions and despite the fact that Peter was edit warring with other editors about date linking. Apparently he blames me for asking for outside opinion about the date linking issue (see Template talk:Cite web#Why is the date wikilinked?), which has drawn several editors to the article, with whom Peter has edit warred. Henrik apparently realized how uncivil he was being towards me as he choose to apologize on my talk page. [27] But not so long afterwards he choose to attack an editor who was linking dates by only asking him to stop reverting, [28] even though Peter was also reverting. [29] When I pointed out how biased his comments were, [30] Henrik went claimed that editors who oppose Peter's opinions are participating in "low-level harassment and wikilawyering" and that "he [Peter] shouldn't have to deal with crap like this." [31] So it's no surprise that Henrik is here defending Peter.
Henrik claims that:
Peter claims that:
– panda ( talk) 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Peter has also claimed:
– panda ( talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
All of my comments above having been said, now that I have had a chance to read through some of the conversations, I believe all parties involved in this dispute should take a step back and cool off for a little while. The pattern I'm seeing right now is the result of a personality clash mainly between Peter and Panda. I'll address both of you in turn.
Peter: The initial dispute appears to have grown out of a content dispute - very common here - but I found your way of addressing Panda to be fairly antagonistic. While I can certainly appreciate when people are direct, you appeared to be accusing Panda of bad faith toward the beginning of the dispute, and when he responded in kind to you, things started to get blown out of proportion. Remember, folks, attack the content, not the editor. I would suggest that you read back over your messages to Panda and look at them as though they were directed at you - that will generally help to keep things civil. In particular, commenting to an editor about their modus operandi is generally a bad thing, as it sounds accusatory, even if it wasn't meant to be.
Panda: Likewise, I saw a tendency for you to jump to conclusions fairly quickly about what other editors were trying to do, and/or whether they were trying to gang up on you, as well as defending your work almost to the point of raising ownership concerns. I'd recommend that you ease off the trigger a bit - content disputes are going to arise virtually everywhere, because different people have different ideas of how an article should be written and organized, how citations should appear, etc. I am not in any position to speak on this particular dispute or to take sides, since I have no knowledge of (or interest in) the subject, but from a policy standpoint, I think you owe some responsibility in this dispute as well.
I'm pretty certain that later portions of this dispute have their genesis in the beginning part of it - after initial hostilities, both sides are likely to just automatically dismiss each other as hot-headed jerks without really giving much thought to the discussion, because they're both mad at each other already. Again, I think the best thing is for all of you to disengage for a little while and come back when you've cooled off and are ready to address the content and put your personal differences aside. You're all good editors, and we want to encourage you all to keep editing Wikipedia, but it's important for you guys to do so in a way that avoids edit wars and personal conflicts - otherwise, we're going to get nowhere.
Thanks. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (outdent) Reply to Bishonen: If you hadn't fabricated a story to support your statement, then maybe I would have taken your comments more seriously. There's also a big difference between claiming that you've studied the talk page and only taken random dips.
If you want the quick and short version, then read the comments Peter made to me on my talk page: User talk:Panda#Swedish references and User talk:Panda#Fact tagging. Things don't happen in a vacuum and if you claim that I've been behaving badly, then it's very likely that the opposing side has provoked it. Don't forget that WP:AGF states that This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. To illustrate, here's an exert of an exchange between Peter and I:
If we examine the above exchange, Peter reverted text I added in good faith twice. He accused me of:
This is an exchange from the very beginning of our interaction. Considering all of Peter's exaggerated claims and bad faith comments made in those 2.5 days, I could have easily posted a wikiquette alert about him, but I didn't see it as possibly being helpful.
Reply to Peter Isolato: I already have, not only in a previous reply but in the exchange above. Why don't you point out a single instance when you've openly conceded a point in a discussion where you have been opposed?
Reply to KieferSkunk: See my reply to Bishonen. If you don't want to go read the talk pages and diffs, then an excerpt is now posted here for you to examine.
– panda ( talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To KieferSkunk: You commented that I'm being "very defensive and very willing to say that everyone is ganging up on" me. [75] When the accusing editors are attacking me with false accusations and they all know each other, am I not allowed to defend myself and disclose their relationship? Should I ignore them and assume that you and everyone else will figure out that there are many false accusations be thrown at me? Please explain how you would react. – panda ( talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Panda, a question. I don't think anyone is happy with the current situation, you, Peter or anyone else. What do you think you could have done differently to have avoided this? What can you do to avoid getting into situations like this in the future with other editors? I mean this as honest questions, not some kind of rhetorical device. henrik• talk 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Personally, I consider the dispute over. You and Henrik seem to be the only ones who want to continue it. But since you asked for it, here goes.
Let's first consider what I did: For issues which conflicted with Peter's opinions, I asked for outside opinions in several different forums and then I brought those comments to the article and asked others to also comment in the article's talk page. Those comments conflicted with Peter's opinions, and he attacked me with many exaggerated claims in the article's talk page, my talk page, and in other talk pages. So the only recourse I had was to either:
Considering what I know about Peter today, a WQA early in the conflict probably would have been the more effective resolution since many other editors have instead chosen to leave the topic, possibly helping to create Peter's current apathetic attitude towards fellow editors. Peter also typically does not agree with a single editor with a conflicting opinion, but is more willing to listen to multiple editors who do not agree with him, although even then he can sometimes continue to edit war, such as the case with date linking. So a WQA where outside editors could point out Peter's uncivil remarks may have been useful in reducing the conflict early, and would have very likely prevented me from becoming so provoked that I felt it was time to reply back to Peter in the same manner he addressed me with. In the future, I'll probably use the WQA route much earlier when an editor is ignoring outside opinions, making personal attacks, and assuming bad faith unnecessarily.
Regarding ownership issues, this isn't something that I use lightly. Peter is the second editor that I have accused this of. After having read WP:OWN several times, I feel I am justified in accusing him of this. Next time, I should list my rationale for accusing an editor of WP:OWN, instead of only stating it. I'm also happy to list them here if someone insists. But Peter should just read WP:OWN since many of his actions are reflected in that article, especially in WP:OWN#Ownership examples.
I suspect this won't make you happy, but you were warned.
- panda ( talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I'll post the same question for you. What do you think you could have done differently to have avoided this? What can you do to avoid getting into situations like this in the future with other editors? henrik• talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
User has engaged in a number of uncivil and hostile edits. He first called me a "revert whore" and I warned him about being hostile. Additionally, he refuses to follow citation methods, and is openly against it. After my warning him here and here, he was openly defiant by saying that references are "a low priority job that can be done at a later date" ( ref), and was defiant again in this edit summary. The user has been warned a number of times about following Wiki policy by me and an administrator. On a side note, the user seems to have an attitude problem, calling himself awesome here and here, where he cleared his talk page. I've tried several times with this editor; can someone lend a hand? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel that I have been falsely accused of vandalism in a content dispute with this user regarding edits which I made to Separation of Church and State and evil. I made 1 edit to each of those articles, both of which were reverted by this user. I just joined Wikipedia and I have no desire to vandalize Wikipedia. Muhammad Cthulhu ( talk) 13:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have to report this, but user Wetman has chosen to insult myself over a post on Wetman's personal page in which I stated that I found Wetman's last edit to be "interesting". I then demanded an apology from Wetman, who ignored my request and dismissed my request for an apology as "ravings".
I hope that this was not a pattern of behavior for user Wetman, nor a developing pattern of rudeness and insult. Oroblanco ( talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Resolved? In what way? It doesn't matter, now have a good understanding of Wetman and Wiki. Incident forgotten. Oroblanco ( talk) 06:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In this past week, this administrator has name-called [82], deleted references without checking (then lying about it) [83], and knowingly given misleading instructions [84]. These events started on Dec 11th, four days after the previous wikiquette alert regarding this administrator [85] and under two months since he was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and personal insults [86]. Mikkalai is learning to game the system and I suspect that he will try to cover his tracks better in the future. I'm not seeking an apology. Mainly, I am seeking to equip the many other good wikipedians that might be tempted to bow to the undeserved tactics and authority of this admin. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no incivility here, nor in the previous complaint. Nor do I see any abuse of power or administrative misbehavior. Anyone can delete a reference, and anyone can make a mistake, and if you think he made a mistake, you should assume good faith and move on. I'm concerned about the fact that your attitude towards Mikkalai is highly suspicious, prejudicial, and cynical. Bringing up resolved or prior instances of problems makes it sound to me like you're fishing to start a problem or a conflict. Try to move on. He made no personal attack, he's editing in good faith, and if you have a content or sourcing dispute, resolving it shouldn't involve compiling a background check on the guy you're disagreeing with and then reporting him here. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
On the assumption of good faith, I set up a disambiguation page at the root term [90], moved Mikkalia's new article to another location[history deleted], and initiated a discussion about the disambiguation [91]. Mikkalia replaced the disambiguation page with his own article, with no disambiguation links, twice. [92] [93]. This demonstrated a lack of good faith.
I can't give a dif regarding the other location. medical_infantilism was deleted along with its history by Mikkalia. Tracks were covered in a way that only an administrator could do [94]. BitterGrey ( talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to put up with comments like this?
Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User is not adhering to WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors have opposed the inclusion of four links as per WP:EL, but Domer48 is ignoring the policy. More specifically, one link is a blog, and three links should be used as refs. Links were added here, and readded here and here. Discussion is at Talk:Segi#Links removed because not neutral. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
A quick glance of both the Talk Page and the Article will clearly illustrate how HelloAnnyong is mixing up two seperate issues. Issues 1) The use of references, Issue 2) Links (which I have added). There is no consensus on issue (1). Now issue (2), HelloAnnyong is trying to use WP:EL to remove the links, while I maintain that the links are covered by WP:EL. Input would be welcome by other editors. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Were is this "group of editors with a clear explanation of policy in this matter?" "The links you are adding do not appear to meet WP:EL by any stretch." What, are you not sure? As to your comment on my Talk Page, I've responded there and on your talk page. -- Domer48 ( talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No Diff's to back up your opinion? Not to worrie, I've removed your comments from my talk page, as you could not provide diff's there either. -- Domer48 ( talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that User:Domer48 has forked this discussion to my talk page here. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
User repeatedly vandalizes the article with unverified, original research and POV material. User appears to be the subject of the article. I've asked user to remove things they consider untrue, but instead user insists on a flatter piece for the article. User also appears to be using sock puppets, and has made threats and personal insults towards me, as well as challenging me to a fight. -- Mista-X ( talk) 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check and comment on our behaviours in this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177856023
Hu12 comment: rmv trolling & Disruptive editing
The following comments are censored and edited out by the admin:
WP:NOTABILITY only applies when a webhost wants to create an article on its own, NOT a reference/mentioning in a comparison page
WP:NOTABILITY is set here as absolute rules for entries being added in this comparison page (of course I argue that it is applying the wrong principle in the wrong situations - messing up the article itself and a tiny entry of the whole page).
After all, read carefully. It is just a guideline: “ NOTABILITY is merely a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ”
Read the last sentence. Use common sense.
Hu12 says Wikipedia is NOT an internet guide or directory page but... “ "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." ”
This is an comparison page. A reference here is to contribute to the comparison table. These entries are highly relevant. What is the point of having a comparison table if nearly no entry can be added into it?
Another case where a so-called rule or guideline is rigidly applied without some common senses. ;) Odd Master (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177857754
Hu12 comment: remove blatent vandalism/insertion of my post
I realise I made a mistake here. I forgot to sign this message (because I'm talking too much in this discussion). But it is clearly not an intention of a blatant vandalism/insertion of his post. Otherwise it will be done more sneakily. Why adding a block of statements which can be realised easily? Instead of accusing me as a blatant vandal, he may simply fix it by adding my signauture back. But he chose to censor my comments again.
The message censored by the admin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177859356
Hu12 comment: rmv unauthorised refactoring of my comment, another attempt by Odd Master editing of other users' comments to substantially change their meaning
He actually edited his own comment. I haven't edit anyone's comments to substantially change their meaning. A complete frame-up!
He banned me after the incident.
I registered as Odd_Master2 and reported this incident.
After all, please comment about the appropriateness of the following:
Thank you.
PS: Sorry that the report may look ugly. I found it hard to discuss here. Wikipedia should install a proper forum software to prevent this kinds of problems in future. But I believe it won't be realised in any forseeable future.
Whilst talk pages may lack the structure of forums, they work OK for most people Mayalld ( talk) 14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor under 70.112.185.154 used profanity toward another editor (probably me) in the edit summary log of the Dana DeArmond article. The abuse is obvious although the motivation for such incivility is unclear. Vinh1313 ( talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over the article Swedish language which primarily involves myself and panda, but has lately expanded to include many other editors. It's centered mostly around the content of the Swedish langugae article and to a great extent referencing, but also a lot of other minor issues like date formatting and the likes. The problem as I perceive it is that panda is tackling the business of trying to improve the article by nitpicking certain issues to death. Often there is a distinct feeling that there is an acute lack of experience or knowledge of the linguistic topics debated. When confronted with replies that argue his points, the reaction for the most part has been to keep arguing with new, yet mostly irrelevant ad hoc arguments, or to cite policy over and over again. Another very disconcerting tactic is to simply turn every single argument presented to him around and throw it back at his opponent. All of this is often followed by claims that failure to comply with panda's suggestion (or anyone else's opinions that he happens to agree with) is tantamount to being biased, trying to own the article and breeching guidelines or policies.
There's not so much a problem of name-calling and overt rudeness as a frustrating lack of tact in the fact of counter-arguments, no matter how good or bad they may be. I have lost my temper with panda more than once, but I have apologized for it at his talk page.
Examples of the behavior that I find most problematic can be found in these threads:
Peter Isotalo 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
From my interactions with him, also on Swedish language, Panda is a tenacious editor who will rarely concede a point and will continue to flog the horse far too long. He has a confrontational attitude and is quick to point to his opponents transgressions (as you can see above), while not recognizing that a less confrontational attitude may be more productive. His comments are generally civil and on topic, but often include accusations of bias and quoting of policy, and little or no attempts at deescalation and finding a compromise. Like Peter, I've found this to be frustrating.
I believe that Panda is genuinely trying to improve the articles he works on, but I wish he would adopt a different attitude while trying to do so. henrik• talk 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Both Peter and Henrik have made many accusations and I will address each of them below.
For disclosure purposes, Henrik has backed Peter on just about everything in the Swedish language article. Henrik has "collaborated with Peter before and respect him as a good article writer" [25] and has even claimed that I've "made some questionable decisions before regarding this article and has driven the main author to a wikibreak" [26], without any evidence of the so-called questionable decisions and despite the fact that Peter was edit warring with other editors about date linking. Apparently he blames me for asking for outside opinion about the date linking issue (see Template talk:Cite web#Why is the date wikilinked?), which has drawn several editors to the article, with whom Peter has edit warred. Henrik apparently realized how uncivil he was being towards me as he choose to apologize on my talk page. [27] But not so long afterwards he choose to attack an editor who was linking dates by only asking him to stop reverting, [28] even though Peter was also reverting. [29] When I pointed out how biased his comments were, [30] Henrik went claimed that editors who oppose Peter's opinions are participating in "low-level harassment and wikilawyering" and that "he [Peter] shouldn't have to deal with crap like this." [31] So it's no surprise that Henrik is here defending Peter.
Henrik claims that:
Peter claims that:
– panda ( talk) 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Peter has also claimed:
– panda ( talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
All of my comments above having been said, now that I have had a chance to read through some of the conversations, I believe all parties involved in this dispute should take a step back and cool off for a little while. The pattern I'm seeing right now is the result of a personality clash mainly between Peter and Panda. I'll address both of you in turn.
Peter: The initial dispute appears to have grown out of a content dispute - very common here - but I found your way of addressing Panda to be fairly antagonistic. While I can certainly appreciate when people are direct, you appeared to be accusing Panda of bad faith toward the beginning of the dispute, and when he responded in kind to you, things started to get blown out of proportion. Remember, folks, attack the content, not the editor. I would suggest that you read back over your messages to Panda and look at them as though they were directed at you - that will generally help to keep things civil. In particular, commenting to an editor about their modus operandi is generally a bad thing, as it sounds accusatory, even if it wasn't meant to be.
Panda: Likewise, I saw a tendency for you to jump to conclusions fairly quickly about what other editors were trying to do, and/or whether they were trying to gang up on you, as well as defending your work almost to the point of raising ownership concerns. I'd recommend that you ease off the trigger a bit - content disputes are going to arise virtually everywhere, because different people have different ideas of how an article should be written and organized, how citations should appear, etc. I am not in any position to speak on this particular dispute or to take sides, since I have no knowledge of (or interest in) the subject, but from a policy standpoint, I think you owe some responsibility in this dispute as well.
I'm pretty certain that later portions of this dispute have their genesis in the beginning part of it - after initial hostilities, both sides are likely to just automatically dismiss each other as hot-headed jerks without really giving much thought to the discussion, because they're both mad at each other already. Again, I think the best thing is for all of you to disengage for a little while and come back when you've cooled off and are ready to address the content and put your personal differences aside. You're all good editors, and we want to encourage you all to keep editing Wikipedia, but it's important for you guys to do so in a way that avoids edit wars and personal conflicts - otherwise, we're going to get nowhere.
Thanks. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (outdent) Reply to Bishonen: If you hadn't fabricated a story to support your statement, then maybe I would have taken your comments more seriously. There's also a big difference between claiming that you've studied the talk page and only taken random dips.
If you want the quick and short version, then read the comments Peter made to me on my talk page: User talk:Panda#Swedish references and User talk:Panda#Fact tagging. Things don't happen in a vacuum and if you claim that I've been behaving badly, then it's very likely that the opposing side has provoked it. Don't forget that WP:AGF states that This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. To illustrate, here's an exert of an exchange between Peter and I:
If we examine the above exchange, Peter reverted text I added in good faith twice. He accused me of:
This is an exchange from the very beginning of our interaction. Considering all of Peter's exaggerated claims and bad faith comments made in those 2.5 days, I could have easily posted a wikiquette alert about him, but I didn't see it as possibly being helpful.
Reply to Peter Isolato: I already have, not only in a previous reply but in the exchange above. Why don't you point out a single instance when you've openly conceded a point in a discussion where you have been opposed?
Reply to KieferSkunk: See my reply to Bishonen. If you don't want to go read the talk pages and diffs, then an excerpt is now posted here for you to examine.
– panda ( talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To KieferSkunk: You commented that I'm being "very defensive and very willing to say that everyone is ganging up on" me. [75] When the accusing editors are attacking me with false accusations and they all know each other, am I not allowed to defend myself and disclose their relationship? Should I ignore them and assume that you and everyone else will figure out that there are many false accusations be thrown at me? Please explain how you would react. – panda ( talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Panda, a question. I don't think anyone is happy with the current situation, you, Peter or anyone else. What do you think you could have done differently to have avoided this? What can you do to avoid getting into situations like this in the future with other editors? I mean this as honest questions, not some kind of rhetorical device. henrik• talk 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Personally, I consider the dispute over. You and Henrik seem to be the only ones who want to continue it. But since you asked for it, here goes.
Let's first consider what I did: For issues which conflicted with Peter's opinions, I asked for outside opinions in several different forums and then I brought those comments to the article and asked others to also comment in the article's talk page. Those comments conflicted with Peter's opinions, and he attacked me with many exaggerated claims in the article's talk page, my talk page, and in other talk pages. So the only recourse I had was to either:
Considering what I know about Peter today, a WQA early in the conflict probably would have been the more effective resolution since many other editors have instead chosen to leave the topic, possibly helping to create Peter's current apathetic attitude towards fellow editors. Peter also typically does not agree with a single editor with a conflicting opinion, but is more willing to listen to multiple editors who do not agree with him, although even then he can sometimes continue to edit war, such as the case with date linking. So a WQA where outside editors could point out Peter's uncivil remarks may have been useful in reducing the conflict early, and would have very likely prevented me from becoming so provoked that I felt it was time to reply back to Peter in the same manner he addressed me with. In the future, I'll probably use the WQA route much earlier when an editor is ignoring outside opinions, making personal attacks, and assuming bad faith unnecessarily.
Regarding ownership issues, this isn't something that I use lightly. Peter is the second editor that I have accused this of. After having read WP:OWN several times, I feel I am justified in accusing him of this. Next time, I should list my rationale for accusing an editor of WP:OWN, instead of only stating it. I'm also happy to list them here if someone insists. But Peter should just read WP:OWN since many of his actions are reflected in that article, especially in WP:OWN#Ownership examples.
I suspect this won't make you happy, but you were warned.
- panda ( talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I'll post the same question for you. What do you think you could have done differently to have avoided this? What can you do to avoid getting into situations like this in the future with other editors? henrik• talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
User has engaged in a number of uncivil and hostile edits. He first called me a "revert whore" and I warned him about being hostile. Additionally, he refuses to follow citation methods, and is openly against it. After my warning him here and here, he was openly defiant by saying that references are "a low priority job that can be done at a later date" ( ref), and was defiant again in this edit summary. The user has been warned a number of times about following Wiki policy by me and an administrator. On a side note, the user seems to have an attitude problem, calling himself awesome here and here, where he cleared his talk page. I've tried several times with this editor; can someone lend a hand? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel that I have been falsely accused of vandalism in a content dispute with this user regarding edits which I made to Separation of Church and State and evil. I made 1 edit to each of those articles, both of which were reverted by this user. I just joined Wikipedia and I have no desire to vandalize Wikipedia. Muhammad Cthulhu ( talk) 13:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have to report this, but user Wetman has chosen to insult myself over a post on Wetman's personal page in which I stated that I found Wetman's last edit to be "interesting". I then demanded an apology from Wetman, who ignored my request and dismissed my request for an apology as "ravings".
I hope that this was not a pattern of behavior for user Wetman, nor a developing pattern of rudeness and insult. Oroblanco ( talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Resolved? In what way? It doesn't matter, now have a good understanding of Wetman and Wiki. Incident forgotten. Oroblanco ( talk) 06:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In this past week, this administrator has name-called [82], deleted references without checking (then lying about it) [83], and knowingly given misleading instructions [84]. These events started on Dec 11th, four days after the previous wikiquette alert regarding this administrator [85] and under two months since he was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and personal insults [86]. Mikkalai is learning to game the system and I suspect that he will try to cover his tracks better in the future. I'm not seeking an apology. Mainly, I am seeking to equip the many other good wikipedians that might be tempted to bow to the undeserved tactics and authority of this admin. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no incivility here, nor in the previous complaint. Nor do I see any abuse of power or administrative misbehavior. Anyone can delete a reference, and anyone can make a mistake, and if you think he made a mistake, you should assume good faith and move on. I'm concerned about the fact that your attitude towards Mikkalai is highly suspicious, prejudicial, and cynical. Bringing up resolved or prior instances of problems makes it sound to me like you're fishing to start a problem or a conflict. Try to move on. He made no personal attack, he's editing in good faith, and if you have a content or sourcing dispute, resolving it shouldn't involve compiling a background check on the guy you're disagreeing with and then reporting him here. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
On the assumption of good faith, I set up a disambiguation page at the root term [90], moved Mikkalia's new article to another location[history deleted], and initiated a discussion about the disambiguation [91]. Mikkalia replaced the disambiguation page with his own article, with no disambiguation links, twice. [92] [93]. This demonstrated a lack of good faith.
I can't give a dif regarding the other location. medical_infantilism was deleted along with its history by Mikkalia. Tracks were covered in a way that only an administrator could do [94]. BitterGrey ( talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to put up with comments like this?
Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)