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

Proposal #2: I suggest csloat agree to refrain from the use of the term trolling -- perhaps substituting failing to achieve consensus and the Wikiquette entry closed. Fair enough? Gerardw ( talk) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

While my comment may not actually help, and I haven't engaged in the above discussion, I have seen CS frequently be a bit on the blue side in his approach to civility. Just a small comment though; don't heed this too much. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not, in this case, the problem. On the spectrum, I am to the left of blue....perhaps someplace between violet and ultraviolet. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of Malcolm Schosha's actual number of angstroms, it appears csloat is choosing not to particular further in this forum, so I guess we're stuck. Gerardw ( talk) 01:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're waiting for from me. If it helps, my understanding of what happened on the page in question is that Malcolm stopped trolling when he came to the page and discussed the edits (whether or not he achieved consensus, which he did not). So the proposals above don't work for me, but I also don't see any particular reason I would accuse Malcolm of trolling again, unless he repeats the same trollish behavior (e.g. coming back after a month or two of no discussion on the topic, and making a revert that the consensus clearly opposed, right on the back of an anon ip doing the same thing). I did explain all this on talk, and I stopped accusing him of trolling once he started talking, so I'm really not sure of the point of continuing this conversation -- is there something else I should do here? Thanks for your input. csloat ( talk) 04:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat, seems a little silly when accusing me of edit warring, when it is he who just got a three month topic ban because of his edit warring [6]. As can be seen in Commodore Sloat's edit above, he is still calling my editing of the article "trolling". I will continue to edit the article as I see best, and as a result, I am sure this discussion here will soon have a part two. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment above Malcolm - I said you stopped trolling when you started discussing. I think the difference is clear. And the consensus is clear as well, at least 12-1. The topic ban was a huge mistake but it was unrelated to this article as you are well aware. csloat ( talk) 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved outside observer. I've reviewed the discussions to date. My 2c worth. I suggest that both editors review their actions and change basic behaviour. csloat should read WP:CIVIL carefully - it is a core policy. There are too many examples where civility policies have been ignored and where unnecessarily rude, inflammatory and aggressive language was used. Accusations of trolling and using an anon IP address are rarely anything but uncivil. There is no tolerance for repeated incivility in breach of policy on Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha should read WP:BRD as a guideline and WP:CON as policy, and understand that on Wikipedia, consensus wins every time. A previous discussion established a clear consensus to keep the quotes in place. Reverting a revert (of the edit of an anon editor who went against established consensus) 3 times within 24 hours, without discussion, is disruptive and could have resulting in a block for edit warring. If you wish to retest consensus, do so on the Talk page.

I recommend that this Alert is closed, and that both editors calm down, review their own actions, undertake to adhere to core policies in future. -- HighKing ( talk) 14:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I have used "unnecessarily rude, inflammatory and aggressive language." But I don't think the word "trolling" falls into that category under the circumstances. As I said, there was only one instance I identified as "trolling," and I backed up my claim. I see no need to belabor the issue as I don't plan to accuse him of trolling again, but I do wish he would stop editing against the manifest consensus. csloat ( talk) 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A definition of trolling is a deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia. It involves a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution. It is not the same as vandalism. Your rationale for calling his behaviour trolling is, in fact, incorrect. Reverting, even an edit war against consensus, is not trolling. You should really withdraw your remark - you probably intended to strongly highlight disruptive behaviour (which is different). Your apology is a great step forward though. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, reverting alone is not trolling, but reverting without discussion on the heels of an anon ip making the same revert, months after consensus was established, comes a lot closer. Either way, I think it's silly we're spending this much time talking about an edit summary from so long ago; let's put it behind us. csloat ( talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is far from clear, and my position on that edit has been clearly explained, and is based in WP guidelines (i,e. that Tariq Ali is not a WP:reliable source on the subject of any aspect of antisemitism). Another editor has recently question the publisher of the source [7], and this morning another editor yet deleted the same disputed material [8]. So the claim of consensus is rather exaggerated. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 14:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was established months earlier on the Talk page. While it's fine to revert once, it should have been obvious to you pretty quickly that your editting was disruptive, especially given that a number of editors reverted your reversions. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is extremely clear. You are the only editor who has been supporting the deletion until today, when Armon has joined you. There are at least twelve editors who would like to see the information remain in the article. And counterpunch is a perfectly reliable source for the claim that Ali said a particular thing, as has been established. csloat ( talk) 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Commodore Sloat's aggressive incivility has driven away some editors. As, for example, user UbUb, who does not show up any more [9]. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You were correct to highlight inappropriate behaviour here. And I would encourage you to do it again if it reoccurs, but you might be wise to ensure that your own behaviour, which will also be scrutinized, is beyond reproach. There is no tolerance for breaches of policy on Wikipedia, and those editors that have difficulty learning this lesson are temporarily blocked. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Aggressive incivility"? This from the person who accused me of writing "crap" and then ridiculed me for taking offense? And who on top of all that accused his fellow editors of being " antisemitic creeps"?

Who is Ubub anyway? I never had any interaction with that user whatsoever other than the edit Malcolm pointed to, and I will note that Ubub never responded to my questioning why he/she offended, and that he/she continued to edit wikipedia for months after the interaction in question. To believe that Ubub's disappearance has anything to do with me really strains credulity. csloat ( talk) 17:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Commodore Sloat's aggressive incivility is exactly the problem. I brought this here because of his characterizing me as a "troll", and he has actually repeated that insult here. Those editors of the New-antisemitism article who were more gentle souls left because of the incivility. Saying this is not an invention, Commodore Sloat got a three topic bane elsewhere because of that very approach to editing. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's avoid widening the scope of the complaint here. An apology has been proffered above for any unnecessary rude, etc, language. Accept it gracefully, close the complaint, and focus on improving the article. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, surely you two can both tone down the inflammatory accusations and focus on improving the articles in question? If doing so is going to be difficult on your own, your situation may benefit from getting some outside mediation; WP:DR has a variety of useful suggestions. Surely you're both in agreement that the current approach of attacking eachother's credibility isn't going to work and isn't resulting in a better encyclopedia. Warren -talk- 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attacking Malcolm at all. But it seems odd that my behavior would be in question for using "trolling" in a pretty verifiable manner, whereas his is not for using "crap" and "antisemitic creep" to discuss his fellow editors (including me). I also think this accusation that I drove Ubub (whoever that is) away by alleged but unspecified incivility is an unwarranted personal attack. It should be me bringing complaint about Malcolm here, not the other way around. csloat ( talk) 18:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If Commodore Sloat's apology still stands (and that is not entirely clear), I accept....even if it does consist mostly of qualifiers and disclaimers. I regret it if, in the process of making my point, I tramped all over Commodore Sloat's feelings with my hobnail boots. And, thanks also for the patience of those editors of this noticeboard who have facilitated a resolution. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: It has only been determined a few hundred times that a description of "trolling" or being called a "troll" is not uncivil in and of itself. Trolling is a sequence of events or intent, as per an essay. Any attempt to degrade another editor, or to force them to stop editing because of differences in opinion are a violation of WP:NPA. From what I see, there's an awful lot of that from all sides. You all know better than that. I would prefer to see this closed, and people get on to actually editing - let's call it "coincidental minors" (which you'll understand if you know hockey) ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You will forgive me if I disagree with you about that. I do agree with HighKing [10] Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me the consensus is that calling someone a "troll" is not uncivil per ^[1], HighKing's edit above, and this essay ^[2]. In any event, it seems unnecessary -- why not just revert the edit with "not consensus opinion" and leave it at that? Gerardw ( talk) 21:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that saying he thinks I am "wrong" would do. If I am editing against the majority, I clearly can not impose my view. In fact, the current version of the material sourced to Tariq Ali (which is the disputed material) is my re-write. I do make compromises, which is (in my view) an essential for writing an NPOV article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's give sloat an opportunity to respond, but I believe that there is a renewed spirit of cooperation and WP:AGF from both main parties and in essence this can be closed. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear on most of the recent comments here - are we agreed that the word "troll" is not always uncivil? Can we at least agree that calling me an "antisemitic creep" is extremely uncivil, far worse than "troll"?? Again, I am astounded and alarmed that anyone thinks I did something here that even comes close to comparing to the incivility I am faced with in Mr. Schosha. I guess the answer is to be the first one to report insults but personally I'd rather spend my time actually contributing to an encyclopedia. It is frustrating to have to spend so much more time defending myself against phony charges than actually discussing the articles. csloat ( talk) 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In some circumstances, the word troll is not always uncivil. In the circumstances in which you used it, it was incorrect and in breach of WP:CIVIL. Creating an alert here usually results in parties having their behaviour surrounding the incident examined - if you wish to widen the scope to include other incidents, it might be best if you open a WikiAlert at the appropriate time. You were not called an antisemitic creep, why are you claiming you were? Also, claiming that the complaint is a "phony charge" indicates to me that you are unwilling to accept that your behaviour in this incident was inappropriate. This is an opportunity to cool down, clear the slate, reflect on your behaviour a little with a view to modifying the inappropriate bits, and start to work on the articles. -- HighKing ( talk) 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have explained why I thought the word was appropriate in that one context, and I haven't seen an adequate refutation of that explanation. I also don't care too much to fight about it anymore - Malcolm seems willing to discuss things in talk now so I see no reason to call him a troll again (and I did not think his further reverts were trollish per se). I still have not seen an adequate explanation for Malcolm calling my arguments "crap" or for his saying that he suspected his fellow editors (which I assume includes me since I was one he had a conflict with at the time he said it) of being "antisemitic creeps" - you may be technically correct that he didn't say "csloat is an antisemitic creep," but this sort of backhanded nonsense is just as insulting and is in fact a way of saying this without taking responsibility for it. I'm unclear on why you would want to enable such behavior while pouncing on the relatively mild word "troll." Malcolm, why don't you tell us -- do you think I am antisemitic, or a creep? If not, will you apologize for implying that I am, or will you explain which other users you had in mind when you said that? csloat ( talk) 00:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I regret that I erred in failing to follow Editor responding instructions properly which I changed the section tag to stuck ^[3] in that I failed to provide the suggested recommendations for continuing. In hindsight, stale would have been the appropriate tag. I, too, agree that this alert should be closed. As I understand the process, we can only consider it resolved when both csloat and Malcolm Schosha come to agreement. This seems unlikely, as csloat won't even simply agree not to use the term troll when less Civility-gray alternates exist, and Malcolm Schosha wouldn't even simply agree follow consensus. ^[4]. It is probably best at this point to recuse myself from further discussion and will do so. Best wishes for a happy to all parties and contributing editors. Gerardw ( talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've unwittingly mischaracterized what I said. I will certainly agree not to use "troll" when terms like "refusing to go along with consensus" are more accurate; I just don't think the one situation that started all this fits. I do think Malcolm needs to reply to my question above, however. Thanks. csloat ( talk) 01:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It would help enormously if you accepted that you used the term erroneously in this instance and that a better choice would have been along the lines of "going against established consensus". I believe that would be sufficient to close this. -- HighKing ( talk) 01:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Except that would not have been a better choice for that particular edit summary. Would it also help if Malcolm admitted to using the term "antisemitic creep" erroneously? I'm a little mystified by the amount of attention to this one edit summary which there is not even a consensus that agrees was uncivil in any way. I also have apologized and agreed not to use the term troll where it is not accurate. I think I've done more than enough, and I'm still waiting for some kind of apology for Malcolm's own blatant incivility. Cheers, csloat ( talk) 02:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's now obvious that csloat fails to accept that this complaint has merit, but there is no point in pursuing this matter any further. Civility is a serious matter - so much so, that it forms a core policy. Since both editors are now aware of their actions and behaviours that are considered inappropriate and disruptive, both can consider themselves warned. I expect that those editors that have learned something won't reappear here. I recommend that this Alert is closed if Malcolm agrees. csloat has already indicated he wants this incident closed. -- HighKing ( talk) 13:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Commodore Sloat has not agreed to anything. He has "agreed not to use the term troll where it is not accurate." He seems to still think that is an accurate description of me. I will stand by my earlier statement the His aggressive incivility has driven away other editors of the article, and he apparently still hopes to drive me away also. If that does not fit the description of WP:disrupt, I do not know what does. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth Malcolm; I explained above pretty clearly my position and I don't require further interpretation from you. Also, please do not impute phony intentions to me either -- claiming that I intend to disrupt or to chase users off the site, especially with such ridiculous "evidence" as one comment from a user I've never heard of, is particularly uncivil. Thanks! csloat ( talk) 16:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, yes I agree to close this. If there is a need at a later time, I think taking it to AN/I would be justified. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So, Malcolm, will you answer my question? Did you call me an "antisemitic creep", and if so why? If not, who were you referring to? Cheers, csloat ( talk) 16:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not. I am quite sure that if you thought I had you would have brought a complaint here about that, or to AN/I, months ago. Moreover, if I wanted to spend time going over old stuff, there is an endless amount of your aggressive incivility that I could have dredged up. Nevertheless, I regret that your feelings were injured. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 16:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I was sure you were referring to me and others on that page; but I didn't even know about this page until you reported me (without the courtesy of a comment on my talk page, I will add) for the relatively inoffensive word "troll." And the fact is I have simply gotten used to tolerating your aggressive incivility, so I didn't bother with AN/I. And, frankly, I don't like wasting time in these forums; I'd rather edit the articles, and this nonsense makes the whole Wikipedia project unappealing to me. But in any case I will take your word for it that you were referring to someone else (care to enlighten us who?) And I accept your apology and I will try to be more vigilant about reporting your incivility in the future when it arises again. Cheers, csloat ( talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat,

1. I did notify you. The notification of this complaint against your incivility is on your talk page. Here is the diff [11]
2. I did not apologize. I expressed regret for your hurt feelings.
3. I hope that in addition to being "vigilant" about my lapses in civility, you will also be vigilant about your own civility problems.

Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough - this is childish. This Alert is closed. Don't leave the rest of the community with the impression that you are unable to behave civilly and appropriately, or that you belong in a playground. Draw a line, move on. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

no response from 88.111.44.234 Gerardw ( talk) 12:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This anon user is being very hostile regarding edits made on Radiohead, and is refusing to assume good faith. I went to his talk page and tried to point out that he was acting rather rudely, and directed him to WP:GOODFAITH, but he simply became even more hostile and called my message on his talk page 'abuse'. I have left another message to him, telling him that it was a very normal edit dispute over wording and nothing to get upset about and left him another link to WP:GOODFAITH, but I really don't think he's even going to look at the link I gave him. Zazaban ( talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an edit war, and neither party has initiated a Talk:Radiohead discussion. User:88.111.44.234 language is less than perfect but it's fairly minor. Recommend taking discussion to Talk:Radiohead and building consensus with other editors. Please post alert on user's talk page per WP:WQA#Instructions_for_users_posting_alerts Gerardw ( talk) 13:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The best first step is to actually show them the rules and policies. I gave him a great big Anon-Welcome template. It points out key rules and recommends a userid. See how it goes from there. However, keep an eye out to see if they're a previous editor with an axe to grind ... ♪BMW Δ 12:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall having ever had any dealings with User:CadenS before, but I am shocked at his/her comments about me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone and User talk:CadenS. Apparently my nomination of Robert Eric Wone for deletion, due to my concerns about BLP violations, is some sort of conspiracy to censor Wikipedia because I have an agenda to make sure that all rapes of straight men by gay men not be reported. I didn't even know, and do not know as of this minute, that Wone was straight and the people the article is trying so very hard to accuse of his murder without saying so, are gay. Little Red Riding Hood talk 07:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I had nearly identical issues with this user and respectfully suggest you take it to WP:ANI as this demonstrates they are simply not able to keep these concerns in check - at least on these issues. This has happened too many times and is draining to the community. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battlefield or therapy. -- Banjeboi 08:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• • This is enlightening. Little Red Riding Hood talk 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CadenS has removed my notification of this discussion from his Talk page without comment or coming here to discuss it: [12]. Little Red Riding Hood talk 08:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have closed this due to forum-shopping as it has been reposted at ANI, based on clarification of timing provided by the original editor. ♪BMW Δ 15:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

::The wording of the close is entirely inappropriate. Little Red Riding Hood talk 18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get snotty with the people who are trying to help. As per my reply on your talkpage, the timestamps on this and the ANI filing are identical. Any confusion would therefore be because you directly copy/pasted rather than re-sign the new entry. ♪BMW Δ 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As per guidelines regarding NPOV disputes, I have posted an RfC on the Quebec talk page regarding two possible POV statements on the Quebec article and made bold edits altering them. Bosonic dressing reverted these edits. I've since added POV tags identifying the passages and continued the discussion on the talk page. Bosonic dressing ( talk) continues not only to revert edits (which is perfectly okay), but continually removes POV tags (which is not).

• 07:40, 4 January 2009
• 07:05, 4 January 2009
• 01:52, 3 January 2009

The editor also overtly and continually states that he does this because he challenges my good faith in this dispute:

07:52, 3 January 2009 "How can this be a good-faith dispute when you appear to have previously challenged the material, then supported it with references, and now (confusingly, even perhaps hypocritically) challenge it again?"

07:37, 4 January 2009 "given your flip-flopping and apparently hypocritical editing regarding this, I question your motives, so -- no -- I do not believe this is a good-faith dispute on your part."

Please remind Bosonic dressing to always maintain civility on the discussion board and assume assume good faith on my part by keeping dispute tags on contested items until this dispute has been resolved; POV tags are entirely appropriate in such an ongoing discussion. Self-reverting and restoring the tags would do much to show that the editor is now assuming good faith. -- soulscanner ( talk) 08:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You've already reminded them of such, which really is the first step you need to take before coming here. I have, however, given a re-welcome to remind them of the policies. ♪BMW Δ 11:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would assume good faith if said editor actually demonstrated it; the reporter's summary only tells part of the story. A perusal of the 'Quebec' article history revealed that this editor previously participated in a similar discussion about inclusion of the 'Québécois notion', seemed to be the sole objector to including this notion, and thereafter supported including it (qualified) and arrived at neutral wording; see Talk:Quebec/Archive7#Consensus_version_1. As said notions are mentioned even later in this introduction and essentially unchanged from before, the text may merit edition but not this editor's solitary and arguably hypocritical addition of POV tags to it. This editor persists in adding the tags -- see WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- and borders on disruption, yet just about every other other editor that has since commented has indicated that the addition of these tags is unjustified, and he has been reverted by one other editor. As another editor put it:

• The tags are being used improperly- you cannot say that an absolute fact is POV.

Is there a reason why this editor can't demonstrate their case on the talk page beforehand? I suppose there is -- they can't or won't. If there is anyone in error, it isn't me. Bosonic dressing ( talk) 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a civility issue. I see a budding edit war being cast as a civility issue. The discussion on [[Talk::Quebec]] seems to be tending towards the consensus removal of the tags, therefore I don't see removing the tags as evidence of a lack of good faith, especially as Bosonic dressing is contributing the talk page discussion. Gerardw ( talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone possibly have a word with User:ThuranX regarding his rather robust language on Talk:Egon Schiele? As far as I know I have no previous history with the user. I removed what seemed a poor and unreferenced section of the article, he restored it, then got rather heated when I asked him to reference it. It's all there and at User talk:ThuranX#Egon Schiele. I don't think this sort of minor dispute requires that sort of passion, nor is this what I look for in an encyclopedic discussion. -- John ( talk) 06:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although i agree that John's ThuranX's language may have been unessecarily colorfull, it seems to me that you may have (unintentionally?) provoked him with your suggestion that he "find another hobby." This phrase of yours implies that you think he is not worthy of the website, and even though your tone always remains civil, your meaning does not. He should be more polite and reasonable, but so should you. -- Lobsterquadrille ( talk) 09:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree in substance with Lobsterquadrille - that incivility should not be rewarded with the same - I think that such is hardly the case here. Suggesting that (and I quote directly instead of taking the phrase out of context):

"...you may find this a more enjoyable hobby if you can learn not to take things so personally" ¹

is fairly sound advice, especially in response to this post by ThuranX. John went on to remind ThuranX of his rather repetitive (and yes, annoying as all get out) tendency to become more than just a wee snarky by reminding him of our civility policy (not guideline but policy). To whit, John was pointing out that ThuranX was forgoing the following:

• Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
• Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others.
• Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible

Unfortunately, this is not a new problem with ThuranX. His/her own contact with me when I was a newbie nearly made me walk away from the Project, his/her behavior was that unfriendly. Does ThuranX add good stuff? All the time; that isn't the point, but it is the reason - perhaps the sole reason (s)he hasn't been blocked or banned in the almost three years he/she has been editing here. Anyone else offering an edit asking someone to "Drop dead and keep the fuck away from me, you smug jerk" should be indef blocked without a backwards glance. John has responded with exceptional reserve, and if anything should be poked with barnstars for his appropriate handling of the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue escalated to AN/I marking NWQA. Gerardw ( talk) 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been going on for some time now, and I am getting desperate. Adolf Hitler was a member of the Catholic Church all his life, which has one historian led to the statement, that Hitler "can be classified as nominally Catholic." I've been trying to work this into the article Adolf Hitler. There were several objections to it (and several people who agreed), but my arguments have apparently convinced all editors but one. This one, however, appears to immune to rational argumentation. I spent hours writing on the talk page and searching additional literature, but this had no effect. Furthermore, I have repeatedly been accused of POV-Pushing in the edit summary: [13], [14] To me it appears as if User:Str1977 assumes bad faith. I am honestly only trying to improve the coverage of the topic ( Religion in Nazi Germany) on Wikipedia. This discussion is taking up valuable time that could be used for writing articles; but even worse, it makes me doubt that it has any purpose to contribute. Zara1709 ( talk) 12:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the article history, it appears both User:Zara1709 and User:Str1977 have violated 3rr. The only other editor to contribute to Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.2C_nominally_Catholic.3F states religion in the infobox is not a good idea because it is unrelated to Hitler's notability. One of User:Str1977 edits does leave in the fact that Hitler never left the Catholic church. I see an edit war and no evidence of not assuming good faith. I'd recommend continuing the discussion at Talk:Adolf Hitler and completing the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies process. Gerardw ( talk) 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If I count the reverts correctly we're both at 3. But I have to insist that I am not pushing a certain POV in bad faith. I would be willing to grant the Str1977 has a different view concerning the application of wp:NPOV, but he is not willing to grant the same thing to me.And I tried to list the issue at the rfc noticeboard- it didn't work. Zara1709 ( talk) 13:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This user is WP:STALKing me, reverting all my edits. He has also been suspected being a sockpuppetry. He is also adding term "Assyrian" in all Syriac related articles such as: [15] [16] [17] and many articles more. We already decided to use term Assyrian-Syriac on persons, and term Syriac for villages and the people on Turkey and Syria related articles and term Assyrian on Iraq and Iran-realted articles. Both terms refers to the same group but to avoid vandalism from Assyrian and syriac fanatics, we made this descision on the assyrian syriac cooperation board. what can we do about this user, since he is an assyrian fanatic, that does not provide anything to wikipedia? AramaeanSyriac ([[User talk:AramaeanSyriac|talk]]) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The accusations above are rubbish, take a look at my history, the terms Assyrian/Syriac has been accepted by many of us to end the conflict, as with the Aramaic page is right now. I have left him a message regarding his current edits regarding Khalil Gibrad, he contiues to label him as aramaean-syriac with no sources whatsoever, the so-called source he has provided does not state his name anywhere in the article whatsoever but vaguely state that all maronites are syriacs or syrians, etc. The sock puppet claim above is irrelevant and was dismissed by an admin, this user below continues to remove anything regarding assyrian and replacing with aramaean syriac, he has been blocked on numerous points for war editing, massive redirects and vandalism as seen on his talk page, I provided him an explanantion of my edits on his talk page but he has not taken the time to read them instead he is trying to push his aramaean syriac POV into articles. Ninevite ( talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

...the terms Assyrian/Syriac has been accepted by many of us to end the conflict, Please tell me Where you and your friends decided that? We have a cooperation board with both Assyrian and Syriac members. Please follow the guidelines. Regarding Khalil Gibrad, he is of Syriac descent, and read the source carefully, there it says "..the Arameans (Syriacs)...". You are the one trying to pusch your assyrian pov to the articles. Just check your revision history. You are adding term Assyrian into all articles. Please stop stalking me AramaeanSyriac ( talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny and you are removing assyrian from all the other articles [18] this is just one example of you contradicting yourself, there is more would you like for me to provide them here?. Why are you deleting comments off your page in regards to being blocked and warned, are you trying to hide your history, [19] The Assyrian/Syriac coop board has been inactive for months, get yourself updated with recent revisions done lately with adding assyrian/syriac to villages, singers, geographical palce, stop contradicting yourself, [20] , [21], [22] and so on, the source you have used does not state his name anywhere, stop making up stuff. Ninevite ( talk) 00:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny and you are removing assyrian from all the other articles ... That person lived 1900 years ago. The term "assyrian" was not used during that time. everyone in our group were known as suryoye, syrians (Syriacs). The correct term to use on that person is Syriac. The term Assyrian came up 50 years ago. When dealing with people from 20th century and now, then the term Assyrian or AssyrianSyriac can be used. And the term Syriac is a term used to coin in everyone who call themselves for Assyrians,Syriacs,Arameans etc. AramaeanSyriac ( talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. A user is entitled to remove warnings from their talk, it's considered to be an implicit acceptance of the warning, if it was indeed valid. It's not "hideable" due to edit history. Why don'tthe two of you take a break until tomorrow, then live with any consensus that has been determined either via a project or the relative Talk pages. ♪BMW Δ 00:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well, if he feels that strongly about it, I dont care if Khalil gibrad is of martian ancestry, I just pointed out his soucre was pov and completly irrelevent in not even stating his name in the article. I must say I wont be commenting on this anymore, since I have lost complete interest, by the way your little comment of "The term Assyrian came up 50 years ago." is unsourced, unhistorical, bigoted, and as far as I am concerned racist, take your Aram Nahraim Megalommatis views elswhere please, As far as this shindig goes I am done talking about this, moving onto other things. Ninevite ( talk) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Nineveh 209 ( talk · contribs) should practice on being polite or at least not being impolite. Indeed he seems to have been stalking me to, calling me a bigot and incompetent every time he has the chance to do so. I must say I don't appreciate it. [23], [24], [25], [26]. And even here above he calls people for bigot and acusses someone of being racist, which isn't the first time either.

Also he has previosuly attacked me in an other language than English which has been noticed here [27]. The TriZ ( talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning left. In fact, all of you - consider yourselves warned. Additional insults will be taken to ANI immediately. Take the day off of Wikipedia, cool down, and come back and edit according to policy. ♪BMW Δ 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your notice the following part of a conversation. The conversation was held on one of the hottest Talk pages of the moment, The Israel-Gaza conflict. I would like to complain about the language of user Leladax. Please see for yourself.

{begin of quote}
Yeah, VERY unbiased. I just watched a report in its front page showing the borders of Israel encompassing all Palestinian territories. Go back into your Hebrew fanaticism close circle cause here you're only being ridiculed publicly. Leladax ( talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Leladax. I find your language insulting. Please consider changing part of your last comment. Debresser ( talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggest you report him at WP:DRAMA. That was bullshit and uncalled for. Borderline antisemitic, if not antisemitic period.-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

{end of quote}

A warning was left in response to this statement on his talk page. He has been warned, and as far as I can see, this is no longer an ongoing issue. If there are other actions and statements by this user that need to be brought to the community's attention, please provide diffs, otherwise I would say the matter has been dealt with as appropriate (a warning by a third party user) and should be closed. Theseeker4 ( talk) 13:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Debresser ( talk) 13:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Stuck

 – referred to WP:DR Gerardw ( talk) 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Unarchived per user request I went to WQA for help Gerardw ( talk) 23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Both have accused me of canvassing at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos (see the bottom of the page...it's a long read) when I have indeed done no such thing. Thoughts on how to handle it? — BQZip01 —  ^talk 02:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the accusations, and please notify the two users you have complaints against about this Wikiquette entry to better enable discussion and resolution. Theseeker4 ( talk) 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[28] [29]. Notifying users. My question really is just a request for feedback as to what others recommend I should do. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 03:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to chase this discussion to every corner of Wikipedia. Please stop looking for personal attacks where there are none. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 03:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why I didn't talk to them first. I was wondering what to do about them before taking any affirmative action. Specifically, ESKog has accused me of canvassing twice "re-canvassing".

ESKog, I have not asked you to discuss anything about that here in any way and was doing what another respected user requested. I never said it was a personal attack, but a distortion (which I requested be retracted) and/or slander (please understand there is a difference). I am going to bed now, but will respond as soon as I can in the near future. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing evidence of civility violation by User:ESkog and User:Hammersoft. Remember WP:AGF I recommend you continue discussion on appropriate talk page. Gerardw ( talk) 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but unfounded accusations of violations of WP:CANVASS aren't incivil? — BQZip01 —  ^talk 03:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

BQZip01 did canvass this poll but I think he did so accidently and probably doesn't realise he did. He notified all previous participants in the RFC (myself included and I am diametrically opposed to his opinion on the issue in question) which is a reasonable thing to do. What he likely did not realise is that many of the previous participants had come along only because another editor had canvassed them and the relevant Wikiproject. By notifying previous particpants, BQZip01 inadvertently repeated this previous attempt to skew the RFC. I don't think he can reasonably be held responsible for this effect. CIreland ( talk) 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you look at the diff I did not say BQZ violated WP:CANVASS. Canvas has neutral connotations as well as negative ones, and none of what I said made accusations of violating anything. I simply said that re-voting on something where voting had already taken place is counter productive. It is counter productive. That's not a personal attack. I stand by my words. Quoting WP:CANVASS, "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions" That's what BQZ did, and calling it canvassing is entirely appropriate, given that even the guideline itself shows there are neutral connotations to that. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 04:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But you did so implying it was improper to do so and the opinions of those "canvassed" were somehow tainted or improper to the discussion. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More examples

[30] Implication being that those who do not agree with him are insane Disparaging others' views because of their affiliation(s), Distorting others' opinions, belittling further discussion, claim of consensus to justify actions where no consensus exists, another claim of consensus to justify actions where no consensus exists, yet another claim of consensus to justify actions where no consensus exists, wasting time by requesting discussion on a page and then refusing to discuss, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 ( talk • contribs)

As noted, WP:CANVASS has neutral and negative implications. As already noted, the complainant may have inadvertantly canvassed, and it was brought to their attention instead of taking it to WP:ANI; that's mighty neighbourly of the other editors, and is very much the way Wikipedia should work (politely advising of an issue, rather than running to the "police"). The original complainant's stated lack of desire to bring the issue to WQA in lieu of discussing with the other editors is truly an appalling violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. We all edit collaboratively. The above addition of the "shotgun" effect (throwing a bunch of things out there, hoping one will hit the target) is unfortunate. I will agree, that let's say only 3 people are editing an article, and 2 of those 3 say "no", it's not quite "officially" consensus because of !vote, but it's enough consensus in most cases (4 !votes vs 2 !votes is a different story). This is a collaborative encyclopedia. Get used to collaborating. Get used to having your edits challenged. This is how it works. On top of that, as "slander" implies a legal tone, I would highly recommend those accusations be struck as per WP:NLT, as that is a serious violation of policy and can be immediately dealt with under WP:ANI. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 12:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I did request those users on numerous occasions to retract their comments and have discussed with them ad nauseum. I brought it to WQA for advice as to what should be done about what I perceive to be a problem. My desire not to involve them was to simply answer my original query in order not to escalate the situation further, not to exclude them from discussion. I never stated a desire to bring it to WQA instead of talking with other editors (I tried discussion first, not last) or working collaboratively.

The above "shotgun", as you called it, was an attempt to show that uncivil behavior has continued (showing that the original problem has not gone away).

As for consensus, the problem I have with it is that on this page (now over 300KB in size), seven editors in the general dissenting minority with regards to the original post discussed for three days and decided to do things a certain way. These two users viewed that 3-day discussion (hidden in the middle of a section that wasn't labeled with anything close to what the discussion was about) as "consensus" to do as they pleased. In reality, a score Dof people disagree with that decision. All I have ever stated about that is that there is not consensus to do what they stated. Please note I am not saying there is consensus to oppose their decision either. But to make an edit and claim justification for it by saying their is consensus is misleading. To label anyone who opposes their opinion as "starting an edit war" is uncivil, inaccurate, misleading, etc.

I've had two articles on which I've worked be featured on the main page...I am well aware of the reality of having my edits challenged on Wikipedia. On this page alone, I disagree with about 20-40 editors on various subjects. I have no issue with my views being challenged whatsoever, but to belittle others with whom you disagree is out of line. That is the behavior I wish to challenge.

" Slander" has many meanings only one of which is a legal term. There is no attempt at a legal challenge or threat in this case. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Waiting is the hardest part... — BQZip01 —  ^talk 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-binding informal forum. Three editors other than those named in the complaint have commented, and several more have commented on other alerts but chose not to intervene here. I'm not aware that any have concluded the comments were uncivil. Whether there is or is not consensus and/or an edit war is not something determined at this forum. You are obviously welcome to pursue the manner at other WP:DISPUTE forums. I suggest you note you have previously posted here and we were unable to resolve the issue. Gerardw ( talk) 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is not consensus 'and both editors admit it, but they are both using a distortion of a discussion to justify actions. Then when they are opposed, they scream about an edit war. If (and only if) my assertions are accurate, would you not consider this action to be uncivil? — BQZip01 —  ^talk 00:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Figures! Only now when I'm sleep deprived do I run across exactly what I'm trying to refer to: Wikipedia:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#Gaming_the_system#7 is what I'm talking about. Claiming consensus to justify actions where no consensus exists is inherently disruptive. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 08:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I hereby request archival of this. Behavior has changed and we have reached a tentative consensus. I see no reason for this to go anywhere else. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 23:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ibaranoff24 has acted in an uncivil manner towards me on the Mudvayne talk page and edit summaries. He has used unnecessary intimidating language (“You have been warned about this”, when I am simply inserting sources [31]), accused me on multiple occasions of “strongarming my POV” (when again all I’m doing is adding sources), here [32] here [33] and here [34], and claimed that I “lie to justify flagrant attempts to force your own opinion” here [35]. Prophaniti ( talk) 08:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you learned about escalating content disputes. This arguement is about Reliable Sources. You want to determine Reliable sources, you take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please refrain from escalating disputes needlessly to the point where edit-warring begins. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 12:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not about content dispute though: whether the content is acceptable or not is irrelevant, the problem is Ibaranoff's behaviour. Prophaniti ( talk) 12:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is about the content dispute. Read my userpage ... ABC. Fix the content dispute, and neither of you will be escalating needlessly, and will spare us the WP:DRAMA.( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track)

No, it is not about content. Saying to one user "You lie to justify flagrant attempts to force your own opinion" is not acceptable behaviour. Period. The content is irrelevant. It is not good enough to say "If there's any content involved at all, then users can act however they choose". And if you're worried about causing drama, I suggest taking it up with Ibaranoff, since he is the user responsible for it. Prophaniti ( talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Prophaniti, the problem here is everything can be traced to edit warring. Changes have been made, then reverted, starting a reversion war between (primarily) you and Ibaranoff, both of whom it would seem from the article history have violated policy against edit warring. The way to discuss and determine consensus if you and another user disagree on a particular addition/source/etc. is not to keep reverting each other. The way to work around it is to post a comment/question/etc. in the talk page, and wait for input. It may take days, but Wikipedia has no deadline. Let the revision you disagree with stand and get others to discuss it. Even if the editor you are having a disagreement with won't discuss it, if you build a consensus with other users, act on that consensus and it is reverted, you are justified to take the matter to the next step, to report the editor editing against consensus. There is no clear consensus at the talk page in question that I can see to support either view, which means no more contentious edits should be made until more imput and some agreement is reached. While Ibaranoff may have made comments that are not entirely civil, in the heat of an edit war (edit wars take two or more to participat) you are involved in, his comments are explicable, though I wouldn't say justifiable. The main issue here is the content dispute, NOT his comments, as his comments are directly in response to you two edit warring. Theseeker4 ( talk) 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Content is involved, but I should think 90% of all disputes and wikiquette breaches are connected with content disputes. The point is, regardless of the content (so long as it isn't outright vandalism, which it's plain to see it isn't), he has broken wikiquette. He has lashed out and taken a very hostile, aggressive tone. This is not acceptable. I'm not here to solve the dispute: as it happens, I have taken it to the talk page. I have been discussing it. Ibaranoff is refusing to budge, so I have taken the content dispute to the appropriate noticeboard. That is the step I have taken to deal with the content. This is nothing to do with that. I'll say it again: I have not come here to solve the dispute. I have come here because Ibaranoff has acted badly, and me telling him that will only be dismissed. If we have wikiquette guidelines, then you have a responsibility to uphold and remind people of them.

I'll put it in the simplest terms: Ibaranoff has acted against wikiquette guidelines. That's the end of it. If you will refuse to do anything, then you are also saying that users can say whatever they please with absolutely no fear of repercussions. Prophaniti ( talk) 14:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would simply suggest that you read the top of the Wikiquette page, particularly the part about this being "a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." You have now had two uninvolved users explain to you that there is no major civility issue here, it is an edit warring and content dispute issue. You disagree, that is fine, that is your right, but nothing more can or will come from this noticeboard. Again, this is an informal forum for advice, not a request for administrator intervention, arbitration, etc. I suggest you follow Bwilkins' and my advice and step back, cool down, refrain from edit warring even if you are in the right, and take any other disputes to the appropriate forums or noticeboards. That is my opinion, you can agree or disagree, but as the Wikiquette page says, this board is for advice. Good luck. Theseeker4 ( talk) 16:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the issue to the appropriate noticeboard, and the talk page. I have engaged in discussion, and taken the proper steps to resolving the dispute. As I said, I did not come here in an attempt to resolve the dispute. I came here to report that a user was ignoring wikiquette. This page does say it's for advice, but it's also for reporting users. I understand and acknowledge it is not the place from which binding warnings or any such with arise, and I have never sought that. I all I sought was someone to remind Ibaranoff that he was breaking the rules and being unnecessarily hostile, because any such reminders from me would simply be ignored. I came here because I am being insulted. It's apparent that this doesn't matter, and I shall bear in mind for future reference that users may insult other users as much as they wish. Thank you for clearing that up. It really probably would be worth adding somewhere on wikipedia that insults and slurs on other users will go ignored. Prophaniti ( talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration at this point, but please do not go away from this thinking that it is a good idea to claim a precedent has been set and that you can use insults and slurs against other editors. That is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and - like incivility and personal attacks - expressly against policy. Please do pursue other steps in our dispute resolution guidelines and try to determine consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what I have tried to show is the root cause of the problem - antecedent - behavior - consequence. While not excusing behavior, it explains behaviour. On top of that, I disagree that the comments that have been made were truly uncivil. Slightly impolite due to frustration, perhaps, but none worthy as being called a violation of WP:CIVIL. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 20:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Two points. First, this is an aggressively trivial content issue that is hardly worth the emotional engagement that has been spawned. Everyone should calm down. Second and more importantly, this is clearly not a civility violation. It is itself a breach of wiki decorum to accuse of other editors of incivility when that is not the case. I will assume good faith here and accept that the editor who brought this complaint genuinely believed that there was a breach of civility. However, as several uninvolved editors have observed, it is simply not the case. Continued insistence risks becoming willfully vexatious bordering on disruptive. I suggest this be archived and the matter be allowed to work itself out on the talk page of the article in question. Eusebeus ( talk) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the opinion of the third party editors. Disagreement is not inherently uncivil. Both parties showed Good faith at the beginning and got carried away with the edit war without achieving consensus or requesting assistance from other editors. Prophaniti it is good that you asked for assistance. This is just not the assistance you need. Gerardw ( talk) 23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an editor User:Orangemarlin who is making unnecessarily confrontational comments in [ [36]]. This person seems to adopt this tone a lot but he seems to me to be crossing the line here.-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you're the disruptive editor, I find this amusing. You're trying to force editors away from consensus. And you conveniently and rudely forgot to drop a note on my user talk. But anyways this is a ridiculous POV pushing that's truly disruptive. We should move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I'm working out how to use this. "Disruptive editor"? I have not edited the article at all as you well know because you have been scanning my edit history. I am meerly an observer who has taken part in a discussion on a WP policy where you turn abusive and say you will only "get off my case" if I leave the discussion. I suspect an investigation of your edits will show that most of your editing time is involved in unpleasant correspondence of this sort.-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Step 1 of dispute resolution is to discuss directly with the other user on their Talkpage. I've scanned OrangeMarlin's page and see a discussion on this specific topic, but with no input from AssegaiAli. Now that discussion appears to have started, go back and continue it. OM has had past discussions about tone, but I will warn that much of it has occurred after being attacked/goaded first. I'm not saying that's the case this time, just suggesting that one should keep it in mind... ♪BMW Δ 10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AssegaiAli did contribute to the discussion of the issue on Talk:Minoan_eruption#BC.2FAD_convention. The discussion seems to have ended being split between the article and user talk pages. Gerardw ( talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing Talk:Minoan_eruption#BC.2FAD_convention, I'm seeing escalating rhetoric from both parties, but User:Orangemarlin does appear to be pushing the envelope. Gerardw ( talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now also reviewed Talk:Minoan_eruption#BC.2FAD_convention. AssegaiAli has been civil and patient. I agree that Orangemarlin is being unnecessarily rude and disruptive. He was also involved with an inappropriate report on a username today, and has used inappropriate tone/language with other editors too. I recommend Orangemarlin takes some time to reconsider his language, tone, and general behaviour, and to tone it all down. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What he heck does filing a uaa have to do with this WQA? Many people I expect feel that the specific username is, indeed, inappropriate. OrangeMarlin has appeared here and ANI a number of times, and yes, perhaps that shows a pattern. If you have a complaint against a specific editor, deal with it on their talkpage first, but make sure you're not building mountains out of proverbial molehills. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

@BMW, there is certainly no need to respond so aggressively and with a confrontational tone. This WQA is about OrangeMarlin making unnecessarily confrontational comments and it is often wise an appropriate to look at the short term edit history of the editors involved. From a quick perusal, there are many examples that show that OrangeMarlin uses inappropriate language and tone, and appears unable to keep it in check. The UUA was current, and it was pointed out that there was a potential misuse of the UUA process since OrangeMarlin was apparently in dispute with the other editor. All of this is pertinent to get a fuller picture of OrangeMarlins behaviour in relation to this incident. It appears that this incident, this WQA, is not an isolated incident. I was unable to find evidence that OrangeMarlin had been "goaded" first, and you insinuation was unhelpful. For that reason, I made a recommendation above which I believe is reasonable. -- HighKing ( talk) 10:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee HighKing, come down off thy HighHorse for a moment and please AGF a little. My points (when read clearly) were: 1) that many would not disagree with the username Die4Dixie being an inappropriate username, and that 2) as such, a UAA filing is not necessarily a misconduct or proof of personality, and 3) that since OM has been both here and and ANI more than once, further actions would warrant RfC and not this forum. My additional point was that the complainant did NOT try and deal directly with perceived incivility directly with the "offending" user first: that is always the first step in the Wikipedia community. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 12:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this stuck or resolved? There have been no additional comments for a number of days. -- HighKing ( talk) 14:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stale. We haven't reached a mutual agreement (not resolved), we're not sending the parties elsewhere (stuck), it's not nwqa. The complainant hasn't followed up. Gerardw ( talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I will recuse myself from further discussion with this alert as it appears that there is a dispute between myself and Orangemarlin elsewhere. -- HighKing ( talk) 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider this resolved. See below. Spotfixer ( talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope this is the right forum, but there seems to be a running POV dispute and tendentious editing behavior between two editors, User:Spotfixer and User:Schrandit. It ranges across many articles but recent examples include Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., Conscience clause (medical), George Harrison (Irish Republican), and Anti-Mexican sentiment. Also see their talk pages at User_talk:Schrandit and Spotfixer's pre-blanking Talk page. I don't really know what to call this behavior, but it's disrupting multiple articles and seems to be both topical and personal. Is it possible for a more experienced editor to help them chill? Regards, Chuckiesdad 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's not a matter of etiquette, so this is not the right place to discuss it. What's the right place? Well, you could come to my talk page and ask me about it, without the boilerplate threat. Spotfixer ( talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Schrandit is back to his usual pattern of insults. Spotfixer ( talk) 07:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He insulted you? Really? Where? Making claims against others without citing diffs can be considered a personal attack. Cite your claims, or remove them.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs_{Respond on my talk please} 08:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following. Spotfixer's post included the diff ("corrected"). Calling someone a real jerk does qualify as incivil. Gerardw ( talk) 11:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all pretty awful and a huge waste of time. I've tried to work out a compromise but that didn't work out (to be fair to spotfixer it is possible that the terms of my compromise were unreasonable, I can't really serve as an objective judge of that). In any case, I would welcome moderation, from anywhere. - Schrandit ( talk) 07:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikiquette alerts, not Wikicontent alerts. The issue here is purely your behavior.

If this were the first time you insulted me, I'd just let it slide, but it's a rather persistent pattern. I'd like you to stop. Now. It's really that simple. Are you going to stop? Spotfixer ( talk) 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and my favorite of all, 7. Right after you, dear. - Schrandit ( talk) 19:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Schrandit has been warned for calling an editor a "jerk". Spotfixer is entitled to remove some items from his talkpage, except where officially advised not to (especially regarding blocks). Also, the information should not be removed, it should be archived. Referring to editors as "wannabes" is borderline uncivil. Spotfixer has additional mention elsewhere. All involved editors should be considered warned. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 17:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Meanwhile, back at the article where Schrandit was recently and relevantly uncivil, he's edit-warring by reverting without explanation. This is part of his already-documented rule violations in the form of adding bogus cite requests, such as his infamous demand that a cite be cited.

The Schrandit problem needs to be fixed and your hesitancy to block him for incivility and edit-warring is only encouraging him. In fact, he ran around and reverted many of my edits while I was blocked, so he's taking your actions as an endorsement of his WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE violations. He's been taught to ignore all warnings and just keep warring.

Do you have any plans for actions that will put out the fire you've fanned? Spotfixer ( talk) 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and he jumps right back into the incivility. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're going to need to be a lot less vague. Spotfixer ( talk) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"The fire you've fanned" is just a little against WP:AGF there. Maybe it's a good chance to work on your own diplomacy skills...( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When something isn't clear to you, it's best to ask, not make assumptions. In the quote above, I'm referring to you in the plural, which is to say, all administrators who are involved in this and have failed to block a repeat offender. it is neither inaccurate nor uncivil to state that they fanned the flame of Schrandit's misbehavior by essentially coddling him and taking sides.

For some reason, this alert is marked as closed, but it can't be since Schrandit hasn't apologized for his incivility, much less agreed to stop, and he's compounded with patently false accusations and legal threats. I am not satisfied. Spotfixer ( talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And none of us are satisfied with your behavior. You continue to throw around accusations without providing evidence. You say he insulted you? Really? Where? Provide us with diffs, or take it back.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I provided a diff. You aren't paying attention and you shouldn't speak for anyone but yourself. Spotfixer ( talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the your first comment: None of the contributors here are administrators, (except for User:Smashville, whose only contribution was to point out that I should not have posted the warning for a past event that had already been handled.) There's a description of what this forum can and cannot accomplish up at the top of the page. Regarding your reply to Daedalus, accusations that you aren't paying attention are definitely uncivil. Gerardw ( talk) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're not an admin, then that comment does not apply to you. As for incivility, there's nothing uncivil about saying someone's not paying attention when they accuse you of filing a false report when it fact they just haven't bothered looking. Frankly, their accusation is far more uncivil in and of itself than my measured reaction to it, since it violates AGF. Note that I never suggested they acted in bad faith by intentionally ignoring the diff, just that they didn't pay attention. I was being POLITE; I assumed good faith and avoided insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotfixer ( talk • contribs)

I am paying attention, are you? You have accused the other editor in question several times of insulting you, but not once have you provided evidence. The single diff that you did provide does not back up what you say in regards to him insulting you, and therefore I stand by my statement. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence of Schrandit insulting you.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But then again, people don't like to take my words at face value, so let me just make sure you understand me: You said insulting. That particular word implies that this event had occured more than once. I only see one occurance where he was incivil, but that's it. If you're going to say that he was continuously insulting you, show us other examples, please.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't expect anyone to provide anyone an apology at this point in time (except for dragging this thread on longer than it needs to). Both sides have been uncivil. Warnings were given. Case is f'ing-closed. Further "demands" for an apology is disruptive to this project overall. Don't think it's fair? Tough, we're no longer 5 years old, which is the last time life was "fair". ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not demanding an apology, I'm saying that if Spot is going to say he was insulted multiple times, I want to see the diffs. So far I've seen one instance where someone called him a jerk, that's all.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never "demanded a citation for a citation", that is slanderous. Please, everyone, check me on my aforementioned edit, I'm very confident it is within Wikipedia guidelines, I apologize if I am mistaken - Schrandit ( talk) 20:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Slanderous may not be a wise choice of words, as per WP:NLT. You'll note I was bold, and made an edit to the phrase that seemed to have everyone's undies in knots... ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That edit seems fine to me. - Schrandit ( talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, since the conflict is over the citation demands. Spotfixer ( talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The you've proven that this is no longer a civility issue, but content. CLOSED. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think I've proven that it's some of each. I still don't consider this issue resolved, but since you keep removing my slashthrough tags, it seems pointless to edit war with you.

Let's see if he reoffends. Since I've tried Wikiquette, the next step would be ANI. Spotfixer ( talk) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Start here. Spotfixer ( talk) 07:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Let me or another admin know if it happens again. Gwen Gale ( talk) 07:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Spotfixer ( talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

( talk) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC) User:Viktor van Niekerk is using uncivil posts to exercise ownership over the Ten-string guitar article. Several potential editors have given up, but the article needs lots of work, on content, structure, and POV issues. An attempt to discuss it on his talk page he simply reverted, with the edit summary your opinion on this matter is irrelevant; you are not an authority. I do not propose my "opinions", but the facts that are all verifiable. I am justified in excluding false information. See Talk:Ten-string guitar#Civility, personal attack, and content issues. Andrewa ( talk) 10:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looked. I agree with you. OK, Viktor van Niekerk is an expert, and I know less than zilch about the specifics of the topic. But other editors shouldn't have to deal with that constant level of supercilious bombast with its bold-text and CAPITALS (and of course being an expert doesn't make someone immune to partisan and mystical views on musical topics). I'd ask at WP:ANI if someone would give him a solid civility warning. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a serious WP:COI in that he's a serious music scholar and performer with a serious focus and cause, and I'm afraid he's making Wikipedia one of the vehicles of that campaign.

Have a look at the article. It needs lots of work. Several people have made starts including me, and just got reverted, and nobody else wants to take him on - understandably.

I did look at WP:ANI and it reads in part To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts. So I came here.

I think that sadly the next step might be RfC, but I'd need other editors to be involved for that... more than one, preferably. Andrewa ( talk) 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrewa ... have you advised the other editor directly about this WQA, as required? I would like to see a response in this forum from them before taking additional action. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 15:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops... yes, just now. Good point... he knows it has been raised here as that was noted on the article talk page, where he has responded. But I should have also raised it directly on his talk page of course. Done now. Andrewa ( talk) 16:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a more detailed look, I think the RFC sounds a good idea. There are strong COI aspects (the article largely expounds identical views to those on his MySpace page) and the clear appearance of WP:SOAP, of being here to Right a Wrong:

My objective is to present the historical, scientific and musical facts that have been (and continue to be) obscured by misinformation. My objective is to present reliable information to musicians, guitarists and composers, for them to judge for themselves the musical and scientific logic of Yepes/Ramirez' invention, its advantages and applications.

Add to that an uncivil and browbeating approach that has the effect of deterring other editors (I sure as hell wouldn't want to engage with editing that topic). Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I now probably have a minimal case for a user conduct RfC, as a second editor has now posted an attempt to resolve the issue on Viktor's user talk page as required (thank you). I think it would be good to have at least one more, and to give Viktor some time to respond, and even to have some more detailed efforts to resolve this on his user talk page before going to RfC. And as I said before, this is not for the fainthearted. He simply reverted my attempt there, with a rather dismissive edit summary.

But IMO it's a classic WP:SOAP and WP:OWN, and it would be good to do something about it. May not be the easiest...

The desired outcome IMO is for Viktor to take on board some of the Wiki ideals. Is this too much to hope for? He's obviously idealistic and has lots to offer. And his cause has something going for it. But that's ironical... Viktor's behaviour is just IMO discrediting the Yepes tuning by association, which is quite unfair to it, and the opposite of what he'd want, obviously. A balanced and independent article here would be a lot more help to Viktor's cause than another battleground, or even a mirror of his site content. Our readers do read the talk pages too! Hmmm... Andrewa ( talk) 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... It's not looking hopeful, Viktor has now removed from his talk page the two requests (one from me, one from Bwilkins) to reply here. He's also sent me a couple of emails on the subject recently, the most recent received just a few minutes ago. Some of the points he makes in these emails are new and interesting, I wish he'd post them to the article talk page (but others have already been made there, some of them several times). Andrewa ( talk) 04:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, if non-experts did not take up vendetta's against me (as Andrewa has done here) and if they did not insist on including non-notable and faulty information in this article, there would be no battleground whatsoever, but simply verifiable facts. My desire has always been to present only factual, verifiable information. I have however faced endless opposition from not only vandals using sock-puppets to attack Narciso Yepes and the concept of his guitar, but also from well-meaning but misinformed readers. If you know the literature on this topic, you will know that misinformation is ubiquitous, and it is from this that most people draw their conclusions, lacking access to reliable sources. I however draw my information from primary sources by Yepes and from well-established laws of physics. I beg to differ with Andrewa, but (while sometimes rough - this is a daily and taxing struggle against misinformation) my actions have been exactly the opposite of a classic SOAP case (a vehicle for propaganda and advertisement). What I have excluded is precisely the propaganda and advertising of musically non-notable concepts that certain players have a vested interest in promoting even to the point of lying about their (and Yepes's) guitar's acoustic properties. To allow such content here would, ironically, lead to exactly what Andrewa is accusing me of: propaganda and advertising. This is not what I am doing. I am promoting knowledge about the standard form of an instrument as conceived by its inventor. I am drawing on primary texts by that inventor as well as the science of acoustics. Acoustics is not propaganda, but reality governed by the laws of physics.

What is really behind this is Andrewa's personal grudge against me, a vendetta that originates with his desire to rewrite organological terminology by taking an exception as a rule. I suspect that he has a vested interest in the matter, not to lose face as a self-proclaimed musicologist, after I pointed out that he was incorrect in referring to instruments with courses as "10-string guitars". A course, being a pair of strings, functions as one string. It is a well established musicological convention that we refer to instruments with at least one paired set of strings as coursed. The baroque guitar is thus a 5-course guitar, not a 10-string guitar, as it has five pairs of strings, each pair functioning as a single unit. "12-string guitar" is an exception to this and not the rule and the term comes from manufacturers and not from musicological scholars. So this is nothing more than a personal vendetta against me over Andrew Alder losing face on this issue. He clearly knows the ins and outs of wikipedia much better than I do. I am, after all, as he accuses me, a professional musician and scholar, not a professional wikipedia administrator. So he may well win in this case, but truth will prevail. Truth? Verifiable facts from the primary texts (I don't even mention my personal association with individuals who have first-hand experience of these histories), as well as facts derived from the science of acoustics, not "mystical views on musical topics". I'm sorry, but for an informed scholar with a grasp on acoustics as well as musicology, these are proven facts that have a physical, empirical reality, not "mystical views". It is just that this is a very complex and very dense topic which is predominantly misunderstood. What wikipedia needs is a credible, scholarly article on this topic. While the present article can be improved stylistically and more references added, it should not be brought down to the level of propaganda and advertising. That is exactly what I wish to avoid.

I recommend Andrewa create a new page termed "10-stringed guitars" under which he may differentiate the various types of 10-stringed guitars according to their number of courses. So baroque guitar would be included under 5-course guitar, while the Yepes instrument would be under 10-course guitar. I also recommend that 19th century 10-stringed harp-guitars like those by Lacote and Scherzer be moved to the harp guitar page. Then we can remove the comparison between these and the Yepes instrument under the ten-string guitar article. Alternatively, I can remove it anyway, but re-write the main article to state clearly the defining acoustic characteristics of Yepes's invention and why/how only this tuning has these characteristics (a fact of physics). Viktor van Niekerk ( talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. But these are largely content issues, and this is not the place to raise or reply to them. The only issue here is your behaviour.

In this context it is valid for you to protest that in fact it is I attacking you, rather than the other way around, but I hope and believe that the evidence does not support this. Andrewa ( talk) 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The content issues interact with the behaviour. Viktor, your approach comes across as an assertion that you know The Truth, that nobody else does, and that your mission here is expound it and snowplough everyone who disagrees off the road. That is not an acceptable approach toward either the topic or collaborative editing. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 08:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Content discussion: A guitar-type instrument with 10 strings, whether coursed or not, is by very definition a 10-string guitar. The 10-string, non-coursed version is an iteration of a generic 10-string guitar with 10 separately-tuned strings. The article for 10-string guitar should include sections on both types of instruments within the same article.

Civility discussion: the WP:OWN here is brutal. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Forcing off others who try to reach consensus is wholly contrary to WP:CIVIL. As knowledgeable about the subject as Viktor is, that does not preclude others from making intelligent, constructive edits, and indeed I start wondering about acting contrary to WP:EXPERT. I will unfortunately be placing a warning on Viktor's page for actions highly contrary to the community-editing concept. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 11:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Is it WP:OR to point out a guitar with 5 pairs of strings has 5*2 = 10 strings? Gerardw ( talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Viktor's claim to be an authority in all areas of musicology is questionable. His confident claims about naming of guitars just do not fit the evidence, see below. The most charitable view is that he's venturing outside his areas of expertise in commenting on instruments rarely used in classical music (perhaps never in the case of the B.C.Rich guitar). Andrewa ( talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility discussion: I think I must point out that the accusations above that I am pursuing a personal vendetta, that I bear a personal grudge and that I am motivated by a fear of losing face violate WP:FAITH.

Content discussion: As I have pointed out elsewhere, Viktor is mistaken in stating that the name twelve-string guitar is an exception. In fact, while coursed instruments used in classical music do tend to follow the naming pattern Viktor proposes, coursed instruments used in rock, country and western and folk music generally follow the naming pattern of the twelve-string guitar. Consider the eight-string bass, the twelve-string bass, the eight-string mandocaster and of course the ten-string electric guitar by B.C.Rich that Viktor wants excluded from the ten-string guitar article. The course terminology is used too, we're not unaware of the formal musicological distinctions and use them where they are needed, but the -string terminology is the standard.

And while I certainly don't want to question the depth of Victor's knowledge in his field, it seems to me that this much-vaunted expertise lacks breadth if he is unaware of these other instruments... which is of course a trap that catches many academics, and is possibly a factor in some of the content disputes that have plagued the ten-string guitar article.

Content discussion: Viktor's suggestion that I create a new article violates Wikipedia:naming conventions and possibly also Wikipedia:content fork, as well as failing to address the fundamental issue, which is how to improve the existing article. Andrewa ( talk) 13:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: further examination finds the edits of 129.94.133.166 ( talk · contribs), which are evidently the same user, with a similar history of incivility, plus major POV activity in Romance (song). Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The academic convention of musicologists is to refer to instruments with at least one pair of strings as being coursed. A 13-course baroque lute is never referred to as a 24-string lute. A baroque guitar with 5 courses is not by any respectable academic referred to as a 10-string guitar. The distinction is a necessary one. Finally, the contrary convention used by musicians who do not have a formal (classical) background in music and musicology is rooted in misinformation and ignorance of the already long established prior academic/musicological convention. The contrary "convention" stems from the catalogues of instrument manufacturers and not from any serious musicologists. Andrewa accuses me of not knowing certain marginal instruments. Is he a mind-reader? This smacks of personal vendetta and an attack on my musical expertise. The irony is that I know these instruments and more (you seem to be ignorant of the charango, Andrew, another 5-coursed relative of the guitar, not to mention 5-coursed vihuelas), but Andrew evidently knows nothing about the actual instrument with 10 individual strings. I know of the B.C. Rich so-called "10-string guitar", and excluded it because I know it and know the convention by which any serious musicologists (not electric guitar manufacturers) name such instruments with pairs of strings (courses). Viktor van Niekerk ( talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the contrary convention used by musicians who do not have a formal (classical) background in music and musicology is rooted in misinformation and ignorance of the already long established prior academic/musicological convention.

That part at least comes well under WP:NPOV: that "all significant views" have to be mentioned. If there's a differing usage outside formal musicology that has a numerically/culturally significant following, then neutrality requires it to be mentioned whatever it's rooted in.

Neutrality, of course, equally allows it to be said that formal musicologists don't use this terminology. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue not being right about guitars. It's about being a good Wikipedian. I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:EXPERT#Warnings_to_expert_editors. Disclaimer: it is an essay, not a guideline Most of us want Wikipedia to be better, but there's a good way and a not-so-good way to do that. Learn to Share Gerardw ( talk) 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the logic and evidence of my post stands, and it doesn't call Viktor's expertise in his field into question, but it does strongly suggest that he's speaking outside of his field. He has made this relevant by insisting that we must listen to him because of his expertise. I'm very sorry to have to question the breadth and relevance of this expertise, but the evidence is becoming plain.

Noting that this issue is now listed as Resolved, I think I should clarify my position here. I will apologise to Viktor if he can explain how he came to make the claim (above and repeatedly elsewhere) that "12-string guitar" is an exception to this and not the rule with respect to its naming. As I have shown, the naming of other instruments in the relevant genres (instruments with which Viktor now claims to be familiar) in fact follows the pattern of the naming of the twelve-string guitar exactly.

Viktor claims that serious musicologists don't use these common names, but he claims the same thing for the twelve-string guitar. So how is it an exception?

Several thousand Sydneysiders recently had the pleasure of hearing Tom Petersson playing his twelve-string bass. I wasn't one unfortunately, and I guess Viktor wasn't there either. But I'd also guess that none of them would make the ridiculous (there is no better word for it) claim that Viktor made above about instrument naming. And possibly none of them would claim the expertise that Viktor claims, although at least one of them known to me personally has a formal (classical) musical education, and Viktor might be surprised how many others there were in this category. In the preface to his classic Downbeat Music Guide, Antony Hopkins observed The more you love music, the more music you love. Food for thought? Andrewa ( talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And this latest post does not answer it, in fact most of what he says is neither new nor relevant. Nobody, for example, is suggesting that we rename the 13-course lute.

Dropping the names of irrelevant instruments isn't a good look either. The charango is not normally regarded as a guitar at all, although it does look like a little one from the front, but turn it over and it's a different story. There are various instruments called vihuela but none of them are normally regarded as guitars (one is often considered an ancestor of the guitar).

And I'm afraid I resent the reference to musicians who do not have a formal (classical) background. It says a lot. Andrewa ( talk) 04:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia (riddled with errors) is misinforming people and is blamed for falling grades among children

See this article: [ [39]]

I concur and will contribute nothing further to this disinformative farce parading as an encyclopaedia that is called wikipedia. It is nothing more than a joke, run for/by incompetent non-experts with too much time on their hands and nothing better to do than stroke each other's egos while fostering mediocrity and ignorance under the specious banner of "consensus" and "democracy".

Yes, I am uncivil towards those for whom this is intented, but they deserve it for raising inaccuracy and misinformation to a virtue. I will not suffer fools any further.

Viktor van Niekerk ( talk) 10:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bite. I freely admit to knowing nothing about the topic at hand (music), and am only aware of this issue because of the disagreements. My comments.

1. I read the article listed above, and to me it says that children are trying to take shortcuts by using Wikipedia as their only source of reference.
2. Serious research involves reading and reviewing multiple sources of information. Wikipedia itself requires multiple references to become quality articles. Wikipedia is only as starting point for research.
3. Viktor appears to be in the process of a self-imposed ban, or perhaps retirement is more accurate. I think that could be a loss. It appears that he is an intelligent person (at least on this topic), and his contributions could add a great deal to Wikipedia.
4. While it's a wonderful thing to be knowledgeable in a particular field, you'll find a more receptive audience by being friendly, and engaging in conversation. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. If you truly wish to educate someone, you must first have their attention, which isn't achieved by talking down to them and insulting them.
5. I am beyond impressed with Andrew's patience and attempts to be civil throughout this discourse. I am simply amazed. Very few people have that depth of civility and patience. My compliments to you sir (assuming gender is male). I hope that the ruffled feathers can be smoothed here. ... Just my 2-cents worth. Ched ( talk) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Viktor has announced above his intention to take an indefinite Wikibreak, which is a resolution, albeit not the ideal resolution. But perhaps it is the best that we can hope for at this stage. We have tried our best to accomodate him.

I can now return to the content issues, and will in due course post messages to earlier contributors to the article and/or to its talk page, telling them that their contributions and suggestions are finally being incorporated into the article. Hopefully some of them will return, and collaboration can then start.

There is still a long way to go, and no guarantee that the conflict is over, but should it resume there would probably then be grounds for a user conduct RfC. So in any case this phase of WP:DR is probably over.

Thank you, both to those who have participated, and also to those who lurk ready to contribute, and whose time was committed to this even if their wisdom decided that now was not the time to join the discussion.

Andrew Alder Andrewa ( talk) 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite resolved

Viktor's decision to take his ball home doesn't seem to have happened. He's continuing to add hostile and disruptive soapboxing to Talk:Ten-string guitar, with a particular attack on Andrew and the promise: You deserve no less than uncivility. I wil let you play at being a musicologist for a few weeks/months until I have the time to undo your work as well as "outing" his identity. [40] Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like he has crossed the line from incivility to personal attacks and threats. The next step would be ANI. Nothing more can be accomplished here so it should remain closed at this time. He has moved far beyond anything simple reminders of civility policies can help. Theseeker4 ( talk) 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Was that really an outing? The policy states that posting such information about an editor constitutes harassment "unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves". Andrewa's user page contains a link to an off-wikipedia blog. It would certainly be presumptuous of Viktor to post any information about Andrew that he might have dug up from that blog, but on my reading of the policy it would not constitute an "outing" if that's where it actually came from. In any case, the policy also says that an oversight should be requested for edits which attempt to "out" an editor. So if my interpretation of the policy is wrong, or if the information Viktor posted is not available on the page linked to from Andrew's user page, then a request for oversight should apparently be lodged. I note that the offending edit has already been redacted.

— David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 13:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it probably was not an outing since AndrewA has the info posted. However I already made a good faith request for oversight. Gerardw ( talk) 13:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thing is, that "information" isn't on the personal wikis and websites I link to from my user page, and for a very simple reason: It's not even accurate. I think that's part of the problem... Viktor doesn't seem to care whether what he posts here is accurate or not.

But what concerns me is the threat to revert in the future. That's going to make it hard if not impossible to motivate others to collaborate on the article, and I think that WP:FAITH notwithstanding that's exactly the intent. And it's a clear breach of Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats.

I think that needs to be discussed, and a clear message given as to what the consequences will be if it occurs. Ideally, Viktor should be invited to contribute on the talk page only, and told he'll be blocked without further notice if he reverts the article (and the article semi-protected if need be).

I guess an RfC is now the place to take this. Never raised one before. Guess there's always a first time.

It also occurs to me... we have no proof that Viktor is the same guy who plays the 10-string in Sydney. We have only his word for that. Caution advised.

A related and even more bizarre possibility is that the real agenda is not to promote the Yepes ten-string guitar and tuning at all, but simply to attack Wikipedia. Frankly, our Viktor doesn't talk like any real expert I've ever met. Real experts love to have their views challenged, and see this as an opportunity to hone and improve their understanding, even if they don't change any of their views in the process... that's how they get to be experts. Real experts make complex things seem simple. Real experts are confident, not insecure, in their fields. There's none of that in Viktor's contributions. Again, no proof either way, so caution advised.

Hmmmm... Andrewa ( talk) 14:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(as an attempt at using humour to defuse...) He may not be the guy playing a 10-string in Sydney, but I once played a G-string in London :-P ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I redacted the personal information as attempted outing, on grounds that it was being used as part of a personal attack and wasn't the information/link Andrew has provided elsewhere.

Ideally, Viktor should be invited to contribute on the talk page only

Not ideal, unlkess it comes with strict provisos of civility and adherence to Talk page guidelines . I can think of a number of articles where this was thought sufficient, but development was made near-impossible by lengthy hostile filibustering on the Talk page. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Any resolution needs to deal with both the WP:OWN issues, and the several problems that arise from it: Civility, harassment of myself by false acusations (including and especially those of harassment), harassment generally by filibustering, harassment by threat... (another attempt at humour) should we hold off for a little and see whether we can go for a record number of different violations?

Thank you for removing the inaccurate personal comments about me from Viktor's user pages and the article talk page. I hope nobody would think they belonged there, and I was in a bit of a quandry as to whether to remove them myself, not wanting a revert war. It's different having them on my personal talk page where I can reasonably reply, and where I have an explicit notice asking that such comments not be removed. I certainly didn't want them spammed elsewhere. Andrewa ( talk) 20:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be justified to now go straight to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. An RfC is just another way of attempting a voluntary solution, and I think there's ample evidence that this will not be enough. Comments? Andrewa ( talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't trouble the arbitrators with this just yet. If you think that Viktor won't respect dispute resolution steps, such as the community input that an RfC would generate, and if disruptive editing continues (by that I include harassment or threats to disrupt) then contact myself or WP:ANI. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 21:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK. But it has continued, even in some ways escalated, and Viktor has clearly indicated it will. I think enough is enough, and that ArbCom will need to be involved eventually. The advantage of going through RfC and/or mediation is that it will involve more people. But it will also take time, theirs and also mine, which I'd really prefer to spend improving the article!

My main concern is not the waste of my own time, but the prospects of getting other editors to re-involve with the article. The bottom line is simply to rescue the article.

All please see Talk:Ten-string guitar#Behaviour issues 2. Obviously we don't want discussion to continue in both places. Comments on that welcome too. Andrewa ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article so tagged. Gerardw ( talk) 22:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Viktor van Niekerk from editing for one week. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On the evidence I have seen, it seems pretty clear to me that if Viktor disagreed with the findings of any dispute resolution procedure he would simply ignore them. Nevertheless, on my reading of the arbitration guide Andrew would have an uphill battle convincing the arbitration committee to take the case at this stage.

— David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

::Per Andrew's request (above) can we continue discussion at Talk:Ten-string guitar#Behaviour issues 2? Thanks. Gerardw ( talk) 22:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seems some doubt that it's appropriate to continue this discussion there, and while several people have recommended RfC as the next step (assuming it's necessary, as seems likely), nobody has yet volunteered to be the second party that I'd need to raise one. Andrewa ( talk) 06:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

2 person threshold? I don't understand -- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users just says you need evidence at least 2 people have tried to intervene. Between warnings posted on the talk page and the commentary here, that threshold is more than met, right? Gerardw ( talk) 10:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I think you're right. Andrewa ( talk) 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Used uncivil language here in response to edit dispute. Also, "templated a regular". Tomdobb ( talk) 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears you (Tomdobb) did revert his edit without explanation or any discussion on the talk page. And WP:DTTR is an essay not a policy or a guideline. There's another essay Do template the regulars. That said, NoseNuggets language was less than ideal, and accusing you of vandalism for a good faith edit, especially regarding WP:BLP, is uncivil. Gerardw ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but templating a regular is not uncivil. Sure there is an often-cited essay about it, but it is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it has no more weight than the essay Gerardw cited that says to template regulars. Was his use of the template potentially uncivil? Yes, I would say it was since you were obviously engaged in an edit dispute, not vandalism, so templating you for vandalism is certainly not assuming good faith or being civil. He also was uncivil in the talk page comment you provided diffs for. I am a little concerned that neither of you took the dispute to the talk page to discuss but instead began to edit war, and in NoseNuggets case resort to incivility. I would agree that NoseNuggets did cross the line a lot further than you did, and will place a comment on his talk page. Theseeker4 ( talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the template essay. I will say that my revert was without explanation because I already cited my reasoning in a previous edit. I'll try to be more clear in the future. Tomdobb ( talk) 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted an edit I made to a page that I felt was a perfectly understandable and intelligent one - formatting it to look more like similar pages I have worked on (this was the List of Megadeth band members page) and his reversion was justified as "RV ignorance". I was understandably offended by being called ignorant and explained this on his talk page, but the key part of my response to him was an exact explanation of why I had made my edit in the first place. I hoped we could, you know, discuss it? He ignored me for several days, while still listing himself at the top of his page as "around" and making a large number of edits to Wikipedia, so I left a simple message asking if he was ignoring me (this being after 8 days). The response I got included phrases "Why do you think the edition that you did to this list is most correct that my?" and "You simply destroyed all the work that I had, to improve the quality of this list" - both hypocritical and quite obviously ignoring my explanation. Again, I tried to explain in more detail and with a visual aid. He responded with a smiley face. After a few days waiting, I said I was going to request a third opinion - which I did - though this generated no response from Cannibaloki.

I had noticed on his userpage that he helped make Trivium discography a Featured Article. I'd never seen a discography that was an FA, nor did I see how a band with so few releases as Trivium could earn it - and saw poorly written English, spelling/grammar errors, overly-long sentences and also an error on how band singles the band had released. Initially I edited the page so the information on singles conformed with the band's template along with a large number of legit edits. This entire edit was reverted as "cleanup" by Cannibaloki. I did some research, found out the singles listed as singles on their individual pages, and in the band's template at the bottom of the page, were not actually singles - I had believed they were since I had read they were online and they had music videos but evidently my sources were inadequate at that time. So I put my other edits back together, and still updated the information on singles - I had uncovered some singles Cannibaloki had not mentioned on this page even if many of the others had not been singles. I felt these edits were so obvious that no user would question them - I got an A in A-level English and AA in my double GCSE so even if I'm not the best writer in the world I recognised and improved on the clunkily written text and fitted it into a more concise explanation - so I did not include an edit summary. After the user reverted them as "Removing few unnecessary changes." I made a more accommodating version - no details were skimmed out but I restructured the phrasing all the same to improve it without removing any information put in place by Cannibaloki. I also edited it in steps, putting an edit summary each time that gave a clear explanation of actions. He reverted them with the justification that they were "Nonsense" edits.

Frankly, I don't think he's taking me the slightest bit seriously or holding me with much respect, despite admitting on his user page that his English isn't brilliant. I also think to call my edits "ignorant" and "nonsense" and to respond to a serious discussion point with a smiley face - effectively blanking me and shutting down conversation - was rather rude. However, it also leaves me at a loss as to what to do; normally even if I have trouble with an argument, I can have that argument. I can't even argue with this guy. ( The Elfoid ( talk) 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Shorter reports with "diffs" of the specific behavior will probably be more effective.

Yes, the edit summaries of Nonsense are rude, and I'm not quite sure what to make of the smiley faces. However, basically what you have is an edit war -- there's just 2 of you going back and forth, but slowly enough to neither of you are violating WP:3rr. Rather the posting your content comments on his talk page, I suggest you post them on the appropriate Article Talk page and enlist the support of other editors to achieve consensus. For example, there's nothing on Talk:Trivium discography since 21 December. As long as there's just two of you editing, it's going to be difficult (i.e. next to impossible) to come to closure. Gerardw ( talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, try to provide "diffs" next time.

I agree with Gerardw that the most appropriate place to discuss content issues is at the Article Talk page. The responses to your patient and civil queries to date border on incivility, but probably don't quite step over the line - the "ignorance" edit summary is frowned upon though, and borders on a breach of WP:AGF. My advice is to take content issues up on the article Talk page and get a conversation going. If he ignores you there, at least other editors may step in and continue the discussion and perhaps even support you. I also encourage you to continue to WP:AGF despite the lack of discussion - in all probability both of you are trying to achieve the same end result - a better article. I detect no POV pushing, so it should really boil down to providing references to support the facts. It will be interesting to hear Cannibaloki's view on this incident...

I really like the "timeline" graphic too BTW... -- HighKing ( talk) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Taken from Wikipedia:Editor review/The Elfoid
  • I am a naturally insecure person. To give a little background, I spent last year with a therapist helping me regain social confidence.
    • And what are you doing here?

Editing tests or errors same!

• List of Iron Maiden band members
• List of Megadeth band members
  • The ignorance
  • The salvation
• Trivium discography
  • No. 1 Ref. 17: You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}."". iTunes (2009-03-01). Retrieved on 2009-03-01.
  • No. 2 Add original research, with several non-referenced singles; Unexplained removal of content, per Line 198: {{commonscat-inline|Trivium}}.

Inserted the code...

| * None

...when the correct is

|
* Here, in the planet Earth, we normally left this field blank, when we don't have a certification.
|

• from Line 51 to 102 (↑)
  • No. 3 Line 1: Dublin go to Dublin! The text looks good!
  • No. 4 "Dublin" is too vague for a global encyclopaedia - there's a lot of places called Dublin in the world. And images at the top of an article should have full names because users won't have read text. What I put on the caption, go to Dublin, Ireland, it's a irrelevant commentary.
  • No. 5 Oh, The destruction of a lead.
    • "As of 2008 they have released..." (Revision as of 18:46, 11 January 2009)
    • "Trivium then and replaced Young with Paolo Gregoletto, adding Corey Beaulieu on guitar." What?
  • No. 6 (aka More efficient, concise use of language.) Just read the text and see, take your own conclusions.
    • Top Heatseekers became Heatseeker (?)
  • No. 7 (aka "The end of a FL.")

In short, I believe that this user is revolted, with envy and anger with the improvements that were made to articles, and since then is doing drama. Initially, I did not answer, because I thought he would realize that committed several gross errors, and would help in improving the articles, and not distorting all. (See also: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Trivium discography) Regards, Canniba loki 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I have requested that Cannibaloki re-think some of their entry above, and am willing to accept edits/removal of some of their text above rather than striking. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 15:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Woah, Cannibaloki, calm down. I am not qualified to deem the merits of the article content dispute, but responding in this way, digging up irrelevant personal information and continuing to be uncivil in your comments ("And what are you doing here?" and "Here, in the planet Earth...") to a etiquette problem rather proves the OPs point more than it helps your case. Initially I thought that the suggestion to take this to the disputed articles talk pages was good, but I fear judging from Cannibalokis response that that will probably only make matters worse. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 14:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll concede his point on the "then and" and "as of 2008" are errors. Fair point. Though I still stand by my original claim that this is not a user I feel is civil or that I am capable of dealing with myself, and a giant revert can't be justified by what are quite obviously simple typos. I've said my part though, so I'm trying to keep quiet until the dust's settled on this a bit since Cannibaloki made that last comment.( The Elfoid ( talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

I've posted a civility warning on User talk:Cannibaloki. Gerardw ( talk) 22:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully it was a level 3 warning, and was based on him making fun of the fact that the OP was in therapy for regainig social confidence.... ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 23:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since nothing more seems to happen here, can we conclude that the warning of Cannibaloki for uncivil behavior, plus a suggestion to The Elfoid about using the articles talk pages when debating article content, is enough for now? -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much what happened. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 15:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Montana is generally a productive and active contributor to articles related to horses. However, I believe she sometimes loses patience with arguments she disagrees with too quickly and expresses herself in a way that strongly implies ownership issues. We've had run-ins in the past, but after a drawn-out attempt at dispute resolution and mutual apologies we have been trying to cooperate on improving horses in warfare. A few days ago, however, Montana made this post [41] at talk:horses in warfare, which I felt was very disparaging.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So, because of your common past history (which you failed to properly participate in and instead decided to maintain an offensive position, as I saw on the attempted resolution page), Montanabw has recommended that rather than make significant changes, that proposed major changes be brought to the article "sandbox" so that consensus can be reached before implementing them is a bad thing or in any way WP:OWN or against WP:CIVIL?? Peter, you seriously need to review how you interact with other editors, learn to "let bygones be bygones", and become part of the community. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I'm not seeing what's so disparaging about that statement. She complimented you on suggestions and additions you've made in the past, but then asks that you actually help with editing instead of just complaining about things and waiting for other people to fix them. It is quite reasonable to ask for additions to the article to be brought to the talk page first, especially on an article this large, this potentially controversial, that has been worked on by so many people over so long. Montana's not "owning" this article or any other article, and most of the editors she works with seem to have absolutely no problem in collaborating with her. Check out the recent conversations she's had with users at Banker horse, Sorraia, Paso Fino and her talk page. No problems there, eh? Dana boomer ( talk) 17:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The bit about sandboxing and adding material instead of discussing has been said quite a few times already, and it wasn't what bothered me. It was the quips about "no whining from the sidelines" and "don't waste our time arguing". I don't see the relevance of that type of comments, nor the highly aggressive edit summary "Lead, follow or get out of the way."

Montana's post came after I pointed out a few things under a heading specifically asking for pre-FA improvement. Most of those issues were about stuff that had been removed without good reason or undue coverage of other things and none of it contained personal comments. Trying to start a discussion by bringing the issue up on the talkpage is the most natural way to deal with issues for me and in my experience the way all experience Wikipedians do it. When someone calls that "whining", I can't help finding it more than a bit rude. I hope you can relate to that.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you post a request for clarification on her talk page to determine whether you were even the target of that comment? Did she have an opportunity to apologize if you were? I cannot see any hard evidence that she was discussing you in particular, but if she was, wouldn't the best first step be to ask her, in a civil manner, to clarify what she meant to see if she really meant offence? I don't see any reason for this to be here at this point, as I can't see any direct interaction with the user in question to show one-on-one resolution was attempted. Theseeker4 ( talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I read that post by Montanabw as more of a pep-talk to everyone. She continues to ask for input and encourages changes for the better. I am sorry that Peter takes her comments so personally. - Epousesquecido ( talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I really think Peter was taking the comments personally when they weren't meant as such, which is why I suggested he attempt to directly discuss his concerns with Montanabw. Theseeker4 ( talk) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to follow WP:AGF, but at this point, I am tired of beating my head against the wall. I am more than willing to answer questions from anyone here who wants to know my position on a given matter, but this is the second or third time Peter has gone after me personally in recent months, including a talk page "mediation" that went nowhere. See here and here. I think it is counterproductive, if not utterly fruitless, for me to bother answering any of Peter's comments directly because I am now of the personal belief that at all he wants to do is bully me and argue for the sake of arguing. I believe the guideline at this point for me is WP:DFTT. I will still negotiate in good faith on article content editing issues and answer legitimate requests from any OTHER user or admin about my actions. I have worked with multiple editors on Horses in Warfare for over two years and the collaboration has been extensive. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw has been of great help to me, a newcomer, who can't even add stuff properly or with agility yet. I think maybe if you speak of the specific issues or stuff you want changed or added to the article this will help. Articles are hard as research will show sources will conflict. Don't let us loose or abuse this valuable and patient user. Arsdelicata ( talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My first reaction is Why are we wasting time on this? The comment is not uncivil in *any* sense, and is not directed at any individual. It's difficult to see what anyone would take offense (out of context of 2 years of discussion perhaps). I suggest that Peter rereads the post in the context of a newcomer, and either resubmits a complaint with diffs pointing out the exact nature of his complaint, or he realizes that there is no evidence of uncivility and withdraws this report. -- HighKing ( talk) 00:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I just not seeing incivility by Montanabw here. And to take two phrases (sideline, whining) out of context of a whole, positive upbeat message to me is more uncivil than comment in the first place. Gerardw ( talk) 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Montana has made a "that's enough of that racket"-posts before, and I felt this one was a repetition of that. My major annoyance, though, is that Montana makes this speech despite having had plenty of opinionated arguments about the latest additions without producing any source-related information on it.

I was thinking about posting this at Montana's talkpage, but last time I did so, I felt like she didn't understand a word I said. Considering we've had some diffuclties in the past, and that we have had personal exchanges, I thought it was better to bring up the issue here. I did not understand any of the instructions here as meaning I had to bring it up on her talkpage first.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, as you are the one who has run horribly contrary to WP:AGF, I would assume that you have used up your share of good faith from Montana, and would recommend staying off her talkpage for awhile. I was involved in the ANI, I monitored the attempted mediation, and just as everyone else who did so, was exasperated by your actions. Honestly, if it had not been an attempt at mediation, you certainly would have been brought up here at WQA if not even ANI for your aggression, and one-sided POV. My suggestion: you need to be mentored on how to work cooperatively on this project. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 12:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He didn't take your advice. see User talk:Montanabw. Peter, this needs to stop. - Epousesquecido ( talk) 17:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but he did take TheSeeker4's advice [42], so it seems inappropriate to chastise him for following advice given here. This [43] is neutrally worded, so let's give Peter the benefit of doubt here. Gerardw ( talk) 18:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that he took my advice AFTER Montana already weighed in here, so no matter how much you try to assume good faith, in light of all his other contacts with Montana it seems he is simply trying to be confrontational and not really diffuse the situation. Theseeker4 ( talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the mediation and seeing what happened there, and seeing Peter's actions in confronting Montana on her talk page after not only being told here that he has used up any good faith that he was due but also seeing Montana reply at this alert leads me to believe this is going to proceed nowhere as Peter is completely unwilling to listen to reason or to compromise on anything. I think this should be closed, and believe if Peter continues with his harassment that Montana will have no choice but to take it to the next step in dispute resoultion. She has been more than patient. Theseeker4 ( talk) 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Icsunonove got very excited and insulting yesterday and was thus reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 no action was taken and the hope was he would calm down... he just came back and has upped the insulting by ton:

• 1.
• 2.
• "I feel at this point I'm getting myself dirty playing with the pigs in the pen." "Your fears and insecurities are something you need to deal with off this encyclopedia."
• "You are absolutely disgusting and act like an angry teenager Noclador." "Arrogant people such as you sicken me, and make Wikipedia the most unpleasant of places to edit."
• 5.
• 6.

and he keeps raging and raging... -- noclador ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• 7.
• "I'm in the mud with the pigs again, look at what Noclador does." "I truly feel sorry for people who live in Bolzano-Bozen and act like him. It is a disaster to humanity in fact."

-- noclador ( talk) 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• With people such as yourself Noclador, it is difficult not to be angry and upset. How you provoke people and accuse them of being fascists trying to make a new Rome, how you revert edits blindly labeling them as vandalism. You'd drive about anyone to rage. I've had enough of Wikipedia for quite some time. You go and deal with your issues. Icsunonove ( talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This alert can be closed, due to the user's stated intention to take a wiki-break (or to leave altogether). I would suggest in the future that you assume good faith about a fellow editor's intentions, Noclador, as it seems Icsunonove was editing in good faith. There are better ways to deal with someone making edits against consensus and convention than accusing them of having a bias, and such accusations, even if you feel they are justified, do nothing to diffuse the situation or make other users more willing to work with you toward consensus. Theseeker4 ( talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Theseeker4 - I assumed good faith about Icsunonove - if you would have had a look at the discussion attempts at Steinerner Steg you would see, that not only did I provide sources as he demanded I also tried to discuss with him at a point when he was already on a tear Talk:Steinerner Steg. The problem with Icsunonove is that he simply refused to discuss - in fact he is in every sense a disruptive editor. If you talk with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise you would learn, that Icsunonove has a long history of being disruptive and claims that he is taking a wiki-break... fresh insults AFTER you closed this tread. -- noclador ( talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want you to misunderstand me, I am not saying his conduct is flawless by any means. However, looking at the actual sequence of events that led up to this, it seems he had some provocation. I am not trying to turn this on you and say it is your fault, but you should not declare someone's edits as vandalism when they are in fact a content dispute, even if they are editing after you contest the edit on the talk page. I reviewed Talk:Steinerner Steg and see Iscunonove trying to engage in collaboration in a very civil manner. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] Now you claim a certain IP is this user, but without a check user we cannot say that for certain or treat them as identical, unless you have a diff where one or the other says that is the case. Based on the diffs above it seems Iscunonove was trying to collaborate and work in good faith, but statements such as these [50] [51] [52] [53] upset him. He was trying to work on the article and was actively participating in the discussion on the talk page, and did not become uncivil until the diffs above. It seems his behavior was not entirely unprovoked, and if some users had handled it differently, it would not have come to name calling, demanding bans and resignations from Wikipedia. Theseeker4 ( talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot this provocative diff [54]. Theseeker4 ( talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And so much for permanent sabbatical [55] -- noclador ( talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know where to reply, with the multiple posts and adding new sections. What I'm seeing is: Noclodar edit warring and going WP:3rr, forum shopping (here, AN/I, User talk:EdJohnston), and a lack of following procedures (e.g. a dubious sockpuppet claim on AN/I instead of WP:SSP. There's a lack of understanding of Wikipedia (e.g. The book is wrong [56]) when the standard is whether it's verifiable. Gerardw ( talk) 03:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User was reported here (see above) and on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 for about 50 cases of incivility. Case was declared resolved by user:Theseeker4 with the following rationale: "User has stated intention to leave Wikipedia for some amount of time, possibly permanently, so no further action is necessary.". 28 hours later:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Would you like if I say you are conducting Germanization and that you are linked genetically with Hitler?
• 5
• 6
• 7

and he is currently going on and going on and going on and going on and... as I already said yesterday: Case is unresolved! -- noclador ( talk) 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

also: Icsunonove problems with civility have a long history:

• [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] You have mental issues PhJ

-- noclador ( talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As this was "resolved" yet, unresolved at WP:ANI, please re-file it there. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFLOL. I made the statement about Germanization and Hitler, to contradict his making statements that others were doing Italianization and are like Mussolini. He said it in the top of his post! You can go to the link he made and see what I said and in what context. LOL Incredible, just incredible. He is the one that is obviously going on and on and on trying to dig up "evidence", and apparently wikistalking me at the same time. Noclador, do you REALLY have NOTHING better to do? The case would probably be resolved if Noclador was banned for a good month for what he did on the editing of the page in the first place, for making claims of "italianization" "fascism" and "mussolini". On top of clearly using these admin warning systems for his own agenda and wasting people's time. As I stated on that other page, it would be nice to see some Admins look at what HE is doing, investigate it, and come down on him. Instead of these cases where someone makes this uber-witch hunt. Icsunonove ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Icsunonove III

So, this new policy: let me understand: you can call other editors: "pigs, crazy, nuts, genetically linked to Hitler, BIZARRE!, ridiculous, hypersensitive and indeed insecure, aggressive, discusting, extremely insecure, childish,..." and tell them things like: "You have no idea, Is it so boring in Merano, Swedish being arrogant, do you have a learning disability?, two people who sound and act like teenagers, You have issues dude, Grow the heck up, Are you smoking, something?, evaluate the BS you just spewed on my talk page,..." and about 50 insults more and will get away with it, if you say you will leave wikipedia and if you come back and continue to insult, that is ok, because hey insulting editors is not an Wikiquette alert??? thus one can go on indefinitely insulting other editors??? examples after I filed the second report (or in other words the last 20 minutes)

• to waddle in the mud with people such as these,
• Noclador has too much time on his hands.

and in between he went again on

• a permanent sabbatical and in doing so deleted conveniently a warning not to be uncivil... Maybe you can explain to me this new policy of letting editors abuse other editors without having to fear any consequences? -- noclador ( talk) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Name calling: "I'm in the mud with the pigs again, look at what Noclador does." User talk:Supparluca# Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol or Difference between revisions Don't know where you come from, but in my social environment such a behaviour is difficult to tolerate. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

God, I'd love to know what your social environment is, with the accusations you made and the edit war you instigated. Icsunonove ( talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Icsunonove IV

as usual: Icsunonove attacking User:HalfShadow, -- noclador ( talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Background: Both this user and I have, in the past, had a "horrible" argument over the article Bicycle Kick. This argument turned out to involve almost as much as 5 Wikipedists, but he was not originally part of the party in dispute. As a matter of fact, the situation was more like: 4 Wikipedists vs. Me. At the end, "King of the North East" and another user took my points to a series of different places, including the football project page and even notified this "Wikiquette Alert" page due to some of my rude comments. The result of this conflict ended up in me getting a warning for my behavior, and in me keeping the edits I wanted (for the most part) in the Bicycle Kick article.

Currently: It has been almost half a year since that argument took place, and now I have decided to once again try to improve the bicycle kick article and provide more links and sources. However, now that I have started doing this, User:King of the North East has yet again re-appeared from the grave like an ugly nightmare. Yet, instead of searching for "peace" (since he was the person that accused me at "Wikiquette Alert"), he has sent me an aggressive message that, more than likely, expects for me to send an equally aggressive reply.

Well, I've already been warned before, and I do not want to be banned from Wikipedia. I would like it for the concerned editors here to please warn User:King of the North East, because he apparently thinks that he can get away with insulting me because I cannot do the same to him.

Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarshalN20#Gibberish

• "I see you are still wrecking the Bicycle Kick article with uninteligable gibberish"--King of the North East. 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As you see here, he is saying: 1. I am wrecking the article = Insulting. 2. I write gibberish = Insulting my language skills.

• "Not only does it display awful misuse of the English language"--King of the North East. 00:01, 17 January 2009

As you see here, he is once again making fun of my language skills, which is an insult to my person.

• "Also please try to avoid contaminating articles with your own personal point of view" 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As you see here, he states that I am "contaminating articles" and accuses me of POV. 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Recently: "Look anyone can see that you are a POV pusher"

Please dear members of the Wikiquette alert team, or random Wikipedists that want to act as judges: Be fair. I have not done anything wrong, and there is no reason for this user to keep attacking me. We, supposedly, had already been told by other users to stop arguing. Yet, as you can see here, it is him who is starting the problem (not me, I haven't done anything wrong). He should receive, for the least, a warning. I do not want an argument with this person, because I already have enough arguments going on in my life. Once again, please be fair of judgement. There is no way I can assume "Good Faith" of a user that uses comments like the ones I have just shown.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 11:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not try using false logic here in order to make a WP:POINT. The sentence that was quoted on your talkpage was, indeed, horrible English - it was a run-on sentence, and had very poor overall structure. He called your edit gibberish - he did NOT directly say "you completely suck at the use of the English language". A quick read of WP:NPA would have shown the difference. There is also an edit in which you used weasel words/non-NPOV which I believe is also quoted on your talkpage. "Do not contaminate articles" is a comment on edits, not on you, the editor (other than accusing you of non-NPOV, which is NOT uncivil if it's true). Neither are attacks, unless you read them as one. When your edits are questioned, that is when a good editor has time to reflect on the edits and see what they could have done differently. Perhaps "contaminate" was a little harsh, but not inherently uncivil. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 12:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he said that I was "wrecking" the article and that I was writing gibberish. He did not say "Your Edit," he specifically said: "You are." And contaminate is an insult, wherever you may want to put it. You cannot "determine" if the insult is low or high. You admitted that it was an insult, and therefore (as an insult) he was insulting me. I want a fair judge on the matter, not an "evaluator" that uses his POV to determine what he deems as "good insults" and "bad insults." An insult is an insult, and personal attacks are not allowed in Wikipedia.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 15:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20 please post notice on King of NE's talk page per Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Instructions_for_users_posting_alerts. Gerardw ( talk) 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BW's assertion that the comments made on your talk page were accurate, and not personal attacks. I am sorry if you are offended by them, but you have to admit the sentence you added was in need of major revision. Do not forget one of the most important parts of civility and that is to assume good faith Theseeker4 ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To both Theseeker and and BW: In other words, you're telling me that "I am wrecking and contaminating the article with gibberish and POV." Because that's exactly what it all comes down to when you mix in all of the things "King of the NE" has told me. That is by no means false logic. There are plenty of ways to say things, but it all comes down to how you say them to express your point. Fighting Words are not allowed either in the court rooms or in this website, and the two of you are basically stating that you're "OK" with their use. For example, I could say: "BW is an imbecile that wants to act like a judge, but is doing a crappy job at it; and that Theseeker is an idiot that simply sticks his nose in Gerardw's butt without looking to express something different." Is that "OK" with the two of you? By God, I'd be surprised if you say yes! No, I do not mean to insult the two of you, I mean to show you that it is NOT "OK" for a person to insult another person and "get away with it." Especially if it could just be said, taking my example again: "BW, I do not agree with your reasoning and believe that you should re-evaluate what you have just posted; and Theseeker, I would greatly appreciate it if you could express your own judgement on the matter instead of simply re-stating what BW wrote, because I do not find it constructuve." Which sounds better, my first statement or my second statement? Quite obviously, "King of the NE" could have simply told me: "MarshalN20, your edits on the article are not being constructive. You are providing sentences with grammatic errors that may need revising. Also, in one sentence you included much POV, so I will be deleting it for the sake of improving the article." I would appreciate it if both of you read all of what I have just wrote, understood it, and realize that your previous decisions were not the type of responses a "judge" in reality would have stated. BE FAIR and don't let people who use insulting language get away without even a warning.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 13:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this is the sentence that is accused of gibberish: "However, the game in which the bicycle kick was allegedly invented is older than 1894 as Jorge Basadre, a famous Peruvian historian, found what is thus far the oldest record of a football match in the Lima-Callao area of Peru to have been organized by Englishmen of the Lima Cricket and Football Club for a game between Chalacos and Limeans played in August 7, 1892; meaning that by that time football had gained popular practice in Callao and Lima, which is a situation that is ahead of the introduction of football in Callao and the invention of the bicycle kick associated with it." If the two of you say that this is gibberish, then please provide me with an improved sentence. Otherwise, your argument makes no logic, because your conclusion does not have effective premises.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 13:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that the required notification has been posted on King of NE's talk page: I concur that a sentence that starts out you are stilling wrecking isn't civil. You is the second person personal pronoun, still implies pejoratively that this is longtime behavior, and wrecking implies malicious or wanton destructive, not just inserting a bad sentence.

The personal attacks on TheSeeker4 and BMW are uncalled for and also not WP:CIVIL, and we are not here to debate the content -- that should be done at Talk:Bicycle kick. Additionally, this is a informal non-binding forum, so it is not our role to punish people or invoke sanctions. I'd like to see User of NE address the 'I see you are still wrecking' part of his comment and try to resolve this peacefully. Gerardw ( talk) 16:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I publicly and sincerely apologize to both BW and Theseeker if they found my example to be insulting. By no means did I mean it as an insult, but it is the best way I could find to make them see that it is not kind to use fighting words and aggresive language in a conversation or discussion. Once again, I apologize if it hurt their feelings in any way; I simply want for them to see that an insult is an insult, and that there is no "good" or "bad" (or "minor" or "major") way to it. This especially goes when other options, more civil options, are available. And I would also like to see "King of the NE" come in here and state why he is using personal attacks on my person; taking into consideration that our "past argument" was allegedly already resolved (I remind everyone involved that this past argument was "resolved" here; and "King of the NE" was present at that point).-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement This user has driven me and several other editors away from editing the Bicycle Kick article with a series of personal attacks, snide comments and unsubstantiated accusations (of bias, aggression, vandalism and personal attacks against him). It dismays me to see that he continues to get away with adding more and more of this conjecture about how the kick was invented in Peru (in barely intelligible English). The issue was not resolved here before as falsely claimed by MarshalN20 last time as can be seen here, it was quite clearly ignored by the community, with no uninvolved editor commenting at all. He has been asked to remain civil, avoid personal attacks, avoid false accusations and to read WP:NPOV on numerous occasions, but continues in the same way with Ad Hominem attacks anyone who does not totally agree with him, rather than debating the issue as can be seen from his rambling insults above. The article is in a dreadful mess and I can’t fix it for fear of more confrontation from this editor, I admit that my use of the word "wrecking" was perhaps a little strong but is used in the same context as this comment that MarshalN20 is aware of. I am dismayed by the way that this editor kicks up such a fuss about percieved insults against himself but has a history of making nationalistic comparisons with dictators and defending his right to do ( "Comparing Selecciones de la Vida to Pinochet simply served as a comic relief to the argument. It's not an insult unless Selecciones qualifies himself as truly being a dictator"), using this logic; stating that he is wrecking the article is only insulting if he "qualifies himself as" having wrecked the article. If anyone cares to review Talk:Bicycle kick (an onerous task) it can clearly be seen who is the disruptive and abusive editor. King of the North East 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there appear to be ownership problems there. I'd suggest being extra careful in wording your discussion in neutral terms, and an article RFC to get try to get more views and build a consensus. Gerardw ( talk) 23:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Response: Everyone of you can read the entire section on the "Peruvian Claim" of the bicycle kick article, and it, by no means, has unintelligeable English. Yet, "King of the NE" keeps attempting to claim that I am creating a "conjecture," while you can all (yet again) see that everything is properly sourced in this section. In addition, you can all see that the "discussions" and "arguments" held in the discussion page where done in early October of the year 2008. Almost Four Months have passed from those discussions (October, November, December, and now January), and as far as everything concerned me the situation was resolved. The discussion here has the "Stalemate" sign, which means: "For items that remain open but have no additional comments added after several days to a week, close the item by entering the {stale} template at the top of the item's sub-section." I was the last person to add a comment to that discussion, and nobody else replied to it; therefore, I found the matter to have been resolved by the other parties involved. Moreover, as you can see here, the article of the bicycle kick was discussed by 4 Neutral editors: User: Number 57, User: Beve, User: Peanut4, and User: GiantSnowman; and they all agreed that the section entitled "Peruvian Claim" was correct and without the need of a major revision. Feel free to message each of these users and ask them about this. Even if "King of the NE" wants to lie and say that I "have driven him and several other editors," all of the users I have just mentioned contributed to the discussion of the article and left the door open for further improvements. However, user "King of the NE" has the aim of deleting and de-structuring the "Peruvian Claim" section of the bicycle kick because he believes that the bicycle kick was invented in Chile. Even his newest statement shows this:

• "It dismays me to see that he continues to get away with adding more and more of this conjecture about how the kick was invented in Peru."--King of the NE.

If 4 neutral editors agreed that the "Peruvian Claim" was a valid section with correct information, now do you see how this user is completely biased against this? However, with all these things said, just because in the past I did use aggresive behavior, that gives this user no reason or validity to use fighting words to try and re-start past arguments. In other words, if the argument has been left dead for almost half a year (4 months is not too far away from 6), why does he want to start it again? And no, I do not hold ownership of the bicycle kick section; my only goal with that article is to turn it into a Featured Article with reliable content, and to prevent users like "King of the NE" to delete the "Peruvian Claim" because he believes that it is a "conjecture" that "dismays him." In conclusion, all of you have seen him write this statement here and, since all of you are neutral editors, I can openly expect for all of you to use simple psychology and see the apparent trauma and hatred this user has towards the "Peruvian Claim" section. Nonetheless, all I ask is for you to not let past and dead arguments be re-surfaced by allowing "King of the NE" to use fighting words and other aggresive tones when holding a discussion with me.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 05:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, my ability to write in the English language is often noted, by my professors and others, to be always excellent. Furthermore, I always check my works twice or sometimes three times before I post anything in any of my public works. So I would appreciate it if the lot of you, especially "King of the NE," stop trying to make it seem as if I do not know how to write in English. If the bicycle kick section of the "Peruvian Claim" was such a "badly written" section, I am sure that its opponents (such as "King of the NE") would care very little for it; however, since it is not, they are apparently afraid of its content (which really amuses me). Moreover, take note that I am apparently not the only person with whom "King of the NE" is having civility problems with: clicky here -- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 05:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rant on and accuse me of bias me on one page and come offering peace on another, good tactic. The article as it stands is in a terrible state, but there are many worse ones on English Wikipedia. I do not hate the Peruvian claim, and your continued accusations show that there is no sincerity at all in your so called peace offer. I have never stated the Kick was invented in Chile, I don't know where you get this idea from. I will take the page off my watchlist as it is clear that you will fight any attempted improvement as you have done here to defend your insertion of uninteligable text and blatant POV. As far as I am concerned the article now belongs to you, do as you wish with it, add as much conjecture and POV as you like there are thousands of other articles I can improve without being fought off with this kind of abuse from the "owner". King of the North East 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I really am attempting to seek a peaceful solution to our discussion, but you are the one who wants to continue the argument. You say the article is in "a terrible state," and yet its rating (at this point) is at "C Class," and I have now proposed for it (at the Wiki football page) to be once again reviewed so it will keep on advancing on the ratings. Why do you not improve the "Chilean Claim" section, which is filled with horrible grammar? Why did you never provide sources or references for the rest of the article? I provided sources for nearly everything in there, not because I own the article but because I want to see it become a Featured Article. I need help in the article, but all you ever do is try to delete things from the Peruvian claim: Is there a single discussion between you and me that had to do with anything beyond the Peruvian claim? You say I will "fight any attempted improvement," but that is a lie. I finish with these questions: If the article was my POV, why are there so many references from distinct sources verifying nearly everything in the article? Why did 4 editors agree that the "Peruvian Claim" was now a better section, and yet you keep attempting to claim it is wrong? Why do you keep stating the article is in a terrible state (What are your premises?)? -- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Look anyone can see that you are a POV pusher, it's clearly your interest to strengthen the Peruvian clam as much as you can. Show me a reliable reference that gives a date for the first bicycle kick as happening in the 1890s and I would accept it, as I already accept that there is a view that the move was invented there. Your method of including a load of dates for early matches and stating that the game with the bicycle kick must predate them is original research but I've said all this before. I don't know what criteria the other editors were using, but if they said the section was better for the insertion of stuff like "Nonetheless, the best explanation to the invention was provided by......" (the only thing I have changed in the article for months provoking this melodramatic thread in response) then they must only be counting the number of external links or using some other arbitrary criteria. The article is in a poor state because it is the subject of edit warring and ownership issues, the grammar is poor in places, the lists of games and players are laughably incomplete, the fact that 3/4 of the article is now taken up with the "attributions of invention" claims instead of an encyclopaedic description of the move, the fact that a lot of the references are in raw form and there are multiple references to the same source, the Wikilinking to random disambiguation pages such as investigation, I could go on and on, but I wont. You clearly have no intention of letting me improve the article having kicked up a stink and accused me of pro-Chilean bias after virtually every edit I've made to the article. I have abandoned any attempt to improve it as I have wasted too much time already trying to make you understand that conjecture and original research don't belong here and asking you to stay civil to no avail. King of the North East 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet you continue the incivility. Now you're calling me a "POV pusher" and keep accusing me of having "ownership" issues. Let me reply to each of your points in a list:

• You have accused me of "Original Research" before. Yet, as everybody can see here and here, there were plenty (almost 6, I believe) neutral editors that examined the "Peruvian Claim" section and gave their "OK" to it. If you do not agree with almost 6 other editors, 7 counting me, your conclusion has little to no foundation.
• This topic was not caused by your edits in the bicycle kick. This topic was caused by your incivility against me, which to this point you continue. Instead of directing your response to your incivility, you completely threw this into an Ad hominem of my past actions, and go on to ramble about how you think the bicycle kick article is in "a poor state."
• The grammar is poor in here. Why did you never fix that? Why did you constantly focus your edits on the "Peruvian Claim" section? Your actions speak for themselves. I haven't done it because I have been improving other parts of the article, and because I have been waiting to see if you or anybody else would bother to do it first.
• You say the references are "raw," but the vast majority of those "raw" citations come from here. Why did you never edit those? Why did you constantly focus your edits on the "Peruvian Claim" section? Your actions speak for themselves.
• "Random Wikilinks"? Wikilinks are meant to be there as support for futher explanation on a word or topic. Setting one on "Investigation" is by no means useless. Some people do not know what an investigation is. I'm glad you consider yourself such an "knowledgeable" person that has no need for such links, but the common person is not that wise.

Thereupon, approximately 6 editors have agreed that the "Peruvian Claim" is an acceptable section, "King of the NE" only focused his edits on the "Peruvian Claim" and never helped improve any other part of the article, and "King of the NE" keeps using Ad hominem to divert the point of this topic (which is to check his incivility).-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this topic has really run its course. Marshal will not concede (whether he should or not) that KOTNE's edits to Peruvian claim are at all legitimate, and KOTNE will not concede (whether he should or not) that Marshal's edits are valid. KOTNE has stated his intent to walk away from the article, which is the right move if he feels trying to reach a compromise or collaboratively edit with Marshal will cause him too much stress, so I don't see what else either of you could hope will come from this alert. Marshal seemed to extend a good faith, if conditional olive branch in your direction KOTNE, which you rejected. You had every right to walk away, and Marshal you should respect his decision to do so. KOTNE stated he will no longer edit the article, so there should be no further source of conflict, and no need to keep this dispute active. Theseeker4 ( talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Theseeker, I agree with everything you say apart from the idea that he extended a good faith olive branch, he accused me of hatred against the Peruvian claim in the same comment. I also draw your attention to the fact that the edit warring between this user and Seleciones de la Vida is still going on. If this user does not understand that wikilinks are not supposed to go to disambiguation pages maybe someone else can explain it to him as he clearly has an issue with me giving any opinion on the article at all. King of the North East 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Theseeker. I really did try to seek peace with "King of the NE," but he apparently does not want to take any sort of peace settlement. In the comment where I offered a peaceful solution, I simply wrote a sincere (and non-insulting) suggestion: However, I do not agree with your apparent hatred towards the "Peruvian Claim" of the bicycle kick article, and would greatly appreciate it if you could try to improve the rest of the article instead of making edits that attempt to delete or distort content from the "Peruvian Claim" section. If "King of the NE" saw that as a negative sign, that was by no means my intention. The "edit war" between me and "Selecciones de la Vida" is non-existant; I am using Wikipedia's resources to resolve that problem without an edit war. I'd be glad to work with "King of the NE" in the article, but as you can all see he constantly uses belittling terms when attempting to refer to me (always attempting to make me look ignorant). I do not find that an effective way to discuss things with anyone, and I can guess this user has gotten and will get into other arguments other than this one due to the "airs of grandeur" he likes to attach to himself. However, since he wishes to walk away and no longer contribute to the article, then it is his life and his option. I find this dispute resolved, but the argument is still without a solution.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked for me to give reasons I see the article as poor and then respond as if I was attacking you instead of pointing out the problems with the article. You keep saying that I should edit other sections of the article, (I wont be dictated to about what I can and cant edit) but every change I've made to it to date (except the removal of POV that sparked this thread in response) has been fully or partially reverted by yourself and resulted it claims that I am bias, a liar, arrogant, abusive, hate filled, colluding offwiki against you, having airs of grandeur etc etc. Even if you consider chasing me away from contributing to the article a successful resolution, I don't. If anyone is fooled by the false consensus you like to cloak yourself with it's their problem not mine ("there were plenty (almost 6, I believe) neutral editors that examined the "Peruvian Claim" section and gave their "OK" to it". An examination of the links provided [62] [63] shows that none of them explicitly agreed that the Peruvian section is OK from a POV/OR perspective, they are discussions about other issues completely such as the famous players section and branch off articles). I do not wish to continue arguing with you, hopefully someone else will address the OR/POV/Ownership/civility issues without allowing you to intimidate them. You are fully aware that I want nothing more to do with you and I would appreciate it if you would avoid Wikistalking me, you have shown no interest at all in CfD to date, until trawling through my contributions led you to this debate in which you jumped in to oppose my position. King of the North East 11:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You started out your response with: Look anyone can see that you are a POV pusher. As far as that concerns me, it is by no means a civil response to why you think the article is wrong. In addition, you basically repeated everything you have been stating, but gave barely any premises to your argument. Without factual, and supported, premises, your conclusions make little to no sense. On what little evidence you want to use, you keep using false premises for your arguments, such as stating that this discussion started because you deleted "random POV." I did not revert your edit, because it was POV, and I accepted that in a very civil manner. I started this article because you were not civil when you discussed the matter with me. Next you state that I am "stalking" you because I posted at CfD. Well, the truth is that I was looking at Freddy Adu's article; from which I saw the category of foreign-born soccer players; from which I went looking to see if a Peruvian player had played for the United States; which led me to see the large (and flashy) sign that the category was going to be deleted; which led me to the argument in which you happened to be involved. I cannot deny that seeing you in there made me even more determined to post an opinion, but it was by no means a matter of "wikistalking." Just because we both happen to like football, these kind of things are bound to happen eventually. In other words, you keep adding "airs of grandeur" to yourself: I don't care about your life, so don't think yourself as being important enough for anybody to stalk you.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 13:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You still fail to address the OR and NPOV concerns I have raised, but since I have abandoned the article it makes no difference to me, I have made one final attempt to help you improve as an editor here you are free to do as you wish with it, just please don't interpret it as a personal attack. I find it amusing that you attach these airs of granduer to me (perhaps inspired my my username or nationality, I don't know) I can assure you that in the heirachy of British society I am considered by many to be "working class scum". King of the North East 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Have a wonderful life "working class scum." As suggested by User:Theseeker4, I refactor my comment. Thanks to all of you who attempted to help mediate this problem. With best of regards to Gerardw, Theseeker4, and talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track. Also, thanks to User talk:King of the North East for contributing his input to this discussion.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 02:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – We don't take kindly to retaliatory filings 'round here, especially ones unrelated to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

for abuse of the alerts... =) Icsunonove ( talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My edits on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons) and User_talk:John are continually be referred to as uncivil. Can you please review Gnevin ( talk) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Gnevin appears to be WP:OWNing the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Quickly rejects any edits that make the guide more reasonable without consensus or discussion. He is using the guide as weapon in own edit wars, and using the WP:BOLD an excuse to be uncivil in the process. His latest episode is an attempt to make the discussion Ad hominem by using a false accusation smear in the title of the subsection that is now under RFC—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight ( talk • contribs)

Escalating incivility from both parties, mostly a content dispute, additional comments at article talk page Gerardw ( talk) 15:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair for users who didn't put in the Template:demote tag to remove it before discussions are resolved? [64] [65] [66] [67]. What gives them the authority to deny the seriousness of this issue? It's not like the tag is some sort of penalty. It's just a suggestion and an alert that demotion is being considered. Oicumayberight ( talk) 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Klassikkomies uses unnecessary " warnings" (about normal consensus-based editing) as weapon in my discussion page, forcing his opinion aggressively by that way. Both me and Klassikkomies are discussing in talk page of Jussi Halla-aho. So my view is, that it is unnecessary and uncivil and against the policy to make those messages in personal discussion pages, if the case is about normal discussion about relevance of Wikipedia's content. Klassikkomies accuses without the cause. -- Thi ( talk) 20:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please notify Klassikkomies about this alert on his talk page, and please provide diffs for the specific warnings. Thank you. Theseeker4 ( talk) 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Thi has been constantly removing relevant and neutral information that have been published by reliable sources from the article Jussi Halla-aho. Thi's claims about normal consensus-based editing are lies. See: Talk:Jussi Halla-aho. Klassikkomies ( talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Normal discussion was going on. There weren't any need for any use for personal talk pages. Klassikkomies just wanted to show aggression. Discussion was about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. "The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." "Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias" etc. Klassikkomies forgot all these. False claims about lying makes this thing just worse. -- Thi ( talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Klassikkomies describing edits as 'vandalism' [68] and characterizing Thi's claims as 'lies' are uncivil. Thi's describing Klassikkomies edits as 'spam' [69] is uncivil. Klassikkomies posting standard warnings on Thi's page is not inherently uncivil. Thi is allowed to edit his talk page, including 'deletion' of warnings -- they're still present in the page history. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. Recommend both users use article dispute resolution procedures. Gerardw ( talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Thi constantly removed the following notable facts from the article (sources are provided after the sentences):

• "In 2008, Google Inc. announced that "Jussi Halla-aho" is the fifth most popular Google search of all Finnish people excluding music personalities." [70]
• "In November 2008, Helsingin Sanomat asked its readers "Is Jussi Halla-aho right in his immigration criticism?" (it was Helsingin Sanomat's the question of the day). During 24 hours 11,473 people participated in Helsingin Sanomat's survey; 66% answered yes and 34% no." [71]
• The names of Halla-ahos children: Hilma (born 2003), Kerttu (2004) and Veikko (2008). [72] [73] [74] [75]

See discussion for more information. Klassikkomies ( talk) 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing is not uncivil. The discussion of whether they are notable or not goes here. Please. As long as it's mostly just the two of you, you're unlikely to get anywhere. Please see article Dispute Resolution. Gerardw ( talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The first fact has also been presented in Wikipedia's front page on 2 January 2009. See User talk:Mifter#DYK for Jussi Halla-aho. Klassikkomies ( talk) 23:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the article in the Third opinion page. Klassikkomies ( talk) 22:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I ask you to remove User:DGG's inappropriate warning from my talk page. Klassikkomies ( talk) 22:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see it's not inappropriate. Template warnings are polite ways of advising of policy. You would do well to learn from them, and stop being so contrary to those who try to help. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 00:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DGG claimed that I used YouTube and blogs as a source and that is not true. Because of that DGG's template warning was inappropriate and there were no reason to warn me. Klassikkomies ( talk) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No comment on this case, but re: your claim above ["DGG claimed that I used YouTube and blogs as a source and that is not true"] DGG appears to claim correctly: in this edit you apparently used <ref>http://youtube.com/watch?v=3mEMClPAc0s</ref> and <ref>http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2008/09/the_man_behind_vpilfcom.php</ref>. Cheers, This flag once was red ^propaganda _deeds 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That was 1 Rv. after DDG removed large amount of properly sourced information from the article including all information about Sarah Palin and Who's Nailin' Paylin? - Adventures of a Hockey MILF [76]. Those two sources were not originally added by me. I was just trying to save the article. Klassikkomies ( talk) 17:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I realise you didn't add them originally; my point was that you did insert references from YouTube and a blog. It would have been better to partially revert. Cheers, This flag once was red ^propaganda _deeds 17:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is really unreasonable that I made 1 tiny mistake trying to save the article and contributor who was trying to remove properly sourced information from the article gives me my only warning. Klassikkomies ( talk) 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been accused many times (at least 5) by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick [77] of being a 'sockpuppet' and he even went so far as to issue a checkuser request and he had the nerve to tell me to "promise that I will never do it [sockpuppetry] again" [78], I believe this is unacceptable in Wikipedia. He also said it in a wikipedia article [79]. Also last time he issued a checkuser request on me and he said he would apologize if I was innocent of being a sockpuppet but he never did, can you admins tell him to please behave? his insults are not justified. Thank you.-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your evidence he requested checkuser? (Note: most of here are not admins, just follow editors trying to help.) I'll make a note on his talk that sockpuppet accusations don't belong in article talk pages. Gerardw ( talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I want is for somebody to please tell him something, this has been going long enough. My evidence...well he told me he would issue a checkuser request if I didn't acknowledge my sockpuppetry (but I'm not so naturally I'm guessing he did. [80], thanks.-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Check his talkpage. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Bwilkins :) (funny comment btw lol)-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 00:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor has just come off two back to back blocks for 3RR violations and mysteriously I am seeing a page that he has been reverting being simultaneously edited by an anon IP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Other editors may also be interested in these posts on EHT made here a few weeks ago [81] [82] His behaviour has not really changed much since. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Case in point - please see the "LOL" comments most recently posted on my talk page by this user since he filed the WQ alert. I am removing them, and he is reposting again and again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, request to stay off posted on his talk. I apologize for providing the catalyst, feel free to delete. Gerardw ( talk) 01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, I have done so. Incidentally, message for the WQ responders here, I don't think people who follow up on WQ alerts should be posting on other users' pages to do something or "STFU". It's an expletive even in abbreviated form. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, the smiley after the STFU shows he was not berating you, and the point is still valid, you should NOT threaten an editor with a checkuser, etc. multiple times yet never post the request. If you did post the request, this does not apply to you obviously, but if you are really concerned he is a sock, post the checkuser request. If you don't post the request, it looks to neutral third parties like you are just trying to intimidate another editor. Theseeker4 ( talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed post the request, before all the above comments were made. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good, you made the request. Do you have the results yet? Part of Euro's complaint was that you said you would apologize if you were wrong and you didn't; did the checkuser come back yet? If so, I would assume Euro was not the sock you suspected him of being, but obviously if it did not come back yet we all would have to wait for the results. Theseeker4 ( talk) 01:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was declined [83] so we will never know. My case is outlined there, I'll let others be the judge. All I can say is that I have been editing at WP long enough to have encountered my fair share of sockpuppets, and to know the types of behaviour that they indulge in. I'm sure that others will agree it's mysterious when a user has just come off two back to back 3RR blocks and then an anon IP with a similar edit history starts making the same edits, and then we see a post on the talk page from the user in support of the edits... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, looked at the case, it does look suspicious, but unless this IP and EHT cross paths again nothing obviously is going to come of this. EHT was warned not to post to your talk page anymore, and to avoid situations like this in the future I suggest being a little more conservative with your warnings to users; even when you suspect them of being socks, let the checkuser request go through without posting too inflammatory of warnings on their pages. Not that notifying them is wrong, but if the warning provokes the user, like yours to EHT did, then it serves to escalate, not resolve the dispute :-). Good luck and happy editing. (I know this section was already resolved, but thought I should at least leave a final comment after challenging The Red Hat as to whether or not he posted the check user request.) Theseeker4 ( talk) 02:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible comments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Podomi moved the page Swedish-speaking Finns to Finland's Swedes violating the move procedure. The move was done without consensus, while the former location was reached after extensive move discussion which resulted in consensus (in Octorber 2006). Talk page gives a good overview of the conflict.-- MPorciusCato ( talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)