This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
There has been an ongoing content dispute at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences between Esoglou ( talk · contribs) and LoveMonkey ( talk · contribs) which seems to have degenerated into prolonged incivility (see the talk page). The questionable comments are coming mostly from LoveMonkey — less so from Esoglou (whose questionable remarks seem to be more in the nature of defensive responses). The article's revision history suggests a continuing effort by LoveMonkey to WP:OWN the page.
I am not an expert on this subject matter and am hesitant to try to take sides on the content dispute, but the overall tone of the debate appears very unhealthy. Attempts to get the two parties to change their behaviour, and/or to get additional editors involved in this or related pages, have so far been in vain. I tried here, but my effort was quickly rebuffed. I think it's appropriate to get someone else involved, to guide this issue toward a resolution, and/or (if necessary) to confirm if my reading of the issue so far is on the mark or not. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It would probably also be helpful here to review the editing and talk history of East–West Schism, especially during June 2010. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Like most Wikipedia editors, I have strived to make the articles I edit as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, user Pun Fan has apparently claimed ownership of the article List of The Punisher comics, because he refuses to accept any edits he does not agree with. This has resulted in an edit war, and when I tried to politely bring this to his attention, he resorted to personal attacks, both in his edit summaries, and on his talk page. This is the only article this editor has ever worked on, and he has changed the title of the article twice without consensus, to suit his POV. [1] [2] Please help! Fortdj33 ( talk) 01:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi everybody! I am Pun_Fan and i would like to say lets not beat down the boy. If anybody is at fault it would be me. I over reacted to it all and i just take the punisher comic to heart. Which means i am pretty protective over it..lol So lets not go at it like this. We are all here for a passion some more then others, But! if it were not for this site i may have not been a punisher comic collector. Can't we all just get along? But! I ask in all this... Please be a manly man when it comes to Collecting Punisher Comics....Please.
Sorry for the bad night. Pun_Fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pun Fan ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Resolved –
User:Pppedia was blocked for making
legal threatsPlease, note that the page is being addressed by someone User:Pppedia who stated
|
I would like to report Sugar-Baby-Love for incivility. Here [3] refuses to address content (which is Warren Farrell) and discusses “sexual libido” and his theory that my name has something to do with sexual libido. Here he does it again [4]. It is a clear attempt to attack me personally instead of discussing his removal of two reliable sources. Here [5] the user questions my motivation, fails to assume good faith, and argues that “we” (that is the user and nobody else) “know what [I’m] doing” because I included a Merriam Webster Definition and an Allword definition in the article and pointed out that the sentence “Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism” does not confirm and cannot be used as a source for the sentence “The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law” [6]. I believe that behaviour like this is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Randygeorge ( talk) 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Add to this report Sugar-baby's tendency to see socks where none exist. See User_talk:Sugar-Baby-Love#Jacques_Dutronc and User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Sockpuppetry. 69.181.249.92 ( talk) 04:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
We've had some disruptive talk page editing on Talk:Park51 by User:Zachary Klaas. User is hostile and argumentative towards fellow editors ( diff. Believes article is only NPOV if it is highly critical of conservatives. The deeper issue is that he does not grasp WP:SYNTHESIS and has difficulty separating neutral facts from arguments and opinions (they are "factually documented"). While I disagree with some of his mainspace edits, to his credit he has not edit warred. But he is disrupting the talk page. I'm posting this alert after another editor requested that he be removed. Any assistance from uninvolved editors explaining synthesis and Wikipedia's civility policy would be much appreciated. Fletcher ( talk) 00:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently I replace the template {{ BLP unsourced}} with {{ BLP IMDB refimprove}} or {{ BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} on about 70 pages. I did this as I believed that it is a more accurate cleanup tag and provides a more detailed explanation of what is needed to be done and why IMDB isn't enough. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (I'll refer to him as HW from now on to save typing) reverted 7 of my edits, with the edit summary restore accurate tagging; Undid revision 3815###### by The-Pope (talk). About 30 minutes later I noticed that one of the articles had been reverted, so I posted a message on his talk page, explaining why I had done what I did. At the time I thought that he'd only reverted one edit, not 7. 12 hours later, having not received any reply on either his talk page, nor mine, despite HW editing prolifically during that day, I reverted the articles back again, with the edit summary of "disagree as per comments on your talk page, IMDB specific tag is more accurate and useful". 25 minute later HW reverted again without any edit summary. I noticed this and was a bit annoyed. So I posted again on his talk page. I did not re-revert. I waited for a response. 10 hours later another user, User:Tabercil (who I don't know at all and don't think I've ever interacted with in the past) reverted one of HW's edits back to the IMDB tag and also posted a message on HW's talk page that he agreed with my use of the IMDB tag.
HW then reverted Tabercil's edit to the BLP article and posted a message on Tabercil's talk page that was pretty close to a [ attack on me], or at least my motives. "This is more damaging to Wikipedia than simple vandalism; it sends the message that we don't really care about the BLP problem, so long as we can make it look like it's much smaller than it really is" I was angry at this stage, given how much work I've done on the UBLP problem this year, but also that HW was not engaging with me at all. So I replied, on both Tabercil's talk page and duplicated it on HW's talk page. As I often edit from a mobile device, his extrememly long, unarchived talk page was making communication with him difficult, so I also (I thought politely, he disagreed) asked him to archive his talk page.
The main issue here is should an experienced editor be able to revert other experienced editors three times without any discussion? He avoided WP:3RR, but he did not reply at all to my attempts to discuss the issue with him, until he deleted my posts on his talk page (which I know is his right to do) and put in his final edit summary "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" and "rude user, unwelcome here". I have not since re-reverted and at the moment I believe that one of the 7 articles has been sourced, so the tag dispute is moot, the others have the BLPunreferenced tag remaining, not the IMDB refimprove tag. I also have only used the IMDB reimprove tag since on one article, and won't use it again until this is resolved.
The secondary issue here really should be discussed elsewhere is the "content" dispute, ie whether or not the {{ BLP IMDB refimprove}}/{{ BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} tags are suitable to be used or not. I will only note here that the tag was challenged in a TfD when it was first created and survived it when the nominator withdrew his nomination (but the majority of the !votes were keep). HW has had two previous discussions about this topic - User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#use_of_BLP_unsourced_vs._BLP_refimprove which spanned the creation of the template, and HW didn't comment on the creation of it; and User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Confused in which he states his opposition to it's use.
As I've been asked/told not to post on his talk page anymore, I'm not going to defy him and notify him of this report, so if you think he should know about it, then can someone else please do it. The-Pope ( talk) 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a major, long-running problem with this editor, and is not limited to any one article or policy. He absolute refuses to discuss his absurdly strict interpretations of these editor-created policies with any content-creating editor. He continuously treats good editors as if they were vandals or trolls. This forces people who actually write articles to either stop editing here and become discussers and rule-makers/enforcers, or to find projects more welcoming to contributors. The latter is what I have done now, partly due to harassment from users like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but more because of the community's tolerance for this type of behavior at the expense of actual contribution. Until an RfC drives off this user, and policy is put in place to discourage this type of abuse of Wikipedia, I strongly recommend that anyone actually interested in researching and writing on any topic find a project more suited to their interests. The Wikipedia community's tolerance for this type of behavior makes it only a place for liars, bigots and prudes to edit-war in their bias into what they pretend is the "sum of human knowledge". Dekkappai ( talk) 16:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Masem and myself are engaged in a discussion about the notability of list, but in an attempt to undermine my arguments, he has engaged in repeated Ad hominem circumstantial attacks on me personally [19] [20] [21].
I have explained to him that personal attacks are not appropriate, since the discussion is not about me personally, nor are the questions raised by Masem relevant to the matter under discussion.
Masem is an administrator, and is aware that personal attacks are not acceptable behaviour in Wikipedia. He should know this because:
If Masem wants to discuss a personal matter in good faith, then he should bring it to my personal talk page. Staging mock arguments over the validity of my contributions is little more than cheap attention seeking.
In the first instance, I would like a third opinion on this issue. If there is something I have said or done that has offended Masem, I whole hearted appologise now. But if he is not willing to discuss this with me on my talk page, then I am asking him to cease the attacks, and to make amends with an appology. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been constantly harassed and attacked by an editor who is going under several IPs. Examples of his attacks can be found here, here, here, here. The list goes on. I've tried to deal with him but as he's under several IPs, and since I've given him warning through a few of them (example), I'm not sure what more I can do to deal with this editor. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
One of the most recent posts from User:BlueRobe is a rather hostile rant.
This is on top of multiple rants, soapboxing comments, and endless repitition of WP:OR. Basically you're likely to be able to pick out any of his contribs at random and have a good chance of seeing some form of problematic communication, but, specifically, over the last week, we have
He's received multiple warnings about his problematic behavior: [26], [27], [28].
I think he's a new editor here, but as he has continued despite warning, I think a resolution needs to be sought as this behavior is extremely unproductive. BigK HeX ( talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
issues moved down to the report following this one
|
---|
|
[Branched from the preceding WQA filing...]
'Moron' seems pretty apt to me. What exactly is the problem? -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Following thread portion provided for context
|
---|
About an edit containing: "anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism, by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principles" why was this removed? the existing source was already accepted by those who removed the new material, yet the old material was left on the page? how can one page of a source be valid, and not the next? Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice By Edward Stringham page 504, line 21. 517, line 20. Darkstar1st ( talk) 05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
. . . . .
|
<backdent>I have filed a sock puppet complaint against the editor in question, one of two (probably same editor, probably User: Karmaisking) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:125.7.71.6. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 05:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I was advised to bring a dispute here rather than on the admin noticeboard. Essentially the mains issue is User:Off2riorob's false accusation of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and particular his failure to assume good faith towards me. My supposed sock is User:Cacadores - there is virtually no overlap in terms of article or even the types of articles edited or times. No reasonable person would suspect Sockpuppetry whatsoever nevermind allege it. Here is the accusation: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=382494174&oldid=382493944
A lesser concern is Off2Rriorob's lack of civility towards me which is why I've taken particular issue to his false assumptions of sockpuppetry (normally I'd ignore such a statement if it were made in isolation).
-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) To be honest, I don't see the linked comment as a civility violation. On the face of it, off2riorob appears to be explaining the reason behind their actions, not actually accusing you of socking. I assume that there is some history here, and that's why you've brought this up, but suggest that you put this behind you for now and return to editing the article or the discussion. Generally, you'll need to demonstrate a pattern of incivility before expecting any action. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
While Off2riorob's editing style is not my cup of tea (insert my standard disclaimer), I don't think you have much of a case here. RegentsPark is in the right of it, you would need to establish a strong long-term pattern of abuse. With what you have brought to ANI and here, he is on the right side of the edge. Suggest you drop this and move on, sadder but wiser as to the current ways of Wikipedia. (Also suggest we close 'less Shakehandsman or the subject have any final comment.) Best wishes, Jusdafax 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Eusebeus ( talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
A few minutes ago I had decided not to do this, but that was before he accused me of trying to rig the AfD on his talk page. His most recent attack on me is at the AfD, where he claims I've bullied and harassed him and am unfit to be a 'moderator'. I responded at the AfD and his talk page, asking him to retract his attacks or make a formal complaint, and then a bit later trying hard to make it clear I thought he was editing in good faith and that we should try to avoid any conflict [32]. It was then noted on the AfD that he was canvassing (and calling editors, presumably me included, 'anti-Celts' which is silly). I warned him about this - a template I admit, but adding " It's quite possible you don't realise that this sort of post to talk pages, asking people to !vote a particular way, isn't allowed.". It's then that he claimed "You will be able to get people, as I bet you already have, who you know are interested in this wiki to be made aware of this debate and take part. The difference is you can do it without it being tracked and made public.". This isn't the first time he's complained about me, by the way, see [33] which I didn't know about at the time. Dougweller ( talk) 10:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that these are the exact same issues coming in to play here. This started as a concern over sources (I have no doubt that Doug's concern was genuine, and not the product of bad faith) and it became an unpleasant argument due to frustration. We can all understand frustration - it happens to all of us, and it always sucks to see an article you started up for deletion - but when your comments became personal, they crossed the line. I and other editors asked you to tone it down, but you didn't. When you essentially asserted that Doug was rigging the discussion behind the scenes, it was really, really uncool.
These issues are just going to keep coming up unless you really address them. As I've said before, Wikipedia is at the stage where we need to make sure all information we include is accurate and reliable, and there's just no way to do that beyond attributing it to reliable sources. And if you don't agree with what someone has done or feel it was unfair, there's no way for them to know it if you don't engage with them productively. As someone who shares a lot of your same interests, I'd be more than happy to work with you on anything you want to add to articles, or any problem you're having. I think we all agree that the material you've added over the last five years has been an invaluable a great asset for the project, and it would be a shame to lose your efforts. But personal comments are always inappropriate.--
Cúchullain
t/
c 22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This started about Doug's desire to delete an indisputably well referenced page that he thought wasn't notable enough (Evan Vaughan Anwyl). He stated that he wanted to consider forcing changes to another page that was connected to it because it was, in his view, too long. I suspected this had more to do with the fact I was involved with it than any concern over notability or length when there are thousands of comparable pages, particularly about the English nobility, which are arguably less notable and also include pedigrees. I believe this because I have seen discussions between him and other editors where they have been conspiring against me. I suspected this was just another attack on me by Doug who has never missed an opportunity to get stuck in. The other editors thought the subject was a notable one it was agreed to merge the two documents. Now that issue is to bed this whole matter is being deliberately dragged out and blurred into a long term critique of me rather than focused on the matter at hand which was the apparently horrendous things I said about Doug. I note that I was accused of "canvassing" support for that Evan Vaughan Anwyl page. But now I note a very similar process has been employed by Doug to get other editors, like Cuchullain, to get involved when he knows they are likely to shore up his own standpoint. What is the difference I ask? This whole issue that Cuchullain has brought up about referencing is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the original matter in hand and I think it is unacceptable to start expanding this unrelenting assault to whatever area they think fit. This is about bogus claims of personal attack. Nothing more. I stand by my words. At the end of the day this is a two way battle of wills between me and an administrator who wants to make me submit. I have tried in the past to get an understanding with him and a way of working with him but he has rebuffed me. This whole administration rights thing has gone to his head. Doug is bullying me and the things he accuses me of (canvassing) he in fact does very similar things himself when it suits him. In my view the Finland article on the Iron Age needs expansion. I am more than happy to work with Cuchullain on that but to be frank I am getting extremely sick and tired of all of this. Extremely sick and tired. Seriously, I think I am just going to delete my account. I have had enough. Where does this end? It is really starting to upset me now. If you want me to submit to you Doug it ain't going to happen. I am not going to give you that satisfaction. James Frankcom ( talk) 08:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I ask you to consider all this before I refer this cyber-bullying and elitism directly to Jimmy Wales...
Is it any wonder everyone is logging off.... James Frankcom ( talk) 09:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to request that an uninvolved third party comment on User:BlueRobe's interactions at War Crimes and the United States#Dresden Firebombing a War Crime, and perhaps try to defuse the situation.
The basic issue is that he posted a valid suggestion for content to be added to the article, but did not provide reliable sources [45]. Two editors, myself and User:NYCJosh agreed with the suggested addition, told him he was likely correct and thanked him, but pointed out that he needed to provide reliable sources before adding it. I provided him with a list of reliable sources, as well as an example of how to write a neutral representation of information taken from one of the sources. [46] In response to these suggestions BlueRobe angrily responded about how other editors are ignoring his suggestions and not trying to improve the article. I tried to calm him down and point out that I agreed with him, he responded that he was ignoring me and that he didn't read my post. [47]
I'd just like someone who he's not angry at to talk to him, and see if they can get him to calm down and civilly discuss the article with other editors.
-- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 00:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
(This discussion was broken off into it's own section to make sure we maintain focus in the original discussion.)
BlueRobe responded to one of my comments with an aggressive personal attack that seemed to be out of all proportion to what I'd said. I took it lightly but did wonder if he should be directed to read about good faith. So you can consider me an uninvolved third party with a similar experience. Ben Arnold ( talk) 00:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
So, to summarise, I am being harassed because: 1) I refuse to reply to Jrtayloriv in talk pages (how is refusing to reply to another User an offense?!); 2) I asked Ben Arnold if he was trolling in a post that was so obviously a troll that he immediately apologised when I called him on it; 3) I've said "dear boy"; 4) what? BlueRobe ( talk) 03:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
For the record when I said "you're right" in response to BlueRobe's comments I was referring solely to his observation that people in Canterbury are suffering. My apology was for being off-topic and a little insensitive to what some people are going through. I am not "trolling", "a miserable old bugger" or "misanthropic" as BlueRobe has labelled me. I have always contributed to Wikipedia in good faith and have done good work here. And will continue to do so. :) Ben Arnold ( talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and filed an RFC/U, since BlueRobe does not wish to discuss things here. Any interested editors should take the discussion there. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
User:DXRD seems to be making a lot of good faith efforts around wikipedia, however this user has been marking every edit as "minor" when most clearly are not minor with many being so disruptive that they are reverted on sight. Massive changes this user makes are often arbitrary and attempts at dialogue dont seem to be getting anywhere.
Another string of futile attempts on Talkpage
I would to see it emphasized to this user that Dialogue and proper marking of edit are important indicates of Good faith behavior. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 17:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) editor notified Weaponbb7 ( talk) 17:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
QuackGuru has been reverting every edit that he disagrees with on Chiropractic. He blanks his talk page to make discussions difficult. He accuses editors of being spammers for using references that do not agree with his point of view. Discussion with him is almost impossible because he takes everything to a personal level and starts attacking the contributors. He wants all opposing views to be excluded from the article and he wants every sentence in the article to read the way he decides (which, not hard to guess from his user name itself, is an anti-Chiropractic point of view). Looks like he's been following my edits outside the article and joining my discussions with other editors that have little to do with him.-- Anon 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
NickCT ( talk · contribs) We are trying to follow the steps of dispute resolution regarding the image at the article Ahmed Yassin, and I am having difficulties with User:NickCT and what I perceive as a continued patten of assumptions of bad faith. Perhaps, as someone who does not agree with his choices, I am over-reacting, and perhaps I am guilty of not posting in good faith either, so I would appreciate if uninvolved parties could look at the following diffs, and the background. Opinions and advice to help clarify whether I am overreacting, if not guilty of bad faith myself, or if Nick is the one assuming bad faith and should be cautioned to stop doing so, would be much appreciated. I tried discussing this with Nick directly on 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC), but that does not seem to have helped. Some diffs follow in approximately reverse chronological order:
To understand the dispute in toto, and understand where my opinions may be skewed and I may not have acted in the best manner, it is important to at least skim the discussions and repartee on Talk:Ahmed Yassin. Thank you for your time. -- Avi ( talk) 01:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Forum shopping? Do you know what forum shopping is? Here, let me quote for you: "Forum shopping means repeatedly raising the same issue at different discussion forums (e.g. the village pump, article talk page, admin noticeboard, deletion discussions, etc.) until you get a result you like." Kindly show me where I went prior to discuss issues I am having with how NickCT is treating me . -- Avi ( talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've read through the article's talk page, and it appears to me that the content dispute is proceeding through an appropriate dispute resolution option, namely an RFC. The two editors participating at this complaint notice also appear to be the ones in the most direct and regular conflict over the disputed content.
There have been some intemperate remarks from both Avi and NickCT obviously born of frustration with the dispute, as well as a stubborn adherence to their respective positions combined with a concerted effort to undermine the other's position, and much argumentation in between (all of this, frankly, typifies editing conflicts in the I/P arena).
To the point of this particular alert -- assumption of bad faith -- in short, it's clear to me that you've both moved beyond assuming bad faith to expecting/believing it of each other. (Cases in point: NickCT suggests Avi should "cease wikilawyering to push your POV" - and in this notice raises the question of whether the community should consider yanking his sysop buttons; Avi's suggesting that NickCT is "misusing" dispute resolution and repeated references to psychological projection, even on this page (does this kind of highly personal speculation about another editor really serve any useful purpose?)).
Both assert that the other has behaved inappropriately with respect to the RFC. I can't speak to whether Avi tried to undermine the RFC as I haven't evaluated that piece, but NickCT's suggestion that Avi has ignored the RFC's consensus is not correct. Avi appears to be insisting that the RFC be allowed to run the standard 30 days through the end of September/early October, rather than close it early. Those are two very different things, and the end of the month is very far away; the current consensus could change very much in that time. I think it's a bit premature to start raising mediation, since the RFC hasn't even concluded yet. This is an encyclopedia, not a race; it's okay if consensus takes some time to build. I did find Avi's comment that NickCT should feel free to obtain "consensus" to open an RFC to be curious (and wrong). I don't think I would characterize this as NickCT "misusing" the RFC, but perhaps it does mischaracterize Avi's position.
I'm frankly not sure what you two are looking for here on this page. This is a content dispute that is proceeding through dispute resolution in the proper fashion. It does seem that you have both made it more uncomfortable than it needs to be by constantly crossing swords with one another, sometimes in an unnecessarily personal way. I would recommend that you both take a wikibreak from the article, perhaps even mutually agree not to edit it (including the talk page) until the RFC has run its course. A break of that magnitude would give you a chance to catch your breath, regroup, put your feelings into perspective, and then roll up your sleeves and implement the consensus the RFC has achieved at the end of the month. But even if you don't want to agree to that timeframe, perhaps you can take a couple of days off and spend time not thinking about each other. Good luck. — e. ripley\ talk 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, E. Ripley, for your detailed and clear remarks. I will try to be more careful about how I word my remarks regarding the article, and as the holidays are upon us (tonight 8-) ), I will have enforced breaks from any editing, let alone this article, so hopefully that will go to defuse the tension. Thank you again. -- Avi ( talk) 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
A WP:AN/I was started by lester ( talk · contribs), Now Lester is blocking every attempt to make the article NPOV. We have requested at RFC, under the media section. Please see the talk:Windows Phone 7, the Windows Phone 7 history, and the WP:AN/I section. Thanks.-- intelati( Call) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User Lizzard has repeatedly launched what I consider to be bad faith attacks on an anon editor at both https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Anders and at a discussion created by her at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Moreover, Lizzard eventually admitted to knowing and working with the subject of the article, a previously non-disclosed COI at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Bigdaddy1981 ( talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a problem with User:Surturz, who over the past eight hours has launched into personal attacks on me, using a torrent of expletives.
Could this explosion of attacks stop, please? Tony (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
In 15:57, 24 April 2007, I added a section about the development/evolution on the "Real-time strategy" wikipage, named "Development of strategy and tactics". This section has been modified since then for some grammer issues or potential misunderstanding on somebody's intention. However, in 07:10, 20 May 2007, wiki-user Pie4all88 removed this section, and based on his description, this was due to "it didn't make sense and fixed up a little grammar". Since I have not looked around on this wiki content(Real-time strategy) for a long time, I saw this occasionally a couple of hours ago and I was confused by the reason for making such a removal decision by Pie4all88. Since he was a registered wiki-user, he should understand that not all the wiki-users were native English speakers, and, not all English contents in Wikipedia were grammer-perfect. Meantime, I wondered which part of this section was so-called "didn't make sense". Per my personal supposition, it might be a mixed up but not fixed up between sense and grammer. So I request a clear explanation about this description by someone. Due to the fact that I am ESL, I don't want this become an excuse of something. The following is a history revision of the related wikipage:
Revision history of Real-time strategy
Modifications about this section:
15:57, 24 April 2007 202.86.183.204(My IP at that moment) 00:35, 10 May 2007 24.252.96.162 16:47, 10 May 2007 87.126.251.158 07:10, 20 May 2007 Pie4all88
Please use simple English in any response to this alert. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.94.175.81 ( talk) 04:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Molobo, who´s article about Mitteleuropa was made up mostly out of propaganda sources (either war enemies or communist propaganda) and not a single german source has returned to the edit the more neutral version back to hate-mongering. I changed it back to more neutral again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunhist ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Several issues with User:Cat clean. Specific issue I am reporting is WP:NPA.
While they are using a new account, they show a sophistocated understanding of WP workings (one of their early edits was posting a case at AN/I) Lionel ( talk) 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I plead guilty for stating didn't believe this editor's adding a category and source was accurate. No combination of searches on the book in question supported the content or category of pederasty [51], a contentious and controversial category similar to the pedophile category this user has also been adding. If an article subject is either - and are notable for this there should be no problem finding a reliable source to support adding such a category. This editor also likes to add LGBT categories to convicted child sexual abusers. Again these are categories that should be easy to source and with living people require self-declarations. They have continually added disputed content and categories but when they also provide reliable sources I have no problem with it. I never called them a liar but technically did say in one case I thought it was a lie and will certainly apologize if their edit turns out to be based in fact. The edit that was deceptive is this one [52] in it you can see where the user changes an archive listing of documents of the organization to just one - "Men Loving Boys" which supports their interest in linking another LGBT group to pedophilia. It changed an acceptable external link into a non-acceptable one which is odd because this same user seems quite at ease deleting external links off many articles. Outside of pedophilia, pederasty and LGBT subjects this user may show sound judgment but their eagerness to misrepresent sources and add categories against policy is in fact vandalism. I also admit I've gotten worked up over this and have had to pull away but I'm not sorry for insisting this user uses reliable sources accurately and i see no reason not to continue to do so. When they stop misapplying categories and labeling all sorts of people who have only been accused or alleged of something into controversial categories then no one will have any reason to undue them at all. Cat clean ( talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Misrepresenting sources:
Here is the case I found unacceptable: You added "Gay organizations, in the beginning, were very supportive of NAMBLA." [53]
This replaced the original first sentence of the section "Ostracism" which stated "Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded:"
Here is what I wrote from the very same source: [54] "In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups."
You'll note specifically that one version claims all gay groups were supportive of NAMBLA, which the article goes to great lengths to point out is about pedophilia which omits that the main focus for the gay left was to help protect gay teens.
The original content was: Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded: in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979. In addition to forming several working committees, the conference was responsible for drafting the basic organizing principles of the march ("the five demands" Flyer for March on Washington [see p. 23]). Originally, the Gay Youth Caucus had won approval for its proposal demanding "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws." However at the first meeting of the National Coordinating Committee, a contingent of lesbians threatened not to participate in the march unless a substitute was adopted. The substitute, authored by an adult lesbian and approved in a mail poll by a majority of delegates, stated: "Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments." [1]
Vandalism: Restoring disputed section about NAMBLA on Ginsberg bio without any consensus. [55] [56],
adding sexuality categories on living people biographies against policy (adding LGBT categories to people convicted of child rape, murder) [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
Looking through the user's work they evidently wish to remove content that is positive towards LGBT people and they wish to add scandalous and negative information. If sources state clearly that a person is both homosexual and a paedophile then simply produce the sources. If they don't then that content should be left off until sources justify adding it. Cat clean ( talk) 22:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
For my part I will try to not call them any names but I will still insist on reliable sources for adding pedophilia and pederasty content and categories. I also simply take a break when I want to scream. Other users have been very nice, even ones who I don't agree we can find a solution. Cat clean ( talk) 01:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Summary of complaint:
More details:
I am working on the Aleppo page. User:Kevorkmail is active there and he seems to have been taking care of the page. The climate section was empty. Right after I filled it up he changed what I wrote without leaving an edit summary:
I reverted and asked him to talk:
This is the discussion I opened, I was critical of him a little bit because this was not the first time he changes what I write without writing an edit summary or discussing with me first:
He refused to discuss. Instead he lashed out at me and overrode my edit:
This is not the first time he does that. I asked him before on his talk page to talk with me or at least write an edit summary when he changes what I write. He respoded with an apology, but he really did not change his behavior and he keeps editing what other people write without saying a word as for why. My demands to him are two: 1-that he talk and explain what he does when he does it, especially if it involves something I wrote. 2-that he does not override me when I revert his edits and ask him to discuss.-- HD86 ( talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I never said that "people shouldn't modify things that other people write." I never said that "Kevorkmail does not have the right to modify what I write." I never complained about that. Did you really read what I wrote above? I am sorry, maybe it was too long?
Maybe this page is about serious offenses, so this is what makes you people tend to speak like policemen. Anyway, here is the complaint again (hopefully) in a clearer and more direct way:
If you, Looie496, think this is not a problem, then I think I am going to say: thanks anyway.-- HD86 ( talk) 21:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this is not the page I am looking for. Thanks anyway. The problem is not that serious. I tried at first to have somebody from the "third opinion" page but they refused and told me to come to this police station. I withdraw my complaint. Have a nice day.-- HD86 ( talk) 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
In addition to helping out at WQA from time to time, I also help out at the External Links Noticeboard. The following was reported at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Bob_Day_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29:
Bob Day ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bob Day is an Australian politician. His Wikipedia article is currently negatively biased. He has a webpage which, in addition to general information about him, attempts to respond to the content of our article. The advocate of that content, Timeshift9 ( talk · contribs) repeatedly removes the link, despite being told directly that the site belongs to Bob Day, see Talk:Bob_Day#Bob Day dot Com for our discussion. Fred Talk 18:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please look at the edit summary of this diff by User:Timeshift9: "rv Fred - and which of the three at Wikipedia:ELYES#What_should_be_linked are you laughingly attempt to claim applies here? i'll say it YET AGAIN. talkpage WP:CONSENSUS is key, stop ignoring."
As a neutral editor who had not been involved in the article, I stated the following at Talk:Bob_Day#Bob_Day_dot_Com:"I saw the issue about BobDay.com.au at EL noticeboard. This is clearly an official site. Why should there be a statement saying Bob Day controls the site when his name is on it? Even the most anti-EL editor agrees that the official site of a subject of a BLP should be included so readers can see what the subject has to say. Vyeh ( talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)"
Here are the responses following my comment:
*****
Guess you were right. The world IS upside down, see "Clicking Candidate.com, Landing at Opponent.com", Naw Fred Talk 06:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it qualifies as an official site. It makes no claim to even being authorized by Bob Day, much less controlled by him. It has references to support its biographical information. If it is his site, why would the references be needed? It does have a lot of useful information, such as publications actually written by Bob Day. The references and publications could be used to improve the Wikipedia article without adding an EL. It may be tempting to link to the entire list of publications, but it isn't the mission of Wikipedia to index everything he was ever written. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 07:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
*****
Ignoring the External Link issues, I would appreciate it if another WQA editor would take a look and weigh in. I will notify User:Timeshift9. Vyeh ( talk) 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
is inappropriate when I am regularly talking to him. I do cite policy as a part of my talking, and he does not seem to be able to see how it applies to the issues under discussion. To approach this in terms of the external link dispute, a link to the subjects website is generally considered appropriate, and is, in fact, written into policy. He's just removed it again http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bob_Day&diff=385106234&oldid=385105705 with the comment "what is it you fail to understand?" Fred Talk 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)And which of the three points in that section you link are you laughingly trying to apply here? Throwing rules at me and taking me to pages to report me is going to get you absolutely nowhere until you actually shut up, sit down, and thrash out some talk page consensus. Sorry to be increasingly rude but you are not listening to me or others. Try it for once.
In an {{ afd}} Bahamut0013 wrote a comment that began: "You don't acquit your intelligence well if you need me to explain to you how to apply a policy that..." This comment was addressed to another contributor. It seems to me that lapses from our civility policies and conventions have grown so routine, in deletion discussions, that they generally pass without notice.
I left a comment that said: "WRT the intelligence of other contributors -- we are supposed to confine our comments to the issues. Any genuine doubts we have about other contributor's intelligence we should keep to ourselves."
In bahamut0013's reply they say: "I can see from your continued rantings and ravings that I'm not going to get through to you, so I will no longer waste my time in attempting so. The closing admin will surely have the intelligence to see the wisdom of the argument..."
It seems to me that characterizing my good faith comments as "continued rantings and ravings" is an escalation in incivility.
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
There has been an ongoing content dispute at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences between Esoglou ( talk · contribs) and LoveMonkey ( talk · contribs) which seems to have degenerated into prolonged incivility (see the talk page). The questionable comments are coming mostly from LoveMonkey — less so from Esoglou (whose questionable remarks seem to be more in the nature of defensive responses). The article's revision history suggests a continuing effort by LoveMonkey to WP:OWN the page.
I am not an expert on this subject matter and am hesitant to try to take sides on the content dispute, but the overall tone of the debate appears very unhealthy. Attempts to get the two parties to change their behaviour, and/or to get additional editors involved in this or related pages, have so far been in vain. I tried here, but my effort was quickly rebuffed. I think it's appropriate to get someone else involved, to guide this issue toward a resolution, and/or (if necessary) to confirm if my reading of the issue so far is on the mark or not. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 21:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It would probably also be helpful here to review the editing and talk history of East–West Schism, especially during June 2010. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl! 19:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Like most Wikipedia editors, I have strived to make the articles I edit as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, user Pun Fan has apparently claimed ownership of the article List of The Punisher comics, because he refuses to accept any edits he does not agree with. This has resulted in an edit war, and when I tried to politely bring this to his attention, he resorted to personal attacks, both in his edit summaries, and on his talk page. This is the only article this editor has ever worked on, and he has changed the title of the article twice without consensus, to suit his POV. [1] [2] Please help! Fortdj33 ( talk) 01:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi everybody! I am Pun_Fan and i would like to say lets not beat down the boy. If anybody is at fault it would be me. I over reacted to it all and i just take the punisher comic to heart. Which means i am pretty protective over it..lol So lets not go at it like this. We are all here for a passion some more then others, But! if it were not for this site i may have not been a punisher comic collector. Can't we all just get along? But! I ask in all this... Please be a manly man when it comes to Collecting Punisher Comics....Please.
Sorry for the bad night. Pun_Fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pun Fan ( talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Resolved –
User:Pppedia was blocked for making
legal threatsPlease, note that the page is being addressed by someone User:Pppedia who stated
|
I would like to report Sugar-Baby-Love for incivility. Here [3] refuses to address content (which is Warren Farrell) and discusses “sexual libido” and his theory that my name has something to do with sexual libido. Here he does it again [4]. It is a clear attempt to attack me personally instead of discussing his removal of two reliable sources. Here [5] the user questions my motivation, fails to assume good faith, and argues that “we” (that is the user and nobody else) “know what [I’m] doing” because I included a Merriam Webster Definition and an Allword definition in the article and pointed out that the sentence “Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism” does not confirm and cannot be used as a source for the sentence “The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law” [6]. I believe that behaviour like this is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Randygeorge ( talk) 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Add to this report Sugar-baby's tendency to see socks where none exist. See User_talk:Sugar-Baby-Love#Jacques_Dutronc and User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Sockpuppetry. 69.181.249.92 ( talk) 04:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
We've had some disruptive talk page editing on Talk:Park51 by User:Zachary Klaas. User is hostile and argumentative towards fellow editors ( diff. Believes article is only NPOV if it is highly critical of conservatives. The deeper issue is that he does not grasp WP:SYNTHESIS and has difficulty separating neutral facts from arguments and opinions (they are "factually documented"). While I disagree with some of his mainspace edits, to his credit he has not edit warred. But he is disrupting the talk page. I'm posting this alert after another editor requested that he be removed. Any assistance from uninvolved editors explaining synthesis and Wikipedia's civility policy would be much appreciated. Fletcher ( talk) 00:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently I replace the template {{ BLP unsourced}} with {{ BLP IMDB refimprove}} or {{ BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} on about 70 pages. I did this as I believed that it is a more accurate cleanup tag and provides a more detailed explanation of what is needed to be done and why IMDB isn't enough. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (I'll refer to him as HW from now on to save typing) reverted 7 of my edits, with the edit summary restore accurate tagging; Undid revision 3815###### by The-Pope (talk). About 30 minutes later I noticed that one of the articles had been reverted, so I posted a message on his talk page, explaining why I had done what I did. At the time I thought that he'd only reverted one edit, not 7. 12 hours later, having not received any reply on either his talk page, nor mine, despite HW editing prolifically during that day, I reverted the articles back again, with the edit summary of "disagree as per comments on your talk page, IMDB specific tag is more accurate and useful". 25 minute later HW reverted again without any edit summary. I noticed this and was a bit annoyed. So I posted again on his talk page. I did not re-revert. I waited for a response. 10 hours later another user, User:Tabercil (who I don't know at all and don't think I've ever interacted with in the past) reverted one of HW's edits back to the IMDB tag and also posted a message on HW's talk page that he agreed with my use of the IMDB tag.
HW then reverted Tabercil's edit to the BLP article and posted a message on Tabercil's talk page that was pretty close to a [ attack on me], or at least my motives. "This is more damaging to Wikipedia than simple vandalism; it sends the message that we don't really care about the BLP problem, so long as we can make it look like it's much smaller than it really is" I was angry at this stage, given how much work I've done on the UBLP problem this year, but also that HW was not engaging with me at all. So I replied, on both Tabercil's talk page and duplicated it on HW's talk page. As I often edit from a mobile device, his extrememly long, unarchived talk page was making communication with him difficult, so I also (I thought politely, he disagreed) asked him to archive his talk page.
The main issue here is should an experienced editor be able to revert other experienced editors three times without any discussion? He avoided WP:3RR, but he did not reply at all to my attempts to discuss the issue with him, until he deleted my posts on his talk page (which I know is his right to do) and put in his final edit summary "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" and "rude user, unwelcome here". I have not since re-reverted and at the moment I believe that one of the 7 articles has been sourced, so the tag dispute is moot, the others have the BLPunreferenced tag remaining, not the IMDB refimprove tag. I also have only used the IMDB reimprove tag since on one article, and won't use it again until this is resolved.
The secondary issue here really should be discussed elsewhere is the "content" dispute, ie whether or not the {{ BLP IMDB refimprove}}/{{ BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} tags are suitable to be used or not. I will only note here that the tag was challenged in a TfD when it was first created and survived it when the nominator withdrew his nomination (but the majority of the !votes were keep). HW has had two previous discussions about this topic - User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#use_of_BLP_unsourced_vs._BLP_refimprove which spanned the creation of the template, and HW didn't comment on the creation of it; and User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Confused in which he states his opposition to it's use.
As I've been asked/told not to post on his talk page anymore, I'm not going to defy him and notify him of this report, so if you think he should know about it, then can someone else please do it. The-Pope ( talk) 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a major, long-running problem with this editor, and is not limited to any one article or policy. He absolute refuses to discuss his absurdly strict interpretations of these editor-created policies with any content-creating editor. He continuously treats good editors as if they were vandals or trolls. This forces people who actually write articles to either stop editing here and become discussers and rule-makers/enforcers, or to find projects more welcoming to contributors. The latter is what I have done now, partly due to harassment from users like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but more because of the community's tolerance for this type of behavior at the expense of actual contribution. Until an RfC drives off this user, and policy is put in place to discourage this type of abuse of Wikipedia, I strongly recommend that anyone actually interested in researching and writing on any topic find a project more suited to their interests. The Wikipedia community's tolerance for this type of behavior makes it only a place for liars, bigots and prudes to edit-war in their bias into what they pretend is the "sum of human knowledge". Dekkappai ( talk) 16:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Masem and myself are engaged in a discussion about the notability of list, but in an attempt to undermine my arguments, he has engaged in repeated Ad hominem circumstantial attacks on me personally [19] [20] [21].
I have explained to him that personal attacks are not appropriate, since the discussion is not about me personally, nor are the questions raised by Masem relevant to the matter under discussion.
Masem is an administrator, and is aware that personal attacks are not acceptable behaviour in Wikipedia. He should know this because:
If Masem wants to discuss a personal matter in good faith, then he should bring it to my personal talk page. Staging mock arguments over the validity of my contributions is little more than cheap attention seeking.
In the first instance, I would like a third opinion on this issue. If there is something I have said or done that has offended Masem, I whole hearted appologise now. But if he is not willing to discuss this with me on my talk page, then I am asking him to cease the attacks, and to make amends with an appology. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been constantly harassed and attacked by an editor who is going under several IPs. Examples of his attacks can be found here, here, here, here. The list goes on. I've tried to deal with him but as he's under several IPs, and since I've given him warning through a few of them (example), I'm not sure what more I can do to deal with this editor. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 12:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
One of the most recent posts from User:BlueRobe is a rather hostile rant.
This is on top of multiple rants, soapboxing comments, and endless repitition of WP:OR. Basically you're likely to be able to pick out any of his contribs at random and have a good chance of seeing some form of problematic communication, but, specifically, over the last week, we have
He's received multiple warnings about his problematic behavior: [26], [27], [28].
I think he's a new editor here, but as he has continued despite warning, I think a resolution needs to be sought as this behavior is extremely unproductive. BigK HeX ( talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
issues moved down to the report following this one
|
---|
|
[Branched from the preceding WQA filing...]
'Moron' seems pretty apt to me. What exactly is the problem? -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Following thread portion provided for context
|
---|
About an edit containing: "anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism, by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principles" why was this removed? the existing source was already accepted by those who removed the new material, yet the old material was left on the page? how can one page of a source be valid, and not the next? Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice By Edward Stringham page 504, line 21. 517, line 20. Darkstar1st ( talk) 05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
. . . . .
|
<backdent>I have filed a sock puppet complaint against the editor in question, one of two (probably same editor, probably User: Karmaisking) at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:125.7.71.6. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 05:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I was advised to bring a dispute here rather than on the admin noticeboard. Essentially the mains issue is User:Off2riorob's false accusation of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and particular his failure to assume good faith towards me. My supposed sock is User:Cacadores - there is virtually no overlap in terms of article or even the types of articles edited or times. No reasonable person would suspect Sockpuppetry whatsoever nevermind allege it. Here is the accusation: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=382494174&oldid=382493944
A lesser concern is Off2Rriorob's lack of civility towards me which is why I've taken particular issue to his false assumptions of sockpuppetry (normally I'd ignore such a statement if it were made in isolation).
-- Shakehandsman ( talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(od) To be honest, I don't see the linked comment as a civility violation. On the face of it, off2riorob appears to be explaining the reason behind their actions, not actually accusing you of socking. I assume that there is some history here, and that's why you've brought this up, but suggest that you put this behind you for now and return to editing the article or the discussion. Generally, you'll need to demonstrate a pattern of incivility before expecting any action. -- RegentsPark ( talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
While Off2riorob's editing style is not my cup of tea (insert my standard disclaimer), I don't think you have much of a case here. RegentsPark is in the right of it, you would need to establish a strong long-term pattern of abuse. With what you have brought to ANI and here, he is on the right side of the edge. Suggest you drop this and move on, sadder but wiser as to the current ways of Wikipedia. (Also suggest we close 'less Shakehandsman or the subject have any final comment.) Best wishes, Jusdafax 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Eusebeus ( talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
A few minutes ago I had decided not to do this, but that was before he accused me of trying to rig the AfD on his talk page. His most recent attack on me is at the AfD, where he claims I've bullied and harassed him and am unfit to be a 'moderator'. I responded at the AfD and his talk page, asking him to retract his attacks or make a formal complaint, and then a bit later trying hard to make it clear I thought he was editing in good faith and that we should try to avoid any conflict [32]. It was then noted on the AfD that he was canvassing (and calling editors, presumably me included, 'anti-Celts' which is silly). I warned him about this - a template I admit, but adding " It's quite possible you don't realise that this sort of post to talk pages, asking people to !vote a particular way, isn't allowed.". It's then that he claimed "You will be able to get people, as I bet you already have, who you know are interested in this wiki to be made aware of this debate and take part. The difference is you can do it without it being tracked and made public.". This isn't the first time he's complained about me, by the way, see [33] which I didn't know about at the time. Dougweller ( talk) 10:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that these are the exact same issues coming in to play here. This started as a concern over sources (I have no doubt that Doug's concern was genuine, and not the product of bad faith) and it became an unpleasant argument due to frustration. We can all understand frustration - it happens to all of us, and it always sucks to see an article you started up for deletion - but when your comments became personal, they crossed the line. I and other editors asked you to tone it down, but you didn't. When you essentially asserted that Doug was rigging the discussion behind the scenes, it was really, really uncool.
These issues are just going to keep coming up unless you really address them. As I've said before, Wikipedia is at the stage where we need to make sure all information we include is accurate and reliable, and there's just no way to do that beyond attributing it to reliable sources. And if you don't agree with what someone has done or feel it was unfair, there's no way for them to know it if you don't engage with them productively. As someone who shares a lot of your same interests, I'd be more than happy to work with you on anything you want to add to articles, or any problem you're having. I think we all agree that the material you've added over the last five years has been an invaluable a great asset for the project, and it would be a shame to lose your efforts. But personal comments are always inappropriate.--
Cúchullain
t/
c 22:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This started about Doug's desire to delete an indisputably well referenced page that he thought wasn't notable enough (Evan Vaughan Anwyl). He stated that he wanted to consider forcing changes to another page that was connected to it because it was, in his view, too long. I suspected this had more to do with the fact I was involved with it than any concern over notability or length when there are thousands of comparable pages, particularly about the English nobility, which are arguably less notable and also include pedigrees. I believe this because I have seen discussions between him and other editors where they have been conspiring against me. I suspected this was just another attack on me by Doug who has never missed an opportunity to get stuck in. The other editors thought the subject was a notable one it was agreed to merge the two documents. Now that issue is to bed this whole matter is being deliberately dragged out and blurred into a long term critique of me rather than focused on the matter at hand which was the apparently horrendous things I said about Doug. I note that I was accused of "canvassing" support for that Evan Vaughan Anwyl page. But now I note a very similar process has been employed by Doug to get other editors, like Cuchullain, to get involved when he knows they are likely to shore up his own standpoint. What is the difference I ask? This whole issue that Cuchullain has brought up about referencing is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the original matter in hand and I think it is unacceptable to start expanding this unrelenting assault to whatever area they think fit. This is about bogus claims of personal attack. Nothing more. I stand by my words. At the end of the day this is a two way battle of wills between me and an administrator who wants to make me submit. I have tried in the past to get an understanding with him and a way of working with him but he has rebuffed me. This whole administration rights thing has gone to his head. Doug is bullying me and the things he accuses me of (canvassing) he in fact does very similar things himself when it suits him. In my view the Finland article on the Iron Age needs expansion. I am more than happy to work with Cuchullain on that but to be frank I am getting extremely sick and tired of all of this. Extremely sick and tired. Seriously, I think I am just going to delete my account. I have had enough. Where does this end? It is really starting to upset me now. If you want me to submit to you Doug it ain't going to happen. I am not going to give you that satisfaction. James Frankcom ( talk) 08:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I ask you to consider all this before I refer this cyber-bullying and elitism directly to Jimmy Wales...
Is it any wonder everyone is logging off.... James Frankcom ( talk) 09:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to request that an uninvolved third party comment on User:BlueRobe's interactions at War Crimes and the United States#Dresden Firebombing a War Crime, and perhaps try to defuse the situation.
The basic issue is that he posted a valid suggestion for content to be added to the article, but did not provide reliable sources [45]. Two editors, myself and User:NYCJosh agreed with the suggested addition, told him he was likely correct and thanked him, but pointed out that he needed to provide reliable sources before adding it. I provided him with a list of reliable sources, as well as an example of how to write a neutral representation of information taken from one of the sources. [46] In response to these suggestions BlueRobe angrily responded about how other editors are ignoring his suggestions and not trying to improve the article. I tried to calm him down and point out that I agreed with him, he responded that he was ignoring me and that he didn't read my post. [47]
I'd just like someone who he's not angry at to talk to him, and see if they can get him to calm down and civilly discuss the article with other editors.
-- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 00:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
(This discussion was broken off into it's own section to make sure we maintain focus in the original discussion.)
BlueRobe responded to one of my comments with an aggressive personal attack that seemed to be out of all proportion to what I'd said. I took it lightly but did wonder if he should be directed to read about good faith. So you can consider me an uninvolved third party with a similar experience. Ben Arnold ( talk) 00:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
So, to summarise, I am being harassed because: 1) I refuse to reply to Jrtayloriv in talk pages (how is refusing to reply to another User an offense?!); 2) I asked Ben Arnold if he was trolling in a post that was so obviously a troll that he immediately apologised when I called him on it; 3) I've said "dear boy"; 4) what? BlueRobe ( talk) 03:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
For the record when I said "you're right" in response to BlueRobe's comments I was referring solely to his observation that people in Canterbury are suffering. My apology was for being off-topic and a little insensitive to what some people are going through. I am not "trolling", "a miserable old bugger" or "misanthropic" as BlueRobe has labelled me. I have always contributed to Wikipedia in good faith and have done good work here. And will continue to do so. :) Ben Arnold ( talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and filed an RFC/U, since BlueRobe does not wish to discuss things here. Any interested editors should take the discussion there. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
User:DXRD seems to be making a lot of good faith efforts around wikipedia, however this user has been marking every edit as "minor" when most clearly are not minor with many being so disruptive that they are reverted on sight. Massive changes this user makes are often arbitrary and attempts at dialogue dont seem to be getting anywhere.
Another string of futile attempts on Talkpage
I would to see it emphasized to this user that Dialogue and proper marking of edit are important indicates of Good faith behavior. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 17:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) editor notified Weaponbb7 ( talk) 17:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
QuackGuru has been reverting every edit that he disagrees with on Chiropractic. He blanks his talk page to make discussions difficult. He accuses editors of being spammers for using references that do not agree with his point of view. Discussion with him is almost impossible because he takes everything to a personal level and starts attacking the contributors. He wants all opposing views to be excluded from the article and he wants every sentence in the article to read the way he decides (which, not hard to guess from his user name itself, is an anti-Chiropractic point of view). Looks like he's been following my edits outside the article and joining my discussions with other editors that have little to do with him.-- Anon 11:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
NickCT ( talk · contribs) We are trying to follow the steps of dispute resolution regarding the image at the article Ahmed Yassin, and I am having difficulties with User:NickCT and what I perceive as a continued patten of assumptions of bad faith. Perhaps, as someone who does not agree with his choices, I am over-reacting, and perhaps I am guilty of not posting in good faith either, so I would appreciate if uninvolved parties could look at the following diffs, and the background. Opinions and advice to help clarify whether I am overreacting, if not guilty of bad faith myself, or if Nick is the one assuming bad faith and should be cautioned to stop doing so, would be much appreciated. I tried discussing this with Nick directly on 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC), but that does not seem to have helped. Some diffs follow in approximately reverse chronological order:
To understand the dispute in toto, and understand where my opinions may be skewed and I may not have acted in the best manner, it is important to at least skim the discussions and repartee on Talk:Ahmed Yassin. Thank you for your time. -- Avi ( talk) 01:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Forum shopping? Do you know what forum shopping is? Here, let me quote for you: "Forum shopping means repeatedly raising the same issue at different discussion forums (e.g. the village pump, article talk page, admin noticeboard, deletion discussions, etc.) until you get a result you like." Kindly show me where I went prior to discuss issues I am having with how NickCT is treating me . -- Avi ( talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I've read through the article's talk page, and it appears to me that the content dispute is proceeding through an appropriate dispute resolution option, namely an RFC. The two editors participating at this complaint notice also appear to be the ones in the most direct and regular conflict over the disputed content.
There have been some intemperate remarks from both Avi and NickCT obviously born of frustration with the dispute, as well as a stubborn adherence to their respective positions combined with a concerted effort to undermine the other's position, and much argumentation in between (all of this, frankly, typifies editing conflicts in the I/P arena).
To the point of this particular alert -- assumption of bad faith -- in short, it's clear to me that you've both moved beyond assuming bad faith to expecting/believing it of each other. (Cases in point: NickCT suggests Avi should "cease wikilawyering to push your POV" - and in this notice raises the question of whether the community should consider yanking his sysop buttons; Avi's suggesting that NickCT is "misusing" dispute resolution and repeated references to psychological projection, even on this page (does this kind of highly personal speculation about another editor really serve any useful purpose?)).
Both assert that the other has behaved inappropriately with respect to the RFC. I can't speak to whether Avi tried to undermine the RFC as I haven't evaluated that piece, but NickCT's suggestion that Avi has ignored the RFC's consensus is not correct. Avi appears to be insisting that the RFC be allowed to run the standard 30 days through the end of September/early October, rather than close it early. Those are two very different things, and the end of the month is very far away; the current consensus could change very much in that time. I think it's a bit premature to start raising mediation, since the RFC hasn't even concluded yet. This is an encyclopedia, not a race; it's okay if consensus takes some time to build. I did find Avi's comment that NickCT should feel free to obtain "consensus" to open an RFC to be curious (and wrong). I don't think I would characterize this as NickCT "misusing" the RFC, but perhaps it does mischaracterize Avi's position.
I'm frankly not sure what you two are looking for here on this page. This is a content dispute that is proceeding through dispute resolution in the proper fashion. It does seem that you have both made it more uncomfortable than it needs to be by constantly crossing swords with one another, sometimes in an unnecessarily personal way. I would recommend that you both take a wikibreak from the article, perhaps even mutually agree not to edit it (including the talk page) until the RFC has run its course. A break of that magnitude would give you a chance to catch your breath, regroup, put your feelings into perspective, and then roll up your sleeves and implement the consensus the RFC has achieved at the end of the month. But even if you don't want to agree to that timeframe, perhaps you can take a couple of days off and spend time not thinking about each other. Good luck. — e. ripley\ talk 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, E. Ripley, for your detailed and clear remarks. I will try to be more careful about how I word my remarks regarding the article, and as the holidays are upon us (tonight 8-) ), I will have enforced breaks from any editing, let alone this article, so hopefully that will go to defuse the tension. Thank you again. -- Avi ( talk) 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
A WP:AN/I was started by lester ( talk · contribs), Now Lester is blocking every attempt to make the article NPOV. We have requested at RFC, under the media section. Please see the talk:Windows Phone 7, the Windows Phone 7 history, and the WP:AN/I section. Thanks.-- intelati( Call) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
User Lizzard has repeatedly launched what I consider to be bad faith attacks on an anon editor at both https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Anders and at a discussion created by her at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Moreover, Lizzard eventually admitted to knowing and working with the subject of the article, a previously non-disclosed COI at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Bigdaddy1981 ( talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a problem with User:Surturz, who over the past eight hours has launched into personal attacks on me, using a torrent of expletives.
Could this explosion of attacks stop, please? Tony (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
In 15:57, 24 April 2007, I added a section about the development/evolution on the "Real-time strategy" wikipage, named "Development of strategy and tactics". This section has been modified since then for some grammer issues or potential misunderstanding on somebody's intention. However, in 07:10, 20 May 2007, wiki-user Pie4all88 removed this section, and based on his description, this was due to "it didn't make sense and fixed up a little grammar". Since I have not looked around on this wiki content(Real-time strategy) for a long time, I saw this occasionally a couple of hours ago and I was confused by the reason for making such a removal decision by Pie4all88. Since he was a registered wiki-user, he should understand that not all the wiki-users were native English speakers, and, not all English contents in Wikipedia were grammer-perfect. Meantime, I wondered which part of this section was so-called "didn't make sense". Per my personal supposition, it might be a mixed up but not fixed up between sense and grammer. So I request a clear explanation about this description by someone. Due to the fact that I am ESL, I don't want this become an excuse of something. The following is a history revision of the related wikipage:
Revision history of Real-time strategy
Modifications about this section:
15:57, 24 April 2007 202.86.183.204(My IP at that moment) 00:35, 10 May 2007 24.252.96.162 16:47, 10 May 2007 87.126.251.158 07:10, 20 May 2007 Pie4all88
Please use simple English in any response to this alert. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.94.175.81 ( talk) 04:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Molobo, who´s article about Mitteleuropa was made up mostly out of propaganda sources (either war enemies or communist propaganda) and not a single german source has returned to the edit the more neutral version back to hate-mongering. I changed it back to more neutral again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunhist ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Several issues with User:Cat clean. Specific issue I am reporting is WP:NPA.
While they are using a new account, they show a sophistocated understanding of WP workings (one of their early edits was posting a case at AN/I) Lionel ( talk) 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I plead guilty for stating didn't believe this editor's adding a category and source was accurate. No combination of searches on the book in question supported the content or category of pederasty [51], a contentious and controversial category similar to the pedophile category this user has also been adding. If an article subject is either - and are notable for this there should be no problem finding a reliable source to support adding such a category. This editor also likes to add LGBT categories to convicted child sexual abusers. Again these are categories that should be easy to source and with living people require self-declarations. They have continually added disputed content and categories but when they also provide reliable sources I have no problem with it. I never called them a liar but technically did say in one case I thought it was a lie and will certainly apologize if their edit turns out to be based in fact. The edit that was deceptive is this one [52] in it you can see where the user changes an archive listing of documents of the organization to just one - "Men Loving Boys" which supports their interest in linking another LGBT group to pedophilia. It changed an acceptable external link into a non-acceptable one which is odd because this same user seems quite at ease deleting external links off many articles. Outside of pedophilia, pederasty and LGBT subjects this user may show sound judgment but their eagerness to misrepresent sources and add categories against policy is in fact vandalism. I also admit I've gotten worked up over this and have had to pull away but I'm not sorry for insisting this user uses reliable sources accurately and i see no reason not to continue to do so. When they stop misapplying categories and labeling all sorts of people who have only been accused or alleged of something into controversial categories then no one will have any reason to undue them at all. Cat clean ( talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Misrepresenting sources:
Here is the case I found unacceptable: You added "Gay organizations, in the beginning, were very supportive of NAMBLA." [53]
This replaced the original first sentence of the section "Ostracism" which stated "Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded:"
Here is what I wrote from the very same source: [54] "In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups."
You'll note specifically that one version claims all gay groups were supportive of NAMBLA, which the article goes to great lengths to point out is about pedophilia which omits that the main focus for the gay left was to help protect gay teens.
The original content was: Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded: in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979. In addition to forming several working committees, the conference was responsible for drafting the basic organizing principles of the march ("the five demands" Flyer for March on Washington [see p. 23]). Originally, the Gay Youth Caucus had won approval for its proposal demanding "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws." However at the first meeting of the National Coordinating Committee, a contingent of lesbians threatened not to participate in the march unless a substitute was adopted. The substitute, authored by an adult lesbian and approved in a mail poll by a majority of delegates, stated: "Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments." [1]
Vandalism: Restoring disputed section about NAMBLA on Ginsberg bio without any consensus. [55] [56],
adding sexuality categories on living people biographies against policy (adding LGBT categories to people convicted of child rape, murder) [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
Looking through the user's work they evidently wish to remove content that is positive towards LGBT people and they wish to add scandalous and negative information. If sources state clearly that a person is both homosexual and a paedophile then simply produce the sources. If they don't then that content should be left off until sources justify adding it. Cat clean ( talk) 22:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
For my part I will try to not call them any names but I will still insist on reliable sources for adding pedophilia and pederasty content and categories. I also simply take a break when I want to scream. Other users have been very nice, even ones who I don't agree we can find a solution. Cat clean ( talk) 01:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Summary of complaint:
More details:
I am working on the Aleppo page. User:Kevorkmail is active there and he seems to have been taking care of the page. The climate section was empty. Right after I filled it up he changed what I wrote without leaving an edit summary:
I reverted and asked him to talk:
This is the discussion I opened, I was critical of him a little bit because this was not the first time he changes what I write without writing an edit summary or discussing with me first:
He refused to discuss. Instead he lashed out at me and overrode my edit:
This is not the first time he does that. I asked him before on his talk page to talk with me or at least write an edit summary when he changes what I write. He respoded with an apology, but he really did not change his behavior and he keeps editing what other people write without saying a word as for why. My demands to him are two: 1-that he talk and explain what he does when he does it, especially if it involves something I wrote. 2-that he does not override me when I revert his edits and ask him to discuss.-- HD86 ( talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I never said that "people shouldn't modify things that other people write." I never said that "Kevorkmail does not have the right to modify what I write." I never complained about that. Did you really read what I wrote above? I am sorry, maybe it was too long?
Maybe this page is about serious offenses, so this is what makes you people tend to speak like policemen. Anyway, here is the complaint again (hopefully) in a clearer and more direct way:
If you, Looie496, think this is not a problem, then I think I am going to say: thanks anyway.-- HD86 ( talk) 21:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this is not the page I am looking for. Thanks anyway. The problem is not that serious. I tried at first to have somebody from the "third opinion" page but they refused and told me to come to this police station. I withdraw my complaint. Have a nice day.-- HD86 ( talk) 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
In addition to helping out at WQA from time to time, I also help out at the External Links Noticeboard. The following was reported at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Bob_Day_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29:
Bob Day ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bob Day is an Australian politician. His Wikipedia article is currently negatively biased. He has a webpage which, in addition to general information about him, attempts to respond to the content of our article. The advocate of that content, Timeshift9 ( talk · contribs) repeatedly removes the link, despite being told directly that the site belongs to Bob Day, see Talk:Bob_Day#Bob Day dot Com for our discussion. Fred Talk 18:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please look at the edit summary of this diff by User:Timeshift9: "rv Fred - and which of the three at Wikipedia:ELYES#What_should_be_linked are you laughingly attempt to claim applies here? i'll say it YET AGAIN. talkpage WP:CONSENSUS is key, stop ignoring."
As a neutral editor who had not been involved in the article, I stated the following at Talk:Bob_Day#Bob_Day_dot_Com:"I saw the issue about BobDay.com.au at EL noticeboard. This is clearly an official site. Why should there be a statement saying Bob Day controls the site when his name is on it? Even the most anti-EL editor agrees that the official site of a subject of a BLP should be included so readers can see what the subject has to say. Vyeh ( talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)"
Here are the responses following my comment:
*****
Guess you were right. The world IS upside down, see "Clicking Candidate.com, Landing at Opponent.com", Naw Fred Talk 06:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it qualifies as an official site. It makes no claim to even being authorized by Bob Day, much less controlled by him. It has references to support its biographical information. If it is his site, why would the references be needed? It does have a lot of useful information, such as publications actually written by Bob Day. The references and publications could be used to improve the Wikipedia article without adding an EL. It may be tempting to link to the entire list of publications, but it isn't the mission of Wikipedia to index everything he was ever written. — UncleDouggie ( talk) 07:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
*****
Ignoring the External Link issues, I would appreciate it if another WQA editor would take a look and weigh in. I will notify User:Timeshift9. Vyeh ( talk) 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
is inappropriate when I am regularly talking to him. I do cite policy as a part of my talking, and he does not seem to be able to see how it applies to the issues under discussion. To approach this in terms of the external link dispute, a link to the subjects website is generally considered appropriate, and is, in fact, written into policy. He's just removed it again http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bob_Day&diff=385106234&oldid=385105705 with the comment "what is it you fail to understand?" Fred Talk 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)And which of the three points in that section you link are you laughingly trying to apply here? Throwing rules at me and taking me to pages to report me is going to get you absolutely nowhere until you actually shut up, sit down, and thrash out some talk page consensus. Sorry to be increasingly rude but you are not listening to me or others. Try it for once.
In an {{ afd}} Bahamut0013 wrote a comment that began: "You don't acquit your intelligence well if you need me to explain to you how to apply a policy that..." This comment was addressed to another contributor. It seems to me that lapses from our civility policies and conventions have grown so routine, in deletion discussions, that they generally pass without notice.
I left a comment that said: "WRT the intelligence of other contributors -- we are supposed to confine our comments to the issues. Any genuine doubts we have about other contributor's intelligence we should keep to ourselves."
In bahamut0013's reply they say: "I can see from your continued rantings and ravings that I'm not going to get through to you, so I will no longer waste my time in attempting so. The closing admin will surely have the intelligence to see the wisdom of the argument..."
It seems to me that characterizing my good faith comments as "continued rantings and ravings" is an escalation in incivility.
Thanks Geo Swan ( talk) 16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)