Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

Editor at 98.207.210.210 - abusive

Stale

 – 09:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am quite confident this editor means well, and I accept that I may be completely wrong in my edits. Even if so, however this abuse and this abuse in the edit summaries really must end. Even if consensus goes against me, I don't deserve to be treated this way.- sinneed (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've left him a template. I have no idea what the right text or sources for the article might be, but his language is definitely immoderate.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also commented on Talk:Labh Singh. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed this discussion a minute ago only. Kindly grant some time so that I could explain ruthless vandalism of wikipedia article by User:Sinneed. I promise that I will present strong proofs. I was hoping that User:Sinneed will be extremely sad after knowing that his destruction of wiki articles has been caught and he will regrett it, but I did not know that he won't care at all AND he will come up with new excuses to oppose an editor who has opposed his destruction of wiki articles.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• New posts by 98.207.210.210 here and here.- sinneed (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) And continuing in that vein.- sinneed (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Through edit 1 and edit 2 etc, I have simply notified all respected wikipedia editors (except User:Sinneed, who is already over here]], who have recently contributed to the article in question, i.e. Labh Singh. The respected editors have experienced User:Sinneed's huge vandalism, wp:pov violations in the same article, one of these respected wiki ediotors have even issed a formal warning to User:Sinneed and made a formal complaint against his behavior/vandalism at an administrative's talk page. It appears that User:Sinneed want an ASAP decision so that his vandalism and violations of wikipedia policies do not get exposed. It is 1:58am PST at my end, Kindly wait for me and all other (involved) respected wiki editors to join this discussion. --98.207.210.210 (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• My hope here is that established editors in the community will provide you (and I) with guidance.
  There is nothing to "wait" for. This is not a place where a decision will be made to take some action. This page is simply a place to go to find Wikipedia editors who are interested in helping resolve problems of Wikipedia etiquette.
  Had I been "rushing", I would have taken this article to ANI or the Copyright page immediately, in June, instead of painstakingly restoring edits mass-reverted as "vandalism" (such foul deeds as removing double periods, adding sources, removing copyright violations), explaining why each was appropriate. There is no rush.
  I would like to encourage you to create, log into, and use a single account, so that you can begin to build a reputation as a Wikipedia editor.- sinneed (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• User:Sinneed, kindly avoid diverting wiki administrators mind from the real issue of your vandalism. It appears that you are trying to club multiple editors (may be you suspect that they all can join this discussion to expose your misdeeds) into 'one' so that you could kill their credibility in advance. Kindly be patient, it is weekend, usually several editors try enjoying their weekends with their families, I am sure that (considering your huge vandalism) they will definitely join this discussion by this monday. Thanks a lot.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an edit war. Needs an admin eye I think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thus, when an anon at 98.207.210.210 objected so violently, I opened an RFC at the article.
• This article about a long-dead terrorist/freedom-fighter hero (his critics say organized crime lord pretending to be a terrorist - and I am NOT going to try to put that in the article, the press saying it *HATED* him) is unlikely to generate much interest, and is likely (certain) to generate much hate for anyone unwilling to have the article be an homage to him.
• Source-spam of copies of Wikipedia, fringe sites, books of database dumps of public domain quotations (including Wikipedia), sources that are related, but about persons of similar names, or that say things similar to but not supporting the content. Refusal of editors adding citations to provide quotations when requested. Copyright violations of one source, cited to another. Refusal of editors to use a single account, refusal of editors to use a named account. All make it very very difficult to tell if the dead man's fans are just screaming or actually have something to say that can reliably be considered.- sinneed (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Added "/freedom-fighter" - sinneed (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Respected User: Sinneed was previously warned by an editor over here and a formal complaint was also filed against his vandalism at an Admin’s talk page
• Respected User:Sinneed vandalized article Labh Singh, kept on destroying hard work of other respected Wikipedia editors until article Labh Singh was locked by an administrator. Revision history of Labh Singh shows User:Sinneed had edited this article continuously for 17 times until it was noticed by an admin who decided to lock it immediately. He was the only editor who was continuously deleting the legitimate information/references without any discussion.
• Proofs of respected User:Sinneed's edits/Lies and vandalism -

• In vandalism 1, User:Sinneed deleted two very important references and the related text without any discussion while mis-leading Wikipedia community with his lies. In an effort to delete the sentences which he might not have liked wp:pov, he lied in his edit summary Source is already a named source in the article, and it doesn't mention the bank robbery. Warning...if I can figure out which of the IP herd made that change easily" . Kindly note that the third paragraph in the 1st deleted reference clearly says "Police said Sukhdev Singh, himself a former police constable, was responsible for a string of murders and a Major Bank Robbery and the2nd deleted reference clearly says Labh Singh masterminded a bank robbery of Rs. 6 crore from a branch of Punjab National Bank in Ludhiana. This is reputed to be the largest ever bank robbery.
• In edit 2, User: Sinneed added useless "CN" (along with a threatening edit summary Brief CN for the association with Bhindranwale. I'll drop it today without a source" for Labh Singh's association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale), even though the reference was already there at the end of the sentence. Reference 1 clearly states "early 80s, he came under the influence of Bhindranwale and resigned from the police force, reference 2 clearly notedLabh Singh, a close confederate of (Sant) Bhindranwale's", and in the same reference, Labh Singh said I can't show my back to Sant Ji, I will fight with him and face martyrdom in this place.
• vandalism 2 User:Sinneed simply changed the section "Association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale" to "Joining Sikh militants" to further his POV, eventhough above mentioned references clearly prove subject's association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.
• In vandalism 3 User: Sinneed again mislead (lied to) Wikipedia community through his edit summary "source is about that person but doesn't tie to the murder of the publisher" even though the the deleted reference clearly mentioned "In Punjab his name figured in the 38 cases of violence taking place between 1983 and 86, including the one in which the editor of the Hind Samachar group of newspaper Ramesh Chander was gunned down in Jalandhar".

• Isn’t Sinneed harassing other respected Wikipedia editors (who might have done hours and hours of research work to find and add these valuable references) by deleting their hard work/valuable references? How can we guide respected User:Sinneed to READ the references before he destroy/vandalize wikipedia articles ?
• Considering all these documented proofs of respected User:Sinneed’s lies/misleading/in-accurate edit summaries and destruction of Wikipedia articles, if (in an effort to save an article) I have objected to his lies/mis-leading statements and destruction of Wikipedia articles then what is my fault ? I was honest, my intention was not bad, I wanted to save wikipedia article from his ruthless vandalism only...--98.207.210.210 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 98.207.210.210, eventhough User:Sinneed has made some positive and some negative edits, but his vandalism in article Labh Singh was huge. --209.183.55.46 (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

98.207 - you need to stop calling this vandalism. Vandalism is replacing the text with "I love Lucy". This is a content dispute. He may be POV pushing, but you risk being blocked for your repeated use of abusive language, repeatedly calling him a liar and a vandal etc. Instead of continuing to post screaming abuse at him, please pursue one of the avenues of content dispute resolution. If you can get a consensus for the article content, then you have a valid complaint to the administrators if someone goes against it without discussion (although even then it does not entitle you to put the things you have done in edit summaries). Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, I believe there is a difference between 'content dispute' and 'Lies based destruction of an article'. I had myself praised User:Sinneed's work in the past and I would still say that he had done a good 'NEUTRAL' work to improve articles in the past. Similarly 98.207.210.210's work is also commendable.

It was very unfortunate that User:Sinneed ended up deleting paragraphs/text/multiple references while liying in his edit summaries that 'said contents do not exist in the provided references'. I was so sad from User:Sinneed's wikipedia policy violations and his indirect 'refusal to read references' that I had to SADLY warn him. I think respected admins over here should advice User:Sinneed to read the references before he destroy them. It is extremely hard to read him references like this and this

I believe 98.207.210.210's edit summaries only showed his poor helplessness when User:Sinneed kept destroying the article only because he 'COULD NOT' read the related references. Anyways! I assume that this discussion should be helpful to both of the parties. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr & Awickert

Stale

 – 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr has been making what I consider to be some inappropriate allegations for some time now. I think that the base reason for the incivility is our disagreement about global warming related issues, but I feel that the accusations that he/she makes are unproductive towards any resolution and often leave me feeling rather frustrated.

• The feelings of frustration cut both ways. There is a persistent AGW-GHG bias amongst some of the 'entrenched' editors in the climate change areas of Wikipedia. An old boy (and girl) network gangs up to RV any information contrary to their POV. I have made repeated attempts to bring some balance to these discussions but have been met with obdurate responses from some members of the AGW-GHG advocates who will not brook any middle ground.Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to work with any specific issues you bring up, and I will promise to do my best to be fair about it. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As a rough chronology, our interactions started some time back as a roughly-resolved content dispute on Solar variation. I had no negative feelings towards Dikstr at the time. However, after that he/she has targeted a number of editors including myself with a number of global warming - related accusations.

• Awickert has difficulty dealing with dissagreement and criticism of his viewpoints, probably stemming from (as he admits) inadequate specialized training in the climate change area which leaves his arguments vulnerable to criticism.Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that my specialization is in a different area, but I'd like to know specifically where it seems I dislike criticism of my viewpoints. I've always felt that I've done a reasonably good job (or at least tried to) when working with those with whom I disagree. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for the disputes he/she has had with me. (He/she has had some disputes with other editors as well, but I don't want to speak for them.) They are in approximate chronological order from earliest to preset:

I repeatedly notify an IP editor who posts a list of complaints to the global warming talk page. Other users remove the list because it has no directly actionable items to improve the article but is rather a discussion of the topic (per WP:TALK), but the IP reverts. I wait for (as I remember) 10 reverts before requesting that the IP is blocked after several notifications, which I thought was more than generous. After that, and without notifying me, Dikstr leaves this comment on the IP's talk page that accuses me of POV-pushing. I see the message some time later, and because I was accused of POV-pushing in a situation in which I was trying to notify an editor about talk page policy, I leave a message at Dikstr's talk page and the following spat ensues.

• Awickert cannot distinguish the difference between a disagreement and a 'spat'. I stand behind my comments - they were fully justified, stated in polite 'queen's english' - and hardly a personal attack!Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps not a personal attack, but an accusation of POV-pushing that I take personally as I do try to subscribe to WP:NPOV. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• We all have our POV's. The objective of a discussion venue like Wikipedia should be to provide a rational debate of them and that is not POV pushing IMO. Suppression of other points of view by rv-ing gangs with the same bias is definitely POV pushing.Dikstr (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• But my question is, "how is that particular issue POV-pushing"? Awickert (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr jumped into another discussion on talk:Global warming by writing what I took as an accusation of sockpuppetry. I took offense at this as well, and notified Dikstr at his/her user talk page (full discussion given in diff) that he/she should have checked the edit history and seen that it was simply an unsigned edit by another user. His/her response was that he did not think it was an accusation, and I dropped the issue.

• As you will note from the dialogue he references, I didn't accuse Awickert of planting a 'convenient interrogative' for his follow-on statement. I merely observed that it was a 'convenient interrogative'. Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• That wasn't the troublesome part. The problem I had was suggestion that it was a sockpuppet post by me. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He/she then made some nasty comments (e.g., [1] [2]) and more accusations of POV-pushing by editors at talk:Global warming. I warned him again at his/her user talk, and he/she told me I was confused (as he/she claims I was about the sockpuppetry charge) and that I need to be more thick-skinned to edit on Wiki. I told him that I disagreed and that he/she would hear from me when I made a complaint about his/her actions [3], as I am doing right now.

• Nasty comments? Awickert has apparently never participated in the vigorous give and take of direct scientific debate. The heavy -handed rv techniques some of the AGW-GHG advocates wield with abandon in the climate change areas of Wikipedia are far more onerous for legitimate discussion than any characterization I have made of their approach.Dikstr (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have, indeed. I simply like to try to make things productive, and I find that bringing personal character into question creates many more problems than it solves, in that it brings the debate to a level that science is several levels of complexity above. When I discuss science, we talk about the issues involved. Awickert (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I am OK editing with Dikstr; as you can see our initial messages at his/her talk are much more collegial. However, his/her continued disruption of talk pages with accusations about editors not being NPOV bothers me. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In summary I would like to make the following points:Dikstr (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia needs to maintain balanced discussions of its various areas to be a useful resource.

2 The coordinated efforts of action groups of similarly biased editors in some topics, like climate change, and their disinclination to admit information that may not support their views, will ultimately be detrimental to Wikipedia if allowed to persist.

3 Hypersensitive editors who have difficulty dealing with controversy and debate waste the resources of both Wikipedia and its other editors by abusing this venue with trivial complaints.

1. Yes, no argument.
2. No argument in principle, but I'm going to leave out anything about the particular issues as this would become a content dispute.
3. I'll add "hypersensitive" to the list, but that simply explains the problem. I expect a certain level of civility, and you expect less. I do not think that I waste Wikipedia's time, however. I write and develop a large number of articles, while it seems that your principal goal is to insert your research into related articles (which is also a good thing to do). If you have an issue (and you do) with the whole global warming boondoggle, I suggest that the better way to deal with it is in a more formal venue. Inserting snide remarks is simply disruptive. Awickert (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Clockback

Stale

 – 22:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Clockback (who claims to be Peter Hitchens, which is plausible but unverified) has engaged repeatedly in personal attacks on other editors at Talk:Bob Ainsworth, and generally displayed a battleground mentality, referring to those who disagree with him as "opponents". He also constantly accuses those who disagree with him of failing to WP:AGF. Despite repeated reminders, this behaviour has continued, but no further action has been taken, as the content dispute has gone on at great length on Talk:Bob Ainsworth and also WP:BLPN, now with an WP:RFC, with some (albeit desperately slow) progress. But Clockback's latest contribution is too much and disruptive of the RFC which will hopefully resolve the content issue, which is why I post here. Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some sort of action needs to be taken. I considered briefly blocking Clockback for disruption, but I'd like to wait for a few more people to weigh in. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I do find Clockbacks repeated use of the unconfirmed claim to be Peter Hitchins a bit disruptive and I would llike him to either stop that or confirm his identity. He does seem to be a clear WP:SPA and a bit WP:POINTY, since the 22nd of July all of his edits are in respect of inserting a one line comment originating from what he claims to be the website or newpaper of his own blog or affiliation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading a content dispute. A lengthy one. In my opinion, I'm also reading somewhat "snarky" and passive aggressive comments from multiple parties involved. Personal attacks? Seems like a stretch from what I'm reading. Disruptive? It is taking place on a talk page, quit participating if you wish. Worthy of a block ... I see no such need from what I've read so far (but there is a lot and I may have missed something ... if anybody cares to point out more specific items).--Douggmc (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's a content dispute (a lengthy one) - how often are personal attacks made without one existing? And that substantial diatribe against the editors disagreeing with him, whilst it doesn't contain swear words, is certainly an attack on other editors and an aggressive violation of WP:AGF (not for the first time). What annoys me more than anything is that it is completely unnecessary and disruptive of the RFC. And I didn't say anything about a block - I was hoping for an admonition. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to veer too far off the topic, but I didn't say you said anything about a block. But there is a specific item directly above that is contemplating a block. --Douggmc (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens has definitely worked on his Wikipedia entry and has written about it here. Note the date of the article, Clockback has been editing here for several years. Philip Cross (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence. I think we can agree on "plausible", the issue is verification, eg by Hitchens on his blog, or via WP:OTRS. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback should not be allowed to continue asserting he is a notable person without verification. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Er, I don't think that's really the issue here. (It has been in the past, in Clockback's on-wiki discussions of Hitchens' sources.) Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are other issues,which I have commented on already but I think his claiming to be hitchens without verification is all part of it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If Clockback wasn't Peter Hitchens, don't you suppose the 'real' one would have raised the issue by now? Hitchens' did just that with an impostor on the Guido Fawkes blog a while ago. Philip Cross (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If Peter Hitchens has off-wiki email or external website webmail, why not send him a request to confirm that he is User:Clockback, including his permission to post the email (without his private e-address) regardless of whether he is or isn't Clockback. If he only has blog posting available, it's a little more complicated to arrange for confirmable emails. If necessary, OTRS can handle the email security and do the secured posting at talk. Milo 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip, it is easy to think the notable people know what is going on here or care, someone is calling themselves your name on that wikipedia, ow well so what.. but that is not the point, and milo, it is not our work to write to hitchens and ask is this you? It is up to clockback to either stop claiming to be him or confirm his identity. I don't mind which he does, I have asked him to stop claiming to be hitchins withiut verification and I have offered to help him confirm. Either prove it or stop it.Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So if User:Clockback isn't Hitchens, how is Hitchens to know and deny it if someone doesn't write to him? Milo 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Our job here is to either stop him claiming to be a notable person or to prove it. I fail to see what the problem is with that task. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't answer my critical question, creating a catch-22. Milo 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem that would justify selective action agianst User:Clockback. My impression from my brief contact with him is that he is almost certainly Hitchens and that we should in any case WP:Assume good faith on the claim until such time as it is brought into doubt. The fact that this claim is being repeatedly challenged or cast into doubt is evidence that "the other side" of this dispute are themselves being WP:Pointy in their own behaviour. And claiming this is a single purpose account? Come off it! User:Douggmc has it right in seeing what questionable behaviour there is as not coming from just one source. And rather than it being a problem that Clockback has revealed his real world identity, it is good that he is open about it and that his contributions can be read in the context of his being a right-wing columnist with well publicised views on a variety of matters such as politics and mental health diagnoses including ADHD. He also tends to use talk pages much of the time in preference to editing articles directly. This is a lot preferable to the likes of the JIDF who have operated multiple accounts which have changed their page and which have denied any connection with the organisation when challenged. Further, I don't see other Wikipedians with entries of their own being challenged in this way when they identify.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Peter, It is not a matter of good faith, it is a matter of verify or stop it. Tomorrow someone is george harrison signed in as gomoz. If people are notable and want to keep inserting their name then why don't they get an account in their name, this would require confirmatrion and this is nothing more that a way around confirmation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because it isn't Hitchens? Or... you're already convinced it is Hitchens and you're engaged in a contest of wills?

I haven't read his stuff, but I'm well aware that right-wing columnists are in the business of pushing buttons. As an NPOV encyclopedist, it's inclusively your job here to not let your buttons be pushed. If he's really the problem, give him enough rope to hang himself. Milo 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a single purpose account. 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(...says a mysterious unsigned account :) Milo 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I am not claiming to be anybody, I am simply off2riorob and you are milo. Easy. simple, no dispute..no issues at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I would prefer if he didn't hang himself and became a valued editor. My personal opinion is that(and I have commented this already) that hitchens would be too busy to bother with this twaddle just to insert that so and so when to a couple of marxist meetings and didn't like it. It is not a contest of wills with the editor, is is a wikipedian thing, either stop claiming to be this person or verify that you are him, it is simple. .Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well said.

You can bet your booties that someone would like to get an anti-Wikipedia story out of this. You/others need to create a righteous journalism position whereof he can't legitimately complain about you/others, or Wikipedia.

If you go the extra mile to contact him via OTRS, and then if he doesn't respond, that removes a due process complaint that he might otherwise blog to gain traction in the right-wing press. Milo 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that my claim to be myself is now accepted, thanks to a Wikipedia procedure I didn't previously know existed (or mattered). Thanks to those who pointed this oput to me. The idea that 'clockback' is a single use identity is ridiculous. I've been using it to openly edit my own entry for years, and have edited other articles as well, as minimal research could ahve established, combined with an assumption of good faith. Now can we get back to getting the fact, which is not 'twaddle', into the Ainsworth article? Peter Hitchens, yes indeedy, and now officially confirmed, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that OTRS has confirmed your identity here. Milo 11:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for confiming that Clockback. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

←Onto the next issue.

I've looked at the RfC you started,Talk:Bob Ainsworth#RfC: Should Cabinet Minister’s past attendance at Marxist meetings be included in his biography?

Here is a summary explanation posted by Rd232, apparently quoting you:

The source for this is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column (as reposted on his blog - [4] - requires Internet Explorer) which quotes Ainsworth's spokesperson as saying "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say." I consider that WP:UNDUE to include. Rd232 09:42, 6 August 2009

According to the article, Bob Ainsworth is 57 years of age. Let's say he began attending various kinds of meetings at the age of 18, 2 meetings a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, for 39 years to his present day high political rank. One can quibble the over/under estimate details sloping from youth through maturity, but my estimation math works out to some-19,500 meetings. That's not an unreasonable number for a professional politician, and might on average be to the small side.

You are insisting that 2 of those roughly 19,500 meetings be mentioned in his WP article, yet you have reported his complete disagreement with their content. That's a textbook example of undue weight, just as Rd232 says.

But it's worse than that – it would also be WP:BLP violation.

Placing this utter trivia in Ainsworth's article, would cause Ainsworth's name to pop up when engine-searching for "marxist" and "politician". That would be nothing less than a keyword-spamming political smear, and IMHO, Wikipedia should not tolerate it as a WP:BLP violation by WP:UNDUE. Milo 11:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats' that got to do with this alert board? The issue here is whether one editor is being much more awkward in their behaviour than others involvedin that content dispute. It is not about which side in the dispute anyone thinks is right.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There are other under-the-radar behavior issues at the RfC that are protractedly difficult to deal with. But if the RfC issue goes away, so does the behavior (for now). A WP:BLP violation is within everyone's mandate to discuss, at least enough to refer a solution back to the complaining editors and/or the BLP Noticeboard. Milo 22:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G

Stale

 – 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G (talk · contribs) (a sysop) has pursued my edits on the following AFDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lot 10
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Par
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomer Association
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yair Kless

I accept that I could have added some details of what searches I had conducted prior to my nominations, though adding such explanation is not a prerequisite for nomination. While Uncle G may have a point that can be discussed, referring to your own personal user pages as "long standing procedures" rather than directly to real Wikipedia guidance seems inappropriate. Persistently stating that the nominator has made no effort to assess available sources across several discussions appears to not meet civil behaviour guidance. In the same discussions, another editor has highlighted Uncle G's contributions as spamming and harassment. Uncle G has not followed up on my suggestion on using a DR process if he/she is convinced that I am doing something bad.

I am happy to accept positive criticism that my nominations could be better or may be poor quality (I am new at raising them), but I am not happy with the way Uncle G has pursued me here and would welcome another viewpoint to either set me straight as this behaviour meets WP:Administrators and I am being over-sensitive, or to suggest how else to handle Uncle G's contributions.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. Uncle G turns up in AfD making the same points A.Lot. As you have noted, some of what he says is worth taking into account. Some of it is as idiosyncratic as his use of pronouns. If you do not interact with him, I at least find he tends not to pursue further, so I would not really say that it classes as harassment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elen. Uncle G is an inclusionist of the type that actually does something to improve an article (often dramatically), but he can't work on every article that he thinks is worth preserving. I think you can safely ignore him; or better still read his excellent essays on policy and decide in which points you agree with them and in which you don't. Don't take what he says personally. In the interest of the encyclopedia it's sometimes better not to decide every dispute with an outcome saying precisely who is right and who is wrong. Hans Adler 12:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I took a look at the Lot 10 example. In this case, Uncle G was quite right to correct Ash for his misinterpretation of WP:BEFORE. The main incivility there seemed to be from User:Joe Chill, whose language seemed too aggressive, ad hominem and lacking in AGF. More generally, editors who presume to criticise the work of other editors to the point of requesting that it is deleted, should not be surprised if their nominations are opposed with some vigour. This is the point of the process - deletion is a serious matter and this is why it is patrolled and supervised. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ignore him. He says essentially the same thing in many AfD's and I can't remember the last time he thought an article should be deleted. Some people simply think everything except the most blatant hoax or copyright violation belong here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• No, don't ignore him, that would be foolish. As Hans Adler wisely says above, read what he has to say; you'll likely find parts you agree with, parts where you disagree and are not convinced, and maybe even parts where he may convince you of something. Indeed, it sounds from your opening statement that you've found at least one such issue. If you want to, continue to discuss with him if you want to go deeper into any issue. If you don't want to, then don't. As for opening a WQA report, I don't see any incivility on Uncle G's part. Criticism of actions is allowed, and is not an attack. If he disagrees with how you are nominating articles for deletion, he's well within his rights to say so on the AFD's you've started, without it being labeled harassment. He is acting as an editor, not an admin, so his admin status has nothing to do with anything. Take it simply as constructive criticism, rather bluntly worded perhaps, but still constructive criticism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(clarification) I am not accusing Uncle G of harassment (I was highlighting the perceptions of another contributor to the AFDs in question) but I am saying that I think Uncle G has not followed WP:Administrators with regard to biting/civility (though I take your point that WP:Civility may be a more appropriate guide if being sysop comes with no expectations for better behaviour and I ignore some of WP:NOTPERFECT). As for reading his contribution, I did that the first time and it wore rather thin by the fourth time he/she said the same thing.—Ash (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I mean ignore the fact that he pretty much gives the canned response to nearly every AfD. He's written the same thing over and over, and not just to Ash. Read it once, skip the re-runs. My observation has been that many articles get deleted (meaning that the nominator was on the right track) despite the cut and paste lecture. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, "harrasment" was a quote, not an accusation, and "ignore" refers to re-reading the same thing 4 times. My point is that I don't see his wording, or the fact that he commented as he did at all 4 AFD's, as uncivil. (Indeed, it was significantly more civil than the response of the editor you quoted above.) You (Ash) are not a newbie, so I don't think WP:BITE applies, and he's not doing anything remotely admin-related, so WP:ADMIN doesn't either. We're left with WP:CIVIL, and I simply don't see anything uncivil here. Perhaps blunt, but that's all. (I don't spend much time at AFD, but my impression is, that's not really even blunt by AFD standards). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G has an annoying tendency to address highly experienced editors as though they are newbies; it's sort of the opposite of biteyness. This has given rise to periodic complaints, but there does not seem to be much prospect of changing his behavior short of an RFCU which I think would be over the top (and I speak as one of the people who has complained about it). Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Galassi

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – ANI. 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Galassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive editing: Ignoring warning not to revert edits as "vandalism".--Law21 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. One of many Russia vs. Ukraine revert warriors reverting another, across multiple articles, and someone sooner or later plays the WQA card to try to gain the upper hand. Not a WQA issue, though if a passing admin notices this, I'd suggest they block all involved for edit warring and disruption. I think there's probably an ArbCom case on this (the one on Eastern Europe), but I'll leave it to someone who can actually block people to look it up and see if it's been violated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to review (and subsequently did revert) Law21's edits and most of them are just blanking relevant info or trying to POV push. --Львівське (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

His edits are mainly POV pushing, removing mentions of Ukraine/Ukrainian and changing them to refer to Russia. Almost all of these edits are unfounded and have no relevance to the article itself (i.e. changing categories) ddima.talk 16:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I think Law21's actions qualify as a SPA.Galassi (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:M

Resolved

 – Party advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for some advice on how to improve this interaction. The relevant part is at the bottom of that long section. I suspect that David is still upset that I'm apparently "quoting him". His firm imposition on me that I use quotes only for directly quoting him in his entirety is strange. I'd prefer not to have to suggest proposed wordings via, say, italic indent. I also use quotes where I want to express something in certain words without endorsing those words. If I were building a case against him as an editor, strict quoting rules would be very important, yes. For this, no. On the one hand, he may have no response to what I think are some rather solid points I've just brought up, and is instead focusing on trivial formatting details - on the other, he may have had some serious problem with someone quoting him out of context before, and is sensitive to it. I'm trying to respond as if it's the latter - actually, I'm trying to respond with focus on the actual issues, since I don't want to turn the conversation over to a pedantic discussion of quoting. Have I been uncivil so far (one need only read that last portion, I think), are my thoughts here reasonable, and how can I resolve this/improve? Thanks.    M   18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On a quick look, my advice is to decide on the main issue, and focus on that. The distraction into the proper way debate should be phrased has really detracted from the point, and, with respect, you sent it down that road with early and rather odd complaints about use of "you" and "we", and insisting other people should not say there that you are perceiving contradictions where none exist. Their whole point is that the you actually are perceiving contradictions where none exist. I have nothing to say at all on the substance of that disagreement; but you can do a bit better at letting people express their honest perspective and assuming good faith. I don't think your objections on phrasing made much sense, but whether they did or not, it would have been better not to go down that road, as they were so trivial.

On the plus side... I don't think you are being uncivil there, and it would be possible for others to do better also.... but if you are willing then the easiest and fastest approach is to look at things you can fix in your own writing; so well done for looking for solutions in that direction! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still think that "No contradictions exist here" is a far superior wording to "You're perceiving contradictions where none exist" - this implies that my perception is somehow at fault, not that my statement is false. But point taken, thanks for your reply.    M   21:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:BilCat - incivil and derogatory comments

Stale

 – 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The content of this edit by the user BilCat on his own talk page is distruptive, offensive, and incivil. While it was not directed towards me or any specific person of Indian origin, I am sure that this behavior violates WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL regardless. GSMR (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing anything offensive - unless it's towards technological attempts. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Why do think you have so much difficulty with the projects from India? When you've had no real successes, even the attempts are worth celebrating - to them, anyway!"GSMR (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a fair comment. I had to recently remove something from one of the list articles that suggested that India has submarine launched ballistic missile capability, on the grounds that the submarine from which to launch the missile is still at least two years away from going into service. It is natural to want to celebrate achievement, but sometimes the celebrations can be premature and result in things needing to be removed from articles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC) (Who is English - the greatest celebrators of failure on the planet )

People should resist doing things that they know will push other people's buttons, even if sometimes it is very tempting. Looie496 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, Elen, that is offensive. GSMR (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why, it is not an ATTACK on anyone or even on a country! It's the same as saying "Canada should still take pride in coming 4th in any summer Olympic event, rather than ever winning a medal". Am I offended? No. Is it true that we should celebrate losing? Sure, why not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh*

Fine, retracted... GSMR (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The words used probably went towards trying to explain the point that Elen and Bwilkins has summarised a little more effectively. However, I agree with Looie496's sentiment. It can also carry another implied meaning which I would not expect to see on-wiki. I don't care which country (or its people) it concerns, be it in Asia, Europe or America; at the end of the day, staging problematic expressions on Wikipedia has the potential to create misunderstandings and needless drama. It is essentially avoidable. Though each is entitled to their own opinion, more care should be taken on what is expressed at Wikipedia, and especially how it is expressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:68.162.214.17 - revealing personal information

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On [[5]], User:68.162.214.17 revealed personal information about me, including my name and location. This behavior obviously is in violation of Wikiquette.THD3 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This IP also has an odd notion that adding "citation needed" templates to claims that are not supported constitutes "vandalism". Grover cleveland (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Can you provide the diff where this personal information is contained? He said Mr Cleveland, which would apply to the user Grover cleveland, which is fine. My concern is that this user is correct in their thought that sockpuppetry by yourself is going on. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The addition of my personal information was made on [[6]] last night. I reverted the change, and requested that it be scrubbed from the edit history.THD3 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of Grover_Cleveland. Our editing has crossed in some articles (like Vladimir Horowitz) which is the result of common interests. But we are both long term editors who have also contributed to non-related articles. Surely, if you're an administrator, you can verify this via our IP addresses?THD3 (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I cannot find the supposed violation of WP:OUTING .. possibly because of oversight. THD3, if you have read the instructions on this forum, you will note that we're not admins. Outing is a blockable offense and must be escalated to WP:ANI, unless it's information that was provided by you at some point. The offensive diff's must be reported via WP:OVERSIGHT, as it appears you have done. Also, you should know that not all Admins have the ability to view IP addresses - this is a function of a checkuser. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Even ANI can't help as I can't see this outing of personal information. Oversight should have handled it if it were an issue. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

William S. Saturn and his tendentious editing.

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been continually over the past couple days editing in a tendentious and disruptive way within the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories from POV edits within the main page, argumentative posts on the talk page, to suspicious reporting others for 3RR violations. Some examples of this editing behavior [7], [8], [9], [10]. He left a 3RR warning on User:Tarc's talk page that in light of the recent edits is just a little ingenious [11] then gathered a bunch of Tarc's edits, including one that was completely unrelated to the situation, and then "offered" that if Tarc reverted his last edit to the one that William S. Saturn preferred, he wouldn't report Tarc to the 3RR board. Tarc called him on it: [12] and was subsequently blocked. Later the block was reduced and lifted. On the talk page, he also seems to be trying to disrupt/prove a point. A recent section he started is a prime example of how he has been talking on the page: [13]. His style has been that the article is a grossly written in a completely POV way to discredit the Birther movement and that editors are trying to WP:OWN the article. One example of this is: [14]. When asked to point out specifically which edits/section are the problem, he dances around the issue by continually asserting the whole page is inappropriately written [15]. As mentioned above, this has been going on for at least three days. Brothejr (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saturn is engaged in using wikipedia to promote the birther movement. That is not an appropriate use of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw Bugs, I was expecting you to say "my Outlook is that he has an Aura of not giving an Ion about the entire situation". Then again, you're often more serious in WQA than in ANI :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Brother jr HAS raised and important point here, but a WP:WQA case here is premature. Mr Saturn has only been resacting to an abuse of powe by certain other editors who are restricting access to the article to only anti-birther editors. The article is obviously biased against the birther movement, with regards to the use of "fringe", the use of insulting terms like "birther" in article space, the overuse of quotes intended to portray birthers negatively, and the phraisng of the article which implies deliberately that birtherism has been discredited and that the birth certificate is not in serious controversy. William Saturn may have occasionally overreached but that is only because the people who oppose him in the article space has have overreached in trying to completely squash any neutral portrayal of the controversy on its own merits. User:Smith Jones 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP requires a conservative approach, and the birther stuff is not that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

smith, no one is restricting anyone's access, but users have to be mindful of both Wikipedia policy (namely WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE) and the article probation. If they feel restricted by such editing requirements, then acting out and editing tendentiously is not going to reap positive results. As for birthers in general, the article portrays their opinions as fringe because that is how they are described in reliable sources, i.e. "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." from the fringe page. It was written with pseudoscience in mind, but is certainly applicable to political fringe opinion as well. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into this, everyone sit tight for a little while. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see anything actionable at this time, though there are some causes for concern. I've left a note for William on his talk page here. As I think this may be the first time an admin has discussed these issues with him directly, I'd like to take a wait and see approach at this point. I don't know that further discussion here will yield much of anything useful, so perhaps it's best to return to the article talk page and try to work out any disagreements. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We should be very aware that dragging good faith editors to the noticeboards repeatedly has been a tactic employed by those going after editors they disagree with. This abuse shouldn't be tolerated or encouraged. The noticeboards and administrative action is not appropriate for solving content disptues. Please use the appropriate means for dispute resolution and to get additional input on the content issues. The neutral point of view policy (a core policy) makes clear that notable viewpoints should be included, not just the majority or dominant viewpoint. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Only including majority perspectives and biasing articles against those that most of us disagree with amounts to mob rule. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We also have policy dictating that fringe opinion is not given the same footing as mainstream opinion. Perhaps when crafting your response here, you missed WP:VALID ? Tarc (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your argument, CoM, is a portion of WP:NPOV that you forget and that is WP:UNDUE. Here is the first line: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. A couple lines down are even more relevant: In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. So in light of that portion of the NPOV policy, we can only give minority viewpoints only as much weight as is shown in the reliable sources. NPOV does not mean we give both sides equal weight when none of the reliable sources support equal weight to a minority view point. Heck, the term minority view point in itself means that is is not the majority view point and is not shared by the majority of people. Lastly it is inappropriate and very un-encyclopedic for us to assert a view point is more important then what it really is. We can only follow what the reliable sources say and not make it up as we go along. Brothejr (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

However, a WQA in this instance is perhaps a bit quick in coming. Has he engaged in personal attacks? Really I think this is all a bit premature. Soxwon (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, yes, but let's not let ourselves go too far down the rabbit hole on this side-tangent. CoM did his usual rage against the machine bit, which really had little to do with the WQA itself. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

precisely. User:BigTimePeace has examined the issue and has found that the WP:WQA report is premature/unnececsarry at this time and William Saturn will not continue to be molested for trying to express an allegedly minority viewpoint. User:Smith Jones 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Molested? Maybe it was just a bit of heavy petting. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the content of this ludicrous conspiracy (which seems to have burnt itself out at this point anyway), there is a larger point here which WQA veterans may wish to address, which is: when does tendentiously repeating a point in the wake of good faith rejoinders become a civility violation. Consensus requires good faith engagement, and based on the Talk page of the Birther article, we find a classic example of wilful non-engagement. Various editors have patiently explained why, according to our policies, this should be described in an encyclopedic context as a fringe view. Mindlessly repeating the same point over and over again without engaging those rebuttals is vexatious, tedious and combative. There is no personal attack that I can see here, but the steadfast refusal to engage good faith efforts at explication amount to a serious wikiquette issue. It flies in the face of our consensus-building process and is designed to rile not resolve. So I suggest that continuing to cry NPOV and slapping up tags and issuing 3RR warnings over what amounts to a steadfast refusal to accept our standards elaborated at WP:FRINGE does constitute a civility violation. If it continues, the matter should be taken to AN/I. Eusebeus (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

so, what, should every dissenting user just roll over whenever someone quotes their own interpretationf of a policy to them? if thats the case, POV-pushers would have overrun every article on the Wiki by now. The reason our Wikipedia is successful is BECAUSE people are free to disagree respectfully and collegially on talk pages and people who want to make changes that are controversial have to justify them before other editors and gain consensus instead of trying to use disciplinary powers to squash those who disagree. What if the so-called "birthers" were a majority on the article? SHOULD *they* be allowed to use WP:ANI or WP:WQA to sanction or discipline anyone who they think doesnt fold fast enough??? maybe before we rush to convict, we should try to see whether or not Mr Saturn and the rest of them have a real point and can still contribute hlepfully to the article! It's not as if they are vandalizing the article or editing tendientionally! User:Smith Jones 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Brothejr, content dispute resolution avenues (namely, mediation and article RfC) must must must be exhausted. Tendentious editors (if they exist in a dispute) tend to make their conduct reach a point where there is (or at least, should be) far less reluctance by admins to use their tools. If all these steps fail, conduct RfC is the next step, and I'm sure you're aware of what's in store after that.
• A question arose in the discussion asking "when does tendentiously repeating a point in the wake of good faith rejoinders become a civility violation?" To be frank, this form of editing can rarely fall under the (narrower) category we call civility violations - rather, it usually falls in the broader category of disruptive problem editing (also known as tendentious editing or sometimes, as the name suggests, civil POV pushing). In my opinion, this dispute has all appearances of falling between these 2 categories, and I don't think we can afford to have "wait and see" approaches employed when encountering this kind of editing. But in any case, unfortunately, WQA is not equipped to handle or resolve such disputes in general - which is why it usually ends up in an admin's hands (sometimes from ANI) or in cases of such needless reluctance, ArbCom. In the meantime, content DR is the way to go. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This was not really about content resolutions as much as to get some admins/editors attention to the situation which has happened. I did not feel it yet rose to the level to AN/I nor were the other dispute resolution boards appropriate as this was not as much about a content dispute as much about an editor's actions/comments. Brothejr (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is not much we can do about the 3RR situation. This essentially leaves the latter part of your complaint open - which is essentially affecting content. Letting uninvolved users explore any such claims of ownership and POV means using a form of content DR - it becomes a driving force. You must bear in mind that content dispute resolution is not always successful in securing a content resolution, nor do I necessarily believe that it will resolve the content issues. However, this avenue can work to highlight the underlying (conduct) problems, if any, even more clearly (and persuasively) for uninvolved users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just made Mr. Saturn's acquaintance, and found this WQA entry consistent with his behavior here on Stephan Schulz's talk page. He doesn't swear and the like, but once he gets hold of a point he absolutely WILL NOT LET GO until he gets his way. I don't know whether that's called incivility, tendentiousness, or something else, but whatever it is, it doesn't make for a healthy environment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Astro external links dispute

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Take issue to relevant noticeboard or seek other dispute resolution. This is not the place for this issue. See WP:DR. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Astro#External_links

It has been an ongoing battle between two sites: www.astrosafari.com and www.astrosafarivans.com to be listed in the external links of this Chevrolet_Astro wiki page.

My position as owner of AstroSafari.com is that our site has been online since 2002 nearly 5 years longer than AstroSafariVans.com who just recently popped up as a knock-off copycat of our site in 2007. Our site has a larger membership, more traffic, and cyberspace tenure and should therefor be listed first in Wiki's external links.

Proof of my claims:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.astrosafari.com (Online since Sep 21, 2002)

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.astrosafarivans.com (Online since May 21, 2007)

http://whois.domaintools.com/astrosafari.com (Domain created: 2002-08-20)

http://whois.domaintools.com/astrosafarivans.com (Domain created: 2006-10-27)

Someone please help resolve this external link battle. It is obvious that both URLs are relevant and beneficial to wiki users, but I am requesting that AstroSafari.com be listed first as it is factually MORE relevant and has online seniority over the other site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.78 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'the original' can sometimes be 'old and obsolete', and a 'knock-off copycat' might be 'new and improved'. What's this edit about? [16]

The first listing should be the official site, but Astro production ceased in 2005, and only trivial mentions remain at Chevrolet.com. If General Motors has an endorsed site, museum or history page for the Astro, that should be listed first.

Links at many articles tend be listed in a random order. The advantage you have is that alphabetically (or asciibetically), "." sorts out before "V" or "v").

If the other link owner won't accept that ascending sort, you need to start a WP:Request for Comment to help decide.

Here are some aggregated traffic rankings for each site, useful in an RfC to prove relative importance:

• AstroSafari.com Site Info at Wmtips.com
• AstroSafariVans.com Site Info at Wmtips.com

But keep in mind that all of the links could end up getting deleted, if drawn to the attention of anti-external-link activists. Milo 03:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mauritius - Language section - User: Maurice45

Resolved

 – Subject warned; filing party advised on how to proceed in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was not the intention of Maurice45, but I do believe that justifications such as "pfft", "ridiculous", "ridiculous copying continues" when editing are against the policies of Wikipedia (I checked Wikipedia:Civility just to make sure and it is stated clearly that:"Ridiculing comments from other editors, rather than making serious criticism of them" is not acceptable. You can also check my talkpage and his to learn about the general tone of our little "disagreement".

Basically, he deleted whole paragraphs with references and replaced it with a new text without any reference. When asked about it, he cited one sentence which he deemed unfit for Wikipedia and I agree with him on that one. However, I do not think that this justifies the deletion of whole paragraphs. That is why I told him that he can of course modify the style which he deemed incorrect, but to modify the content without any justification is, in my opinion, a bit too much. Also, his second wave of edits included the deletion of a sentence which was backed up by three references. One of them is from a forum and I agree with him that it should be removed. However, when he deleted the sentence, he did not even check the other sources. Among the other two, one is from the government's official website. I believe that Wikipedia should not be a place where subjectivity is placed before objectivity. Also, it seems like all his edits are not justified by any reference whatsoever. It's just personal opinion.

Moreover, I believe that the worst thing is the fact that he does all this in such a rude manner, belittling the contributions of all the other Wikipedians and myself who worked on that section. As we all know, mistakes ARE possible but I do believe that if we can talk things out in a civil manner, at least, we can move forward. Please see my talkpage for more insight.

Thank you for looking into this matter since I have been an active contributor on the Mauritius website since a while (whether anonymously or as a registered user) and if this is deemed as normal behavior, at least I would know what to expect.

Please see links for edits:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ju CAN (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 

I have informed the user that that kind of edit summaries are in conflict with WP:CIVIL and may lead to him being blocked. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

About the content disputes and what you perceive to be his agressive and uncooperative editing pattern I think you should adress this on the talk page and encourage him and other editors working on the article to work together and form a consensus. If he removes sourced content without explaining why or disregarding an established consensus then you are of course in your right to reinsert it, but you should be careful not to let it escalate into an editwar - make sure that it is a consensus of involved editors who decide what is cut or inserted not the opinions of any one editor.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Maunus, I really appreciate your input and your help! I also do hope other editors will share their opinions on that matter too and that this will not become an editwar. The last edit I made on that page was actually something written by someone else before, but since Maurice45 removed it without any reference and that to my knowledge, what the other editor wrote before was correct, I provided a reference and hope that it will be enough. As long as he provides reliable references, I do not believe that there will be an edit war since it is not in my nature to contradict for the sake of contradicting. The problem I had with him was that he was providing misleading incorrect information WITHOUT any source and...of course, the way he was addressing this issue. Just wondering, if he keeps editing without any references, what would be the best thing to do? Move it to the talkpage of the Mauritius page then? Sorry for taking your time and really, thank you for your help!Ju CAN (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If he adds content without sources then remove it (if it is controversial or dubious) and then start a discussion on the talk page, ask him to provinde sources. If he insists on including unsourced material you can start by asking other Mauritius interested editors about their opinion, then if the problem persists you can use the process for dispute resolution. You are welcome to alert me at my talk page if problems persist.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much for the advice, Maunus!! Ju CAN (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User Harout73 - hide info and threath people that change his version

Hi, well I am new here, really sorry if I make any mistake in write it here, just I search for some fair help. I heard many time ago about a problem here in wikipedia in an article of a music band (Modern Talking), but I never paid any attention until now that I saw myself and realize that it was true, there are an user called Harout73, I really don't know who is, or if he has any influence here in wikipedia, but he doesn't accept that we include some information in the biography of Modern Talking. I tried to have a polite conversation, I do all with respect, but this man only threath and is closed to open his mind or give some freedom in modify his version, and he doesn't allow to add some information that he consider not serious, or that don't come from a reliable source... the things I write I am sure with more than reliable sources, because I know many about this issue by a private investigation that I started since years, also this is easy to find for someone neutral (not like a crazy fan like it seems he is), whoever can read the solid proofs about the truth of Modern Talking, this is not vandalism, I am not attacking, or offending to anybody, I simply add some missing things in the biography, with all the respect to all the artists involved, but this man, just come and threath, you will be blocked, i will dennounced... what?? why?? for say the truth??, he is the only vandalist here!!!, he makes that like if he had any authority in the issue, well since I read that he didn't know some facts that are more than obvious it gives me the reason, that he really doesn't know too much about Modern Talking, and his real story, so with what right, only his version can be considered like a true??. I ask please that my text would be keep in the story and don't delete it again please!!. He deletes and deletes and then is warning me that i will be reported or so... please, where are we??, there are a dictadure by someone that want to keep only the version that he likes!!?. Please I ask to a third person that can put some order with it, I am not saying nosense info, are just some facts from this band that the public need to know, specially the new public. Is really unfair what is happening, I am not just a fan or somebody that waste time by internet, I am interested in keep a real serious article and not the text from a manipulated music magazine. I know an old user tried also to write something about that, but was attacked by this same user, he reported him or blocked... well, I really don't know what happened, but this was also unfair. Another thing, he wants to keep, some fansites in extern links that are really not serious included an illegal warez and mp3 sites that damage to this artists, etc. Somebody really neutral can help please?. Again sorry if I am asking some help in the wrong place, is my first time here. Bluesky84 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Modern Talking biographer

Can you provide a link to (a) the article, (b) the offending user (c) some diffs that show where he has caused a problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bluesky, you will need to be a bit careful here, based on your signature. If you are an biographer of a subject, please read WP:COI carefully. Can I also ask you to use edit summaries on each and every edit that you make - this helps other editors to understand your edit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Background on this issue may be seen at:

• Modern Talking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Harout72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bluesky84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On Bluesky84's talk page there are suggestions that Bluesky84 may have added inappropriate external links to the Modern Talking article. Harout72 is a long-time editor, while Bluesky84's account was created August 11. We should give him a chance to get oriented to Wikipedia and explain our policies to him. However his present complaint, speaking of 'attacks' and such, seems over the top. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he's getting aggrieved because he wants to add information on the backing vocalists. I've just taken it out (again, probably the fourth time someone has removed it) because he keeps sticking it in the lede first sentence, and also in the first sentence of the next para. I'm sure it's ok to add somewhere in the article that the backing vocals on the cds were by Huey, Louey and Dewey, but it is a fairly trivial piece of info. Perhaps he needs someone to explain to him about the structure of articles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have been unable to find any "hiding" of anything, and the only "threats" are to take the situation to the admin's noticeboard for intervention for repeated policy violations (and darn close to breaking the 3 revert rule). Bluesky is a new editor, and a) does not appear to have English as a first language, and b) does not understand many of Wikipedia's core rules on reliable sources, external links, and the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Because of this, I have left a big welcome template on the user's talkpage.

Bluesky, here's some specifics: Geocities cannot ever be used as an external link - an automated "bot" has removed your addition more than once. Do not revert the removal again. Speaking of reverting, if you are bold and make an edit, and someone reverts it, then you are not permitted to re-add it without discussion on the article's talkpage to reach consensus (see WP:BRD). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please I ask for patient because I am new here in wikipedia and I still can't understand the formats and codification. The problem happen in the article of Modern Talking. Is true I am new, but tis don't quit me the reason and don't give to this user harout73 the only true, only for his time here... he has many familiarization with wikipedia so he has advantage in this. But please check in this article, the part of discussion and the part of historial, you will realize how this user change again and again the contributions that other people always tried to do before me. He pretend to cheat wikipedia with his only version, I added a link that showed realiable source, but he deleted it intentionally, and then threath that will report me as vandal, when he is the only who has been a vandal here. I am being neutral, and having respect for all the artists involved. But harout73 delete my contributions again and again for keep only his manipulated version. Please look in discussion, other people suppored me, and it show more people is agree, check in the historial, how before, similar contributions were deleted. We have rights in tell the true and don't hide important information that the world need to know, if they search about this music band, the one it is showed here has been until now, just a manipulated version, that never talk about the facts, trials, and demands that this band had, and are necessary for make of this article a really serious and neutral source of information. The current article is not neutral, and has to harout73 like the first person that don't allow it become serious. --Bluesky84 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Modern Talking biographer

Bluesky has just added it back again, and I have taken it out again, and suggested that instead of arguing about truth and lies, a paragraph about the band's sound - to which the aforementioned Huey, Louey and Dewey have contributed, is hashed out on the talk page. Bluesky, an uninvolved admin will block you if you persist in adding the information, and you definitely cannot keep shoving it into the lede of the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone up for a visit to the 3RR noticeboard to get this guy to actually read policy? Between the geocities link multiple reversions and additions, and other repeated edits, he has broken it at least twice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why the problem exist here in this version of wikipedia, this band had a polemic situation due to some hardcore-crazy fans try to continue cheating that the supposed singer was the singer, when he never was, and the real singers, all information about them is always hide. I try to find a neutral solution, having respect for everybody, and this would be that we can simple add to all of them together in the lead of the information, and that's all!!, end of all problems!!!, I don't accept your suggestion in this sense, this people not only contributed, they made more than a simple choir, but I don't enter in polemics here, just writting the fair information. By the way, I am not an english speaker, sorry, but I promise to make my effort for make less mistakes. I ask for a really neutral person that can help with this issue please!!, we are near to reach some justice if we can keep this contribution to wikipedia. Another thing, this issue about the geocitie, this is not the problem please!! this was only an example how this user keep the links that are in his favoru when he want (he had one of geocities added and accepted before, but when was for give info about the choir, he deleted...), please don't confuse, the problem here is to try to get a neutral article, and not only a manipulated version --Bluesky84 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Modern Talking biographer

I'm going to recommend this once: stop editing the article right now, until you have read all of the relavant policies - both those I have quoted above, and the ones in the Welcome menu on your Talkpage. Understand that we all have a goal of neutrality, but it must be done within the Wikipedia policies. And, let me repeat: START USING EDIT SUMMARIES FOR ALL EDITS. I expect to not see you back on that article for about 12 hours ... beginning ... now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have advised Harout about this WQA, seeing as the OP did not. I have also added the article to my watchlist, and reverted two absolutely mind boggling edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cat meet pigeons - I have just removed that geocities reference from Systems in Blue along with the info about the lawsuit that is only sourced to the geocities page. [17] Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned this user a few times already that he/she cannot insert material as significant as that into the article without providing a source. I left the user WP:RS link at the talk-page of Modern Talking, so he/she could familiarize his/herself with the entire operation of how/where editors need to use sources. I doubt, that she/he read any of it, instead went ahead and told me to read the credits on the booklet written on one of Modern Talking's albums. The names of those she/he persistently inserts are there but it's unclear exactly why the duo thanks them. Besides, that alone would not do help, we need a reliable source confirming her/his statements.--Harout72 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's reasonable evidence that these guys sang on the albums. Rolf Kohler worked regularly with Deiter Bohlen according to a number of sources [18] and [19] - I'm sure Sony would have sued if it wasn't true. What I have grave doubts about is this account of a lawsuit, which is only referenced by a geocities page and the references an IP has put into Systems in Blue after I knocked the geocities ref and associated text out. I'm not at all happy about seeing that anywhere without a report in a reputable journal.

Part of the problem seems to be the messaianic zeal to "set the story straight" on the part of Bluesky and the IP editor. I'm sure (as suggested) that the article can quite properly say somewhere (not in the first sentence!!) that Huey, Louie and Dewey worked on all the albums, link to Systems in Blue, creating the characteristic sound, without any suggestion that the band are other than the duo, or that Bohlen wrote all the songs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't argue whether or not these people have produced vocals for the duo, and they may have, but if there are no third party reliable sources confirming these claims, then perhaps, having their names within the article is not significant. After all, many groups/acts hire singers from outside their loop and have them provide with vocals, we don't necessarily have to include every single musician's or vocalist's names within our wikipedia articles just because they have participated in the recording studio while recording albums/singles.--Harout72 (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to bring talk page discussion here, I also think you need to look at some of the sources being submitted. This appears to be a long term collaboration, and it would be appropriate to include it within the article (although without mentioning anything at all to do with setting records straight, court cases etc etc) as part of a section on the sound of the band. Refusing even this is beginning to look like unreasonable behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's not even try and put the idea in these editors's heads that they could support statements with unofficial sites or You Tube, the next thing I know, the entire page will begin to fill with ludicrous statements probably stating that now Anders is a fake. They wish to insert those statements into the article I don't mind as long as they come forward with a reliable source. Long time ago, we had editors at the same page, who had entered something like Modern Talking is known as a gay group in the UK" completely unsourced. As I mentioned before the credited vocalist have never been part of the duo, and I personally have never come across a reliable article in German-language that mentions their names. Perhaps, I will look around again within Germany's google to see if there is anything reliable we can use, but I am beginning to believe that those editors surreptitiously are trying to advertise the act Systems in Blue.--Harout72 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved third party, I concur of your view that someone or some group is trying to advertise SIB in a sly way. Take a look at this edit and make an educated guess for yourself. Correct me if I'm wrong but User:MT SIB really sounds awfully a lot like User:Bluesky84. That said, is CU necessary now? --Dave1185 (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not rightly sure if they are all one person - the mangled English is clouding the issue I feel. That said, SIB's own website [20] (select "About Us" as the text is in a box so the url doesn't change) claims that they have worked with Bohler for years, on Blue System as well as Modern Talking. I fancy Bohler (not to mention Sony Corp, who now own the rights) would have sued the pants off them if it wasn't true, so I see no reason to doubt that statement or, given that the squeaky voices are a major component of the sound, any reason not to give it a mention in the article. I kind of like the way Discogs says it [21] - "studio line up included...." I think any talk of lawsuits is best left out - I did find another reference [22] which purports to have been the english language version of the official BMG russia site [23]....but I have my doubts. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, can this go back to the article talkpage as a content/sourcing issue, rather than a WQA issue? Seems like warnings ("threats") were valid, based on the combative editing style by the OP - I don't think there's much more to accomplish here in WQA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have said we have clarified what the problems are, and are now thrashing the answers out on the talk page (AND I now know the german for sockpuppet). I'll keep an eye on the article for a bit if you like.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski and Jump start (vehicle)

Jump start (vehicle) is an article with a number of problems, none of which are urgent or terribly harmful, but I would like to be able to collaborate in editing the article to make it better, one issue at a time. The problem is that Wtshymanski (talk · contribs) continually violates civility with sarcastic, insulting and off-topic edit summaries and talk page comments.

The particular question of WP:RS is discussed at Talk:Jump_start_(vehicle)#Cig_lighter and at the Is one owners manual sufficient to generalize about "many" cars?

The edits that violate WP:Civil are:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]

The last edits, I believe, are in response to my question at the RS Noticeboard. Note that at least five other editors were perfectly capable of discussing this relatively unimportant question without saying anything offensive to anyone.

The exact species of disruptive editing can be debated, perhaps it is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, perhaps it should be called climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. It appears that the off-topic issue is that Wtshymanski has complaints about WP:RS and WP:V, and wants to take every opportunity to rail against these policies with name calling and sarcasm.

It has also escalated to bombardment -- thankfully only on the talk page and not the article itself -- with this edit, which is also peppered with insults, and with various critiques of Wikipedia policy. Somewhere in all that noise is a helpful citation to resolve the actual question being discussed, but it is drowned in a torrent of vitriol.

I don't believe anybody editing Jump start (vehicle) is interested in monologues on what's wrong with WP:RS and WP:V. That should be debated elsewhere.

I have made two attempts to request that this person stop being rude, here and here. The rude edit summaries here and here were Wtshymanski's response, followed by the rant on the talk page.

I'm now requesting that an administrator intervene. In particular, I have a problem with "you're going to have a turbulent career on Wikipedia if you think *I* am rude". Is this behavior to be considered an acceptable norm? --Dbratland (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the page heading, there are no administrators here. Yes, he's very sarcastic (lowest form of wit, or so I'm told) but I do think you are in danger of chastising a moribund riding animal with the debate. On the basis that User:Wtshymanski's Toyota did something and your car of similar age and different make didn't, I think the solution would have been to thrash out a form of wording that covered the situation allowing for both alternatives. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, there is no need to demand references to or provide a list of which cars do whatever it was and which cars don't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The response at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was very helpful in resolving the citation question; that is not why I posted here. When I looked at Wikipedia:AIN it made it extremely clear that complaints about civility should be posted on this board. Are you saying that if I want something done about this problem, I should post at AIN? Or, if you're saying this person's behavior is not a violation of WP:CIVIL, can you explain why not? --Dbratland (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also: You mention that the article contains how-to information. That's one of the many flaws in the article which I alluded to at the top of this post. I would like to work to fix that problem and the others, but I do not wish to be subject to a non-stop stream of rude remarks while doing so. Hence, I sought help at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Is there some better means I should take to accomplish that? --Dbratland (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is skirting WP:CIVIL, but this board is not staffed by administrators. It is one of the first steps in dispute resolution, and as such editors here often try to suggest ways of defusing the argument. In this case, agreeing a form of words to convey the idea that more modern cars may switch the 12v outlet off with the ignition, seemed a better option than arguing about sources and running off to Reliable Sources (who I note have basically said the same as me).Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find myself with ever more questions than answers. But thank you anyway, for trying to help.--Dbratland (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Brudder Andrusha

This user has been continually abusive towards me for my adherence to policy regarding live association football score updates in various articles. The most recent example of this user's attitude can be seen in this edit and its corresponding edit summary. Other users at WP:FOOTY have noticed this obvious attitude problem and commented on it. Another example of the user's attitude problem can be found here. Intervention would be helpful. – PeeJay 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This user has been reported before for harassment of me. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me that this dust-up is not because someone is actually updating articles with on-the-fly scoring, which is completely against policy? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it would seem so. Brudder Andrusha seems to think it is counter-productive for me to enforce policy (which it may be, but as long as my edits aren't offensive or contrary to the MOS, I don't see why I shouldn't continue) and so he has resorted to name-calling and childish insults. – PeeJay 21:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Peejay - can you confirm in this forum that you are equally aware of this policy regarding on-the-fly scoring? You have also been "guilty" of the same. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the incivility issue, but there's no point in denying it. – PeeJay 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? You broke policy. He broke the same policy. You gave him heck for breaking thay policy, he effectively called you a hypocrite, and it escalated. That's the cause of the incivility. It doesn't excuse it, but sure does explain it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you should investigate the individual User:PeeJay2K3 who brought these so call infringements and ask him why is allowed to get away with live updates and others are not. On Sunday August 9, 2009 during the 2009 FA Community Shield the same individual made 15 live updates during the match between 14:58 and 16:05 History - last 100. Hence it seems that this individual is quite hypocritic in his approach to live updates - as long as it he who is doing them. Obviously there is a double standard which this individual uses to harass those on WP so as to control who and what is doing the updates in real time. In regard to live update of sports events that are being played there are numerous events i.e. 2009 PGA Championship (not completed yet), 2009 Wimbledon Championships - Gentlemen's Singles that are updated here on WP without being dragged through Wikiquette and subject to stringent WP:Policy_Check. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said on YOUR talkpage (please do not post the identical statement everywhere). PeeJay has been made aware of live update policy. It doesn't matter - if someone ELSE is doing something wrong, it doesn't mean that YOU can too. On top of that, it never excuses your incivility. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to rely on both of you now to not only uphold the policy, but ensure that others do to. It's a good thing you're both active on various sports. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

lets all become civilty deputees, we could even form a posse!·Maunus·ƛ· 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reporting User:Lvivske

He doesn't discuss anything and is completely rude. This guy smears and breaks wikipedia rules for his Ukraine Bias. I know that I'm not the first person to face this. I assumed that flags on hockey players get flags based on citizenship, but I was misinformed. Another user had to explain this to me, while User:Lvivske was trying to get into an edit war. The disscussion I had is here:

Not that I am trying to get in the middle of this. But I noticed you tried to report Lviske for edit warring. I just wanted to point out that under WP:Flag to use a Flag on an athletes page, it must be the team they play for internationally. Nationality and citizenship do not belong on any athletes' pages. So Alexei Ponikarovski, which I'm sure I misspelled (not a Leafs fan sorry), at best gets a Ukrainian flag, as I believe he played at the Worlds for the Ukraine at one point or other. He may have also played for the Soviets pre-1991, which would give him a Russian flag (as the successor to the USSR). Take a look at the discussion on the Wikiproject, it seems the template "rules" may revamped to remove flags altogether from the nationality field. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Brett Hull should not have a Canadian flag nor should Steve Yzerman have an American flag. Like I say WP:Flag would override any rules the Hockey Project has. Plus it seems consensus had been reached upon the Infobox's Talk page that the two "nationality" fields will be removed with an International Team field in its place. Therefore, Alexei would have only the Ukraine on his infobox as he has not appeared for Canada. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the main problem this guy reverted edits that I made on Nikolai Zherdev (his has never played for team Ukraine) and put a Ukraine flag on his page when this contradicts the rule. This user doesn't follow any rules just his Ukraine bias, which isn't just felt by me. If you look at his talk page you'll see other bias he has. To make this worse he never discusses anything, which is start to piss me off. I have tried to remain cool, but it's getting near impossible.--Fire 55 (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't play the victim here. You've wanted to discuss nothing thus far, and just jump straight to bureaucracy to try to enforce your angle on the flags over WP:HOCKEY's policy. Face the facts, Zherdev was a registered player under the Ukrainian ice hockey federation for majority of his career. This is getting ridiculous on your part. Cut the act.--Львівське (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you check the your talk page. You know the one which you erased. That'll show you that I've tried talking to you. I've messaged you before every edit I've made. How many times you've one that. NONE. Try again. --Fire 55 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your first comment to me was about how the WP rulers were "BS" and that if I went against your opinion you would report me to an admin. Your next two were you going nutty again about reporting me or me being under some obligation to provide you with references. I'd say there was plenty of reason for me to clear that garbage cluttering my talk page, like I did again right now.--Львівське (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to re-read it. I said show me where it says that or you'll be reported for edited warring. Edit warring isn't about who's right or wrong it's about not discussing the issue. All you had to do is give me a link which User:Shootmaster 44 did. He did that and now I'm correcting my mistake by not undoing Alexei's page because I know I was wrong. Now I came across Zherdev page and corrected it the way it is suppose to be IE without the Ukraine flag. Simple as that. The fact is you want it both ways. I was wrong about Alexei's and NOT wrong about Zherdev's. You are trying to get it both ways and bend the rules. --Fire 55 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting this two ways garbage? Alexei has no connection to Canada on a hockey level, Nikolai does with Ukraine. WP:FLAG even says if they haven't played internationally then go with the governing body, which would have been Ukraine (flag 1), he then got invited to play for Russia and that is now flag 2. If you have a problem, take it up with the WP, don't try to waste some admin's time because you disagree with our current policy.--Львівське (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Smarty I already admitted that I was wrong about Alexei. Zherdev HAS ONLY represented Russia. NO OTHER TEAMS.--Fire 55 (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming and shaming

On 6 August a new User named Quantumechanic began contributing to Wikipedia. His early edits were all on the article Entropy. Three days later (9 August) a new thread was started at Talk:Entropy called:
Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all?
This title still appears at item 35 on the list of contents at Talk:Entropy.

This title is condescending and it names Quantumechanic explicitly. I believe it names and shames this newcomer.

Wikipedia should not name and shame individual Users, especially not on a much-visited talk page such as Talk:Entropy. Wikipedia is founded on its five pillars, the fourth of which is the Code of Conduct. Naming and shaming individual Users is not consistent with the Code of Conduct.

The User who created this new thread is a highly experienced contributor (3440 edits, first edit in 2004). I have written to him twice at his User talk page and asked that he amend the title of his new thread. See User talk:Count Iblis#Civility. He has not yet amended the title, and has defended his actions.

Wikipedia should not name and shame individual Users. The title of this new thread should be changed. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in fact does name and shame individual editors by blocking or banning them for violations of policies. So, your last statement suggesting that naming and shaming should never happen on Wikipedia, is not really true. This then means that in case of my edits we have to look at the circumstances and see if what I wrote was reasonable. You cannot simply reason like: "naming and shaming is never allowed, and you clearly did do this, see this text, so you are guilty".

Now, before I give my explanation, let me first say that the title of thesection was chosen deliberately not per se to "name and shame" (although it was inevitable to have that effect), but it was to make clear a relevant point to everyone. In the unlikely case that I was wrong, user quantumechanic would have all the oportunity to turn the tables on me by explaining exactly the formulas and then it would me who would have been "shamed".

So, what was the justification? The exact chronology is as follows (I think all of it is relevant, so you have to read everything, I'm afraid). User Quantumechanic made edits to the entropy page which I reverted on the grounds that they were misleading and then I decided that since the entropy page was in need of revisions anyway, why not do it right now? Now, user quantumechanic was insistent on editing the article in a different way along the lines of his first edit.

Then, I thought, why not let him have a go? It would mean entropy would be introduced from a phenomenological POV, which is not my favoriute POV, but if he is willing to spend the time to do a lot of writing, why not let him do that? I would sit on the fence and make some comments and perhaps make minor corrects myself.

I wrote to a Wiki Admin, see first paragraph of this posting here about this plan. This Wik Admin had seen my first revert of his edits and reacted to that and we discussed that a bit previously. So, I was notifying him in advance to avoid trouble. You can imagine that quantumecanic editing again starting from the version that was later reverted wold be interpreted as edit warring by that Admin.

But not long after he started editing again, did it become clear to me that his knowledge of the subject was simply way below the minimum level needed for him to be able to contribute in an effective way. The fact that he insists that "there are errors which he's correcting", while in fact there are no errors and he is editing in nonsense thinking that he's "correcting errors" and pointing that out for every instant takes a large amount of time, led me to conclude that he should not contribute at all.

I wrote on the wikiproject physics page about this, see here and on the Adminstrator's noticeboard, see here

I explained why it was now not practical for him to edit from his preferred version and that I would be editing starting from my prefered verion. Since this could look like I'm edit warring, so I thought I needed to explain myself first before doing this.

Now, let me explain that section on the entropy talk page. I did not spot the flawed integral expressions for the entropy by user quantumechanic when he first edited those in. This happened later and at that point I concluded that that my suspiciouns that I already had about him were correct: He really doesn't know much about this topic.

But because he was constantly pretending to be an expert, in the sense that he constantly argues that he has an advanced book and he has spotted erors in the entropy article and I'm removing his sourced edits etc. etc., the only way to make clear to everyone beyond a reasonable doubt that his judgement cannot be trusted, I had to write that section in that way. He choose to have a big mouth, look at his edit summaries where he says that he's correcting errors. He didn't want to consider that he's wrong, that the article is correct, and that he's editing in nonsense after detailed discussions.

So, I decided that it was now time for him to put up or shut up, so I copied and pasted his own flawed edits on the talk page and I now directly questioned his expertise. I see absolutely nothing wrong to act in this way in a case like this. Count Iblis (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin51 - this was along the lines of a scholarly debate, not an attack. Headlines on talk pages highlighting a particular editor are not unknown, and Count Iblis is careful to word things in a civil manner. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading the contributions by User:Count Iblis and User:Elen of the Roads I think my purpose in raising this matter has been misunderstood. My purpose is not to criticise Count Iblis or to have action taken against him. My purpose is to get Talk:Entropy changed so that it no longer names and shames Quantumechanic, a newcomer to Wikipedia.

If we assume some benefit was achieved by naming and shaming Quantumechanic on a much-visited talk page, there is a valid question in asking for how long should Quantumechanic, or any other individual User, be named and shamed on a Talk page? Is one week sufficient, does it take a month, or a year, or should this individual User be named and shamed in perpetuity?

Quantumechanic was named and shamed at Talk:Entropy on 9 August, almost a week ago. My view is that little or no benefit will be achieved by continuing this naming and shaming any longer. Talk:Entropy should be amended promptly to put an end to the naming and shaming of Quantumechanic.

This whole affair is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its five pillars, the fourth of which is a Code of Conduct that includes protection of individuals, even including vandals and newcomers. Wikipedia also has:

• WP:Please do not bite the newcomers
• WP:No personal attacks
• WP:Do not insult the vandals
• WP:Civility

and yet, in spite of these laudable statements of good intention, it appears that Wikipedia may be willing to see a newcomer named and shamed on a much-visited Talk page on only his third day of contributing. Newcomers will always be inclined to be over-enthusiastic, and in doing so will cause a little damage and upset experienced Users. Wikipedia has legitimate strategies to deal with such behaviour from newcomers. I watch with interest to see how long Wikipedia is willing to allow this illegitimate attack on Quantumechanic to continue.

Talk:Entropy should be amended immediately to put an end to the disgraceful naming and shaming of a newcomer. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'll say again - this is a lengthy scholarly debate, not a naming and shaming. If Quantummechanic his/herself is at all bothered by the headline, s/he knows where the edit button is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This section seems totally unnecessary. I'm a pure mathematician and as such not sufficiently familiar with the kind of mathematics that physicists do. So I can't comment about the errors discussed in the "naming and shaming" section. But in the section that follows it, Talk:Entropy#The introduction still doesn't make sense., it becomes clear that Quantumechanic is one of those editors who think the possession of one or two good books on a subject which they haven't learned properly entitles them to argue against real experts who are already active at the article. (The fact that log can be taken to various bases depending on which subject you are working in, and that in a physics context it almost always means ln, is hard to overlook in any kind of university-level physics education. I hope that at least Count Iblis had some fun writing his eerily calm and controlled a/b/c response.) Learning a subject by proving the experts wrong until they have patiently explained why they were actually right, and doing it again, and again, and again, is quite convenient – for the learner. For the teachers it's simply unacceptable. Attacking them for using the only method they see for stopping it is not OK. This is a project for writing an encyclopedia, not for teaching superior students.

If Quantumechanic is bothered by the "naming and shaming" section, there is an easy way out: stop the problematic behaviour and archive the thread, or ask a more experienced editor nicely to do it.

To Quantumechanic: When something doesn't seem to make sense, "I don't understand why..." is going to give you much better answers than "The following is wrong: ..." and will make you appear more intelligent, not less. Hans Adler 20:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Developing Situation with User:Small Victory

There is a developing situation with an editor. He has increasingly insulting people both on the page history summaries, talk pages and other wikipedia pages.

Examples (bolded by PB666):

You've said some pretty stupid things before, but that has to be the stupidest. Every study that discusses the subclades makes distinctions between them and E3b -- major distinctions in terms of where they originated and how they spread. If that weren't the case, you would have no trouble producing a source that attributed E-V13 and E-M81 to Sub-Saharan African admixture. But of course, you can't. ----

— Small Victory (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) - Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression

Stop your lies and distortions. And don't try to turn this around and make it about me. It's obvious that you're quoting selectively to emphasize admixture, and deliberately omitting anything that calls that admixture into question or finds it to be absent. That's the very definition of WP:Information suppression....

— Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC) - Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression

You're the problem, not me.

— Small Victory (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)-Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression

...... My version of the 'SSA admixture' section is the most neutral. You yourself found virtually nothing wrong with it compared to Muntuwandi's, which you picked apart and argued against vehemently. Now all of a sudden you're taking his side and insisting that the data in my version is not properly sourced, even though I showed you that it is. Have you completely lost your mind?

— Small Victory (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe

Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it. At the far right you'll see a column called "Sub-Saharan". That's where the figures were obtained.

— Small Victory (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe

Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations.

— Small Victory (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe

SOPHIAN, The Ogre and Victorius III all prefer my version. You did too before you inexplicably switched sides. Causteau has always supported my edits on this subject. Andrew opposes everything I do, but can never point to anything substantive being wrong with it (e.g. the reference to slavery is properly sourced). And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic. And until Andrew can produce something concrete it's like 7 against 1, which leaves Muntuwandi all alone with his OR and POV.

— Small Victory (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:Articles_for_deletion/African_admixture_in_Europe

Removed Pdeitiker's ridiculous, incomplete and improperly sourced table. [Note: the table was actually removed even though it had references Small Victory has converted Absolute sample frequencies to percentages without disclosing the source of the numbers, once this was found out the material was promptly removed - the problem was that he scrambled the references in his citation such that they were difficult to follow]

— 13:49, 10 August 2009 Small Victory Page History - Genetic_history_of_Europe]

(Undid revision 306957357 by Jingiby (talk) Do you not understand what a combined sample is?)

— 11:36, 9 August 2009 Small Victory - Page History : Genetic_history_of_Europe]

(Sub-Saharan African influences: Pdeitiker, don't revert to Muntuwandi's version after coming out against it on the Talk Page.)

— 12:58, 4 August 2009 Small Victory - Page History : Genetic_history_of_Europe

Well, either you're mistaken about being "a person of reasonable intelligence" or you're just not trying. Because the charts are explained very clearly and even color-coded to make reading them easier. Basically, the colors represent genetic clusters that correspond to ancestry from major geographic regions (e.g. Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia etc.). Populations that have more than one color are mixed, and the amount of the color they have indicates the level of admixture. It's not exactly rocket science. And anyway, difficulty of a subject has nothing to do with WP:OR. I don't know where you got that notion.

— Small Victory (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts_-_break

... You're so transparent. You don't believe your OR allegation for a second. You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex. The evidence, however, shows that they have almost none. So your only recourse is to have it suppressed. That's why you started this thread, to dupe people who know nothing about population genetics into helping you get your way. If the evidence had shown what you wanted, we wouldn't be here right now. You're so dishonest and agenda-driven, it's disgusting.

— Small Victory (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) - WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts_-_break

Are you kidding me? It's clear that you still don't understand my analogy, even though I've explained it and corrected your misapprehension several times. What do I have to do, draw you a picture? LEARN HOW TO READ! And then you wonder why I talk down to you.

— Small Victory (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC) - User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion

I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable. Again, LEARN HOW TO READ!

— Small Victory (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC) - User_talk:Small_Victory#Tone_of_discussion

PB666 ^yap 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The OP has been asked to refactor based on the instructions for this page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless I have missed something, notification is a very strong community norm, rooted in the belief that there are two sides to most stories. I would have liked to have heard from the other party before action was taken. Why didn't User:Pdeitiker notify user:Small Victory of the posting here? Why did User:Bwilkins admonish SV without getting his/her side of the story? This was very poor form. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OP= Original poster. BWilkins asked PB666 to lay out his complaint differently to meet the guidelines for this page. I don't believe he or anyone else has communicated with Small Victory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Two responses. If no one has communicated with SV, that's a problem; indeed, it's the same problem that I identified. Why has no one notified him/her? Their actions have been raised here, an action that could result in sanctions, and that ought to trigger notification as a matter of course. Second, as I said, Bwilkins has communicated with SV to issue a stern warning, see [30]. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise - I did not realise Bwilkins had communicated with SV. While I hold no brief for Bwilkins, I would be surprised that he has done so without (a) notifying SV of this thread and (b)noting here that he has done so. Since the warning was given six hours or so earlier than Bwilkins post here, it seems it could be the case that the warning was given independent of reading this complaint, and Bwilkins may not recall that he warned the same editor earlier in the day. You are correct that the complainant should have notified SV of the complaint - do you wish to do so now? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :) I notified SV of this posting a little earlier ([31]). I have to admit that I would be surprised if, by sheer coincidence, BW just happened to warn SV about the same conduct that was reported here by Pdeitiker, after Pdeitiker reported it here, independently of that report. (I will take it in good faith if he says otherwise, of course. ) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I did advise the complainant to both advise Small Victory, AND to refactor his comments (see their talkpage). Indeed, I rarely investigate until I am sure that they were advised. I did, however, see a few of the concerning edits firsthand - based on what I saw, regardless of the discussion on WQA, there were significant (and regular) violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that required immediate warning. I did fail to advise Small Victory of this WQA thread, and failed to advise WQA of my actions. Sorry, a little WP:AGF as it was early. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Developing Situation with User:Small Victory section break

These are comments from the deleted Talk:Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. Administrators may be able to access the comments to verify. Examples by Muntuwandi.

I can see you have trouble following simple logic. Using your example, if a sub-Saharan with E-M78 had offspring with a European, that offspring could not possibly get E-M78α because the alpha cluster is not present in any sub-Saharan populations. It's only present in Europeans. Therefore, E-M78α is not evidence of sub-Saharan ancestry. It can only be evidence of European ancestry. And the clusters of E-M78 are in fact completely independent lineages. A recent paper by Cruciani found that they each have membership in different unique event polymorphisms. The alpha cluster, which doesn't have an African origin, is monophyletic and corresponds almost perfectly to newly defined haplogroup E-V13 (see Table). Small Victory

:This issue was already debated here when another obvious Afrocentrist tried to pull the same garbage that you're pulling now. He lost. Please refer to discussions 6, 7 and 8. ---- Small Victory (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Having been totally exposed and defeated, now he's just reinserting his OR and POV without even giving an explanation or trying to make his case on the Talk Page. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The debate about content is over. You've been proven wrong, and consensus has been reached. In fact, it was over three years ago when Yom tried to pull the same thing and was also defeated by consensus. (Notice that your pal Llywrch intervened there, but backed down when I explained everything and he saw that I was right.) The situation we have now is a "crazy Afrocentrist" (by your own admission) trying repeatedly to reinsert OR and POV into the article, and in doing so continually violating the 3RR. This has to stop. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you delusional? After we arrive at consensus that you're guilty of OR and POV pushing, and we cease to indulge your nonsense as a result, your twisted Afrocentric mind interprets that as consent for you to reinsert your biased edits? Get real.The only "silence" here is yours, and it's deafening. You need to produce a source that uses E-V13 and E-M81 as evidence of Sub-Saharan African admixture. If you can't do that (and it's obvious by now that you can't), then you need to back off and stop vandalizing this article. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be very clear: Your OR and POV will never be included in this article. Ever. Not as long as we have something to say about it. And if not us, then someone else will come along to stop you. Because you're in the wrong. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got a lot of nerve accusing others of OR given your track record. It's not a question of what the Auton study says, it's what it shows (or rather, doesn't show). Do you know what an admixture analysis is? Have you heard of the STRUCTURE program? I suggest you familiarize yourself with these things before making outrageous and idiotic accusations. Start with the Pritchard and Rosenberg papers referenced in this article......Small Victory (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing the content, but it's impossible to get anywhere with someone who's so clueless about science, and population genetics in particular, and more interested in advancing an Afrocentric agenda than learning anything. A graph is not "shaky ground". It's a visual representation of data, and you would know how to properly interpret the graphs in Auton if you understood population structure and the study in question. The dark green component is Sub-Saharan African because it makes up 100% of the Yoruba sample. Just like the red component is European and used in the study to detect European admixture in Mexicans. The reason African admixture isn't mentioned with regard to Mexicans (or anyone else) is because they don't have African admixture. And the graphs show that clearly. Get it? ---- Small Victory (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mexican sample in Auton et al. shows no significant Sub-Saharan African admixture. That doesn't mean that there can't be other samples in other studies that yield different results (do you understand anything about how science works?). In fact, here's a study that found some African admixture in certain other Mexican samples. More importantly though, note that it uses the Yoruba as representative Africans. Just as it uses Zapotecs as representative Amerindians because of their near total membership in the cluster of inferred Amerindian ancestry.Small Victory (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some remarks by Milomedes.

As I feel that a remark that Milomedes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made lately on WT:EL was not aimed at the discussion, but at the users who argued against his arguments, I left a post on his talkpage. Also that was, in my opinion, met by a similar type of remark.

In the first remark he states: "The guide is launching extremists from this page. The best way to limit extremism is to change the guide language, so that they have less guide basis to harass local editors with extreme interpretations." In my opinion, that remark has a chilling effect on the people who argue that the wording in the sentences under discussion is fine and who follow that, and drowns a bit the discussion (in my way of reading: if you remove a link and warn the user who added it pointing at 'links to avoid', then you are an extremist, and are harassing the local editor). As the argument is more describing the people who follow the guideline then as against the argument itself, and I notified him (both in the thread and on his talkpage) that I interpreted that as such, and pointed him at WP:NPA (comment on the argument, not on the editors). I agree, I may have over-interpreted the remark, though I don't see it as helpful to achieve consensus (more the contrary).

From that Milomedes found it necessary to remind me, that he was "an editor for a year longer than you have" (2 diffs).

I'd like to have some independent admin have a look at this, before this escalates. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a need to escalate. I only read the last couple posts (and diffs), but I think s/he was addressing the verbiage of the article more than any individual editor. I just looked very quickly, but did you notify him/her of this thread? I do admit, pointing out tenure, edit counts, age, etc. doesn't really carry that much weight here - or at least it's not supposed to. Doesn't seem all that confrontational at the moment, hopefully it won't get that way in the future. — Ched :  ?  13:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, user is notified. It was in my opinion not addressing the verbiage, but, IMHO, describes the editors who follow the verbiage as it is there currently. That was more the reason to bring it here. It does not exactly bring the discussion that is at hand further. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a read through the whole EL talk page later today. If I can think of anything useful to add, I'll try. Best of luck. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, or perhaps a question. If I'm reading the contribs right - I'm seeing less than 3,000 edits since 2005. vs. about 20x that for Dirk. Is that right? As I said, tenure and edit counts hold little sway here - but I find it rather ironic that someone with about 2,000 edits would try to pull a "I've been here longer than you" rabbit out of his hat. Curiouser and Curiouser. — Ched :  ?  14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to drop that argument in terms of who is more experienced here (I did not go against it in detail, as that indeed comes to 'what do you call more experienced'), it is more the question about the type of comments, which are not aimed at an argument, but at the user(s) who placed them or others who want to comment. To me it is not helpful to create an atmosphere of 'if you ever reverted an edit where someone added a (type of external link), and you gave as reason 'does not fit WP:ELNO No. #', then you are an extremist who is harassing local editors'. That is not an atmosphere in which I want to argue, but as I am involved in the situation, the argument, and now have a dispute with the editor itself, it is better to bring it up for review. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"before this escalates" Well now, it already has escalated hasn't it. Oddly, this all started out by my being very complimentary to Dirk Beetstra.[32] Go figure that by being exceptionally nice to him he would thank me like this.

Eventually, Beetstra made a serious reading comprehension error, jumped to a conclusion, and I'd say he's now trying to make it my fault. As a long-time editor, I know without fail that I must have the facts to evidence every statement I write – because of possible occasions just like this one. Ok, I keep careful records and I'm ready.

"was not aimed at the discussion, but at the users who argued against his arguments" It didn't happen. Beetstra freely interpreted what I wrote as "...saying that all people that remove external links according to the avoid rules are extremists..." (Dirk Beetstra 12:50, 14 August 2009)[33] That's completely improper reporting. I never used "all" or any other such absolute generalization. I didn't write "people" either.

Reworking his statement into a correct reporting of what I wrote could read, *extremists are removing external links by extreme interpretation of the avoid rules*. The fact that as corrected it doesn't make a good sentence is rhetorical evidence that I didn't equate "extremists" to any group other than four editors of whom I had contextually informed him in a previous thread[34] – which he seemed to have forgotten about until I reminded him.[35] So does he have a bad memory contributing to the problem here?

"met by a similar type of remark" Translation: I said he was wrong. I was working on the detailed evidence that he was wrong when he decided to post here. I guess he really wasn't interested in learning the details of exactly why he was wrong. That's understandable, but if he didn't want to take the time to work it out with me on my page, he should have just dropped it.

Beetstra removed my remark from context. The complete sentence was "I've been an editor for a year longer than you have, and I don't write things I can't prove."[36] When one makes the kind of mistake that Beetstra did, I assume that I'm being treated like a newb. A reminder of my editing seniority, I consider useful and completely fair to reestablish the proper balance.

Tellingly, he posted the first half of that sentence to the talk page,[37] completely without understandable context or need. Accordingly, I have the sense that his umbrage over the "year longer" remark, yet another fact, is what this visit to AN is really about.

One further point about Ched's question on edit counts. (1) I care nothing about edit counts, only quality. I usually submit work completely polished off line, whereas others inflate their edit counts by editing on line. (2) I've worked on two major articles that were deleted, though maybe that's part of the 2-3,000 count. (3) There are pages to which, IIRC, I'm the 1st, or 2nd, or 3rd highest edit count contributor.(4) For what it's worth, I've contributed some unknown but significant percentage of 54 MB to the project (the size of my Wikipedia files). Milo 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So you keep comparing. As I said, and as Ched defines, and as said, it does not say anything. It is a matter of what you want to count. And the fact that you care about quality, and that there are pages where you are the main contributor, are both duly noted.

What I mean, Milomedes, is that it is not helping the discussion, to say that a guideline gives others a reason to do something. That is not an argument. Our blocking policy gives admins a reason to block for violations, I could rewrite your remark: "The blocking policy is launching extremists admins (...). The best way to limit extremism is to change the blocking policy language, so that they have less policy basis to harass local editors with their blocks".

However you interpret, you do say here, that you find that local editors are harassed by extremist editors who read the guideline. Please, show me, if you have proof of that, then we get somewhere. Are there really editors out there that eradicate every single MySpace/FaceBook/BlogSpot/YouTube/Twitter they encounter, because the guideline is saying that they are to be avoided? I simply don't believe it. We don't have extremism of that kind.

You do link to a previous discussion item, where you argue that a Twitter link does no harm. No, the thing is, we are not a directory, and there are limits somewhere. Twitter may indeed be informative here and there, but we don't link 'because it does not harm', we link because it adds to the page, because it provides encyclopedic information. Does the twitter of Britney Spears give encyclopedic information, no, I doubt it, her MySpace might actually be a better link, but that is not linked there.

I, someone who does revert MySpace/FaceBook/BlogSpot/YouTube/Twitter which do not follow the guideline, see myself here depicted as an extremist who harasses the editor who adds them. I may interpret it wrong what you say there, and maybe I am not one of the extremists you seem to refer to, but that is not an argument against my reason for removal, it is a remark that I feel is aimed at those editors who remove these links, and therefor it is a chilling remark, it does not encourage further discussion. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the open issues that I see, stated with my initial positions:

1. "you find that local editors are harassed by extremist editors who read the guideline. Please, show me, if you have proof of that, then we get somewhere."

1 It will take days to assemble and present the evidence, and then you will still dispute parts of it, especially as you have already decided "We don't have extremism of that kind" prior to getting the evidence.

2. "Are there really editors out there that eradicate every single MySpace/FaceBook/BlogSpot/YouTube/Twitter they encounter, because the guideline is saying that they are to be avoided? I simply don't believe it. We don't have extremism of that kind."

2 With degrees of variation, that's what I saw. I was shocked also which is why I made an issue of it.

3. "I, someone who does revert MySpace/FaceBook/BlogSpot/YouTube/Twitter which do not follow the guideline, see myself here depicted as an extremist who harasses the editor who adds them."

3 You made some assumption(s) that I did not state or imply. Also apparently you had forgotten that I had already explained what I meant in the other thread. Most people do not have such short memories.

4. "I may interpret it wrong what you say there, and maybe I am not one of the extremists you seem to refer to, but that is not an argument against my reason for removal"

4 You simply assumed that I was claiming your reason(s) for removal was extreme. I have no idea if it is or not, but it's unlikely that you would do what those four editors did.

5. "it is a remark that I feel is aimed at those editors who remove these links, and therefor it is a chilling remark, it does not encourage further discussion."

5 That's position is absurdly out of touch with WPEL. I can't remember a more loudly outspoken group of editors as at WPEL. One couldn't stop them from discussing, especially anything they disagree with.

6. "it is not helping the discussion, to say that a guideline gives others a reason to do something."

6 That statement has no logic; that's what guides are for, to give others a reason to do something. That's why it's called a guide. Anyway "not helping the discussion" is in this case matter of opinion.

Since you were born in The Netherlands I'm concerned that you are an ESL who doesn't know U.S. English with the great rhetorical precision that I do. (Yes, yes, you're probably bristling already at my questioning of your language skills.) For example, "drowns a bit the discussion"; that's exceptionally odd usage for a native English speaker.

Because connotation plays such a great role in misunderstanding and taking offense (which you did in #3), it's possible, though not certain, that we have no penultimate basis for certain kinds of communication or shared philosophy. If for example, you are a monarchist, I'm likely to grate on you, since as a U.S. citizen I "don't know my place" in European class society. If our exacting connotative language and/or class expectations are not compatible, we can only expect a limited outcome from communication, perhaps in some cases, agreeing to disagree.

If I have estimated these circumstances correctly, mediation is probably the best way to communicate these listed contentious issues, since you probably won't believe me when I tell you that certain phrases connote certain meanings (in the U.S. of course).

I have other things to do, so I don't expect to be able to work on this again today. Milo 20:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much to add but to agree with your last analysis. Indeed, I am not a native in English (and will never be), and, as I already suggested early in this, I asked for an independent evaluation whether I did understand it wrongly. It is also absolutely true, that we will have to agree that we have cultural differences which may be incompatible, or even clash. Additionally, sure, I agree that we have to agree to disagree sometimes. I am sorry for the misunderstanding, and I apologize for that. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just spotted this bit of watchlist evidence of extreme tendencies at WP:EL (though nothing like what the four editors did):

14 August 2009

• (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:External links‎; 20:11 . . (-225) . . Kingturtle (talk | contribs) (→Links normally to be avoided: removing "most fansites" bit. it's *all* fan sites.)

Milo 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Alastairward

Involving:

• MickMacNee (talk · contribs) (poster)
• Alastairward (talk · contribs)

Events in diff chronological format.....

• Alastairward 19:24, 13 August 2009 Alastairward recently removed a column from a table
  • Alastairward 21:38, 13 August 2009 with an explanation
• MickMacNee 01:54, 14 August 2009 I disagreed with this edit and reinstated it
  • MickMacNee 01:59, 14 August 2009 citing WP:BRD and giving my rationale
• Alastairward 08:51, 14 August 2009 His reply contains "Are you leaving it in so that the article can be padded and kept", which I consider an assumption of bad faith.
• MickMacNee 17:10, 14 August 2009 The discussion quickly reaches the stage where imo we obviously need a third opinion, which I ask him to do if he still has an issue.
• Alastairward 18:22, 14 August 2009 He simply ignores that and reverts me, removing the column again,
  • Alastairward 20:07, 14 August 2009 merely giving the same justification for the removal
  • Alastairward 18:20, 14 August 2009 coupled with "This is not the place for discussion, suffice to say that you do not own the article", which I find extremely rude, considering it follows him reverting me, in contempt of the accepted model of both bold-revert-discuss and dispute resolution.

I have filed a third opinion request anyway on the article talk page, this WQA is simply to get some feedback on the proper methods of content dispute resolution, in light of the fact that I consider my actions here totally reasonable and the comments, and edit warring, highly innappropriate, especially as Alastairward claims to be a good faith and experienced editor. As far as I am aware, we have never interacted before, and I only came to this article two days ago.

MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it that this is a two way process, and input from me is welcome? I think it would be important to note that although MickMacNee had asked me to seek other editor's consensus, I was already acting on the suggestion of another user. In the deletion discussion for this article, it was suggested that a section be removed (see here), and I acted on this. It seemed to me to make the notion of seeking a third opinion moot.

Other information I would like to add was that in the middle of the deletion discussion for this article, MickMacNee renamed the article, quite changing the entire purpose of the article (from identifying notable use of certain actors, to being a mere list of all guest actors). Having seen this user make this change, I couldn't understand then why my edit, which was intended to tidy the article and not remove any information that would take away from its intent, was noted as "extreme".

From my own point of view MickMacNee's response here did seem to logically suggest that they were not seeking ways to improve the article, but maintain it so that it would simply pass the deletion discussion.

And in all honesty I wasn't sure what to make of this reply, I really didn't see any attempt to explain the worth of their edits to the reader or what was so wrong with my own. Alastairward (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Naziism

User:Romandrumanagh, in the midst of a content dispute on the article Drumanagh, has called me a Nazi. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean It seems to me (but I hope to be mistaken) that the pharaphrase is the typical "nationalistic reduction" used by all the nationalisms in Europe (nazism, fascism, communism et al) in order to make "disappear" contrary opinions to their dogmas, ideals and points of view. This is not the same as calling you a Nazi.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a great deal of difference between being called a Nazi and being told I'm behaving like a Nazi. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that either. You are being told that you made an edit of a type that is also used by many others to "make disappear" contrary opinions. Don't assign attacks by trying to read between lines, as that's contrary to WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hairsplitting of the most pusillanimous kind. So comparing a fellow editor to a Nazi is perfectly fine, but objecting to it contravenes the assumption of good faith? Christ. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a stupid comparison to make since it serves no purpose other than to aggravate, but you taking it to heart doesn't accomplish anything more than that either. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems a rather disingenuous comparison to make - why was nationalism mentioned at all if not to antagonise? Pretty unhelpful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have told the editor not to use that kind of rhetoric devices in discussions as they serve no purpose.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Romandrumanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a POV pusher, who skirts just below the line of actionable personal attack. In these edits: [38] [39] (same text; he chose to post it multiple times) he uses race/nationality as a subtle jab. The user seems too familiar with policy for a brand new account. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

wp:dick

Is this creatureallowed without defendant notification?174.3.103.39 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification is encouraged, not necessary. I don't think you really have a case of WP:DICK here. Anyway posting a wikiquette notice instead of merely assuming that he forgot to notify you seems like a failure to assume goodfaith and somewhat of a possible dick move in itself. Why don't you just go to the ANI thread and post your view of the situation, without creating too much drama? ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper

User:Wolfkeeper consistently assumes bad faith on my part and on the part of other editors. I realize he has legitimate policy concerns about a number of articles, but his decision to ignore my attempts to resolve the situation and engage in discussion is, honestly, infuriating. Some recent diffs, [40], [41], [42]. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The above user is WP:WIKIHOUNDING#User space harassment me on my talk page, and has posted 4 times since I requested he not post there, ever. This report is an additional part of this abuse of his editing priviledges.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not desire to harass User:Wolfkeeper. I would like to point out that I was not "asked" to avoid talking on his page. I was instructed to[43] in an inappropriate tone. I have since refrained from using warning templates on the user's talkpage and have tried to open up into friendly conversation. Each posting has been unique and different, and an attempt to engage in cooperative discussion. I have looked at the user's history only in regards that I disagree with his habit of renaming articles on English affixes, which I fully recognize to be a disputed practice. I am not ignorant of why the user might wish to make these changes, I just wish to discuss them and bring them to the attention of those WikiProjects that might be associated. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)