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

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: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)

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 [4], [5], [6], [7]. He left a 3RR warning on User:Tarc's talk page that in light of the recent edits is just a little ingenious [8] 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: [9] 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: [10]. 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: [11]. 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 [12]. 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? [13]

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.

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

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to article talk page to discuss content issues; failing that, use content DR.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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. [14] 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 [15] and [16] - 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 [17] (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 [18] - "studio line up included...." I think any talk of lawsuits is best left out - I did find another reference [19] which purports to have been the english language version of the official BMG russia site [20]....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)

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.

User:Wtshymanski and Jump start (vehicle)

Stale

 – 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25]
6. [26]

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

Resolved

 – Both parties warned.

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

Stale

 – 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'm not asking for the section to be deleted. I'm only asking for the title of the section to be amended. The title of the section appears in the list of contents at the head of the Talk page. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. I suggest that you follow this link, which will take you to the section in question. There will be a link called "edit" to the right of the heading. Follow it, and you will see that the first line looks like this:

== Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all? ==.

You can change the heading, but be careful to leave the = signs as they are, because they are needed. If anybody disagrees with your edit, discuss it on the page itself or on user talk pages. In case of serious problems come back here. If you have similar problems in the future I recommend trying WP:Help desk first. Hans Adler 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Copied over from my talk page, as I prefer to keep the debate in one place, and it also responds to Hans's SOFIXIT challenge.

Hello Elen. Recently you contributed twice to WP:WQA#Naming and shaming. Thank you for adding to the debate.

You commented that the matter in question was a scholarly debate. I agree that all the postings on the subject constitute a lengthy scholarly debate. However, my complaint is not about all the postings on the subject. My complaint is about the title of the thread:
Quantummechanic, do you understand this topic at all?
If you read my opening statement at WP:WQA#Naming and shaming you will see that I use the word title five times.

The title of the thread is only eight words, beginning with Quantummechanic, the name of a newcomer to Wikipedia. Hence my use of the word name in naming and shaming. The remainder of the title is the condescending, rhetorical question do you understand this topic at all? Hence my use of the words and shaming. This question was not asked in good faith!

Eight words written by one User cannot be described as a debate. A seven word question that is both rhetorical and condescending cannot be described as scholarly.

My objective in raising this matter at WP:WQA is not to have the lengthy scholarly debate deleted or amended in any way. My objective is to have the thread's title amended to something more civil. In particular, my objective is to have an administrator rule on the matter so that all of us who are interested know whether this thread title is acceptable, or not, on Wikipedia. That will be a useful precedent for the future.

Thank you for your interest. (Posted by Dolphin51 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC on talkpage for Elen of the Roads and copied here by --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Did you suggest that they be bold, and politely amend it themself? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quantummechanic doesn't seem to have expressed an opinion - he seems more interested in the argument about the equations (a true mathematician). If you meant did I say this to Dolphin51, then no, because Hans Adler had already said it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 17 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):

• diff You've said some pretty stupid things before, but that has to be the stupidest'

• diff Stop your lies and distortions

• diff You're the problem, not me.

• diff Have you completely lost your mind?

• diff Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it.

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

• diff 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.

• edit summary 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]

• edit summary Do you not understand what a combined sample is?

• edit summary Pdeitiker, don't revert to Muntuwandi's version after coming out against it on the Talk Page

• diff 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. WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts_-_break }}

• diff You need Europeans to have black ancestry to help you get over your inferiority complex.

• diff 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.

• [27] 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.

• diff You're quite delusional. That article was deleted because it was a WP:CFORK. And your POV-pushing, original research, 3RR violations and sock puppets had more to do with it than anything I ever did. In fact, the article was problem-free until you (and Andrew Lancaster) came along and started tampering with it. Let's remember that you're the one who's been blocked for repeated rule violations. My record is clean. So if anything, the deletion was a referendum on your approach. Take the hint.

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) I was forced to do it myself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I did notify Small Victory on Genetic History Of Europe that his behavior was unacceptable, I have been busy for the past day or so I just now rechecked.PB666 ^yap 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC) (see diff Small Victory, this is to let you know I am not doing anything behind your back, the language you are using has been brought to the attention of Administrators in the pre-mediation board. If you continue with hostile editing and insulting of people it will be brought to arbitration. Revision as of 23:03, 14 August 2009 Pdeitiker. Again I thought this was an informal premediation board that was a prelude to arbitration.

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 [28]. - 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 ([29]). 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)

I am of the opinion that the various statements made by Small Victory, qualify, either individually or in totality as incidents that can be handled by WP:ANI. Small Victory has been warned several times about his incivility yet he continues. Some of his uncivil comments date back to 2006. I have mentioned this in other talk pages, but will do so again. Small Victory appears to be a single purpose account, who is apparently trying to push an unscientific POV. For the last three years, his edits had been focused on one article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. When that article was deleted, the debate shifted to Genetic history of Europe. Essentially Small Victory has only edited the two aforementioned articles, and a handful of related articles. His edit count reveals that in 3 years of editing, he has only edited 23 unique articles, and now about one third of his live edits were deleted when Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (SSDAE) article was deleted. The few other articles he has edited were all in some way related to the SSDAE article, such as AFD and noticeboard postings. Small Victory has only a small number of edits, approx 300 in 3 years. These uncivil comments and personal attacks, aren't spaced out between several edits. They are actually quite frequent occurrences. It is my opinion, that he has been warned enough times, and that warnings will no longer suffice, he has even been bragging about having a "clean record" diff. Administrative action may be warranted. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

These are comments from the deleted page Talk:Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. I cannot provide diffs because the article is deleted. However, 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)

I fail to see why the above section (from an article that appears to have been deleted months ago) has relevance? If you're trying to establish a pattern of action, then you need to file an WP:RFC/U ... in WQA, we're not that interested in ancient history - we're here to resolve current difficult discussions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory's side of the story

I admit, sometimes I get a little snippy with people, but I'd say that very few of those examples qualify as insults. Some of them are reactions to being accused of things without evidence. Others are due to exasperation from having to repeat myself endlessly because people read selectively or don't pay attention. Still others express bewilderment at the poor understanding people seem to have of the subject under discussion. And then of course, there's the elephant in the room. My main adversary (Wapondaponda/Muntuwandi) is an unrepentant Afrocentrist. The modus operandi of these types is OR and POV, in his case primarily Information Suppression to emphasize dubious claims of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in Europeans, and remove all evidence that refutes, contradicts, questions or clarifies his information. And nobody seems willing or able to do anything about it. If there were a "Nordicist" editor distorting science to place "Nordic blood" in all sorts of different populations, he wouldn't last a second here. Yet these Afrocentrists with their comparable distortions are permitted to run rampant. There should really be some kind of system in place to weed them out.

One has to wonder why Wapondaponda has gone to such lengths to have me discredited or even banned, obsessively saving comments of mine from a deleted article, some of which date back years, and why he's tried (unsuccessfully) to have key genetic evidence prohibited. The answer is simple: I'm the only thing standing in the way of his agenda to propagate Afrocentrism on Wikipedia. It wasn't always like that. In fact, he's been blocked numerous times for edit warring and 3RR violations because people determine his contributions to be OR/POV, but he ignores the consensus and simply reinserts them. He also essentially recreated the aforementioned deleted article, but has yet to be reprimanded for it. (I would like to point out that, as of right now, my own record is clean, a fact of which Wapondaponda is painfully aware. Also, contrary to what's been implied, I never received any prior warnings, which made the "final warning" I received yesterday a little surprising.)

Naturally, I'll try to reign in my snide remarks and other outbursts (I already do, but I'll try harder). However, when you consider what I'm up against, I think a little leniency is in order. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And he continues his personal attacks by referring to me as an "unrepentant Afrocentrist". I have said this numerous times, I resent being referred to as an Afrocentrist, and I view this as an attempt to caricature me, so that I am not taken seriously. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Small Victory, this is not about Muntuwandi, you have insulted or talk-down to two admins, me, Andrew (the last two on repeated occasions), and other editors. You refuse to work toward a consensus and engage in endless Edit-Warring, and other items. Muntuwandi did not create this thread, I did, because I thought it was time this went up for a wider airing. I am not an afrocentrist. The fact that you are argumentative about why this thread was created indicates to me that you are unlikely to change your behavior.PB666 ^yap 00:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some remarks by Milomedes.

Resolved

 – Misunderstandings clarified.

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.[30] 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)[31] 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[32] – which he seemed to have forgotten about until I reminded him.[33] 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."[34] 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,[35] 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)

• The rename is irrelevant after you decided to revert
• You had ample oppurtunity to say you weren't acting unilaterally, you didn't, instead merely flipping me off
• So, it's OK to assume bad faith as long as its a logical deduction? You want the article deleted, so by deduction, removing information from it would be a good way to do that, no? Does't really work does it? Either you respect my motives or you don't.
• Not understanding someone's rationale is NOT an excuse to ignore it and edit war. MickMacNee (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If we take away anything from this, its that I can tell you honestly that you seem to me as blunt as you characterise me. Alastairward (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Either explain yourself, or don't. This is not an explanation. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note that an editor who has been blocked eight times for incivility (as MickMacNee has, by my count) are going to find it difficult to get anybody to take a WQA report seriously unless the case is very clear, and this one certainly isn't. Looie496 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Naziism

Resolved

 – Sadly, user retired. Filing party also warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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)
            • There seems little doubt that it was because, as can be seen, the title of the talk page section where that edit occurred is "Celtic nationalism?" and nationalism was actually the subject of the ongoing discussion. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • When Bwilkins says that you're reading into the comment something that isn't actually there, to a disinterested party, xe isn't either splitting hairs or being pusillanimous. Moreover, when xe tells you that you are not being compared to a Nazi, you have no justification for completely distorting that statement into the claim that "comparing a fellow editor to a Nazi is perfectly fine". You came here for third party advice. Listen when it is given. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm glad some others have weighed in with other opinions, because if I thought this kind of patronising sophistry was the standard response to abuse of this sort on Wikipedia, I really would despair. I didn't come here for impartial advice on whether being compared to a Nazi (which is there, I'm not reading anything into it) is a breach of Wikiquette, I came here for help in dealing with something that self-evidently is. I'm not sure what irritates me more, abusive editors or those who indulge them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:27, 17 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: [36] [37] (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)

I have NOT called Nicknack009 a nazi or communist. I have only written "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", and I want to repeat that "I hope to be mistaken". I am sorry if he misunderstood me. Allow me to appreciate the comment of Elen of the Roads, Bwilkins and others. It is not easy to deal with nationalistic groups, even in the italian wikipedia (where I mainly post). Sincerely.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As you see, despite a warning, he persists. I don't believe this level of personal abuse is acceptable. Sadly, there does not seem to be a mchanism to warn and block editors for personal abuse, as there is for vandalism - the WP:NPA page only suggests mediation, and I am not prepared to discuss anything with this editor until he stops with the personal abuse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I DECIDE TO RETIRE FROM WIKIPEDIA: I retire from Wikipedia as a form of protest, because is too much controlled by groups of nationalistic nationalists like Nicknack009, who calls "INFERIOR" (sound racist, isn't it?) my posts from the first moment in the talk page of Drumanagh. He has made me change the high esteem I used to have of Celtic Irish people.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...and I have had enough of Nicknack009's attacks on neutral editors in this forum, and his additional, unsubstantiated accusations on Romandrumanagh above - so horrific that an editor was driven away. I have warned Nicknack009 for those personal attacks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Horrific"? An exaggeration perhaps? Romandrumanagh's last post is a clear indication of the problem here - Wikipedia is "controlled by nationalistic nationalists"? Suggesting that people are using "racist" terms? And why has one editor's behaviour changed his view of an entire ethnic group? If he's a neutral editor, I'm a Dutchman. I hope Nicknack009 doesn't take the warning too seriously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

By "neutral editor" he was referring to people like himself, but you're quite right. For the record. A single-purpose editor comes in, inserts claims which are not backed up by any reliable sources (and arguably of marginal relevance to the article in question). When an editor reverts his actions, he accuses him of nationalism akin to Nazism, which is really an ad hominem argument of the worst and most unconvincing kind, tries to shift the burden of evidence, and walks off like a diva (I didn't say he is a diva, just like one). Case resolved (unless he really is a diva and comes back). We don't really need this situation, do we? Cavila (talk) 10:39, 17 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, [38], [39], [40]. 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[41] 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)

If somebody asks you not to post on their talk page, it's best to follow their wishes unless you have something to say that is absolutely essential, such as notification of deletion or of an ANI report. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how else I'm supposed to contact him, as I'd really like to just discuss the situation, but if that's what policy/guidelines say, then fine. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Implications of template and edit summary use

This is a simple case: is it considered a personal attack to call another editor a troll?

• 02:32, 14 August 2009 User:Jack Merridew posts on a AFD, m:DFTT. [42]

• 21:07, 15 August 2009 As per WP:NPA, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." I remove the comment.[43]

• 21:17, 15 August 2009 I place a warning on User:Jack Merridew's page.[44]

• 01:37, 16 August 2009 Admin User:Lar then restores the troll link[45]

• 01:39, 16 August 2009 Admin User:Lar then places a warning on my talk page:[46]

Do not remove the remarks of others from discussion pages

This edit: [47] was unacceptable. You may comment on it if you disagree, but do not remove the remarks of others from discussion pages. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• 01:40, 16 August 2009 I remove the comment.[48]

• 01:54, 16 August 2009 Lar posts a second comment.[49]

== Removal ==

Your removal of my administrative warning is within policy, (it means you've read and understood it) but as an admin, I will post warnings and communications when, and where, I find necessary. If you remove the comments of others again (on pages other than your own, as you did at that MfD I was warning you about), you may find yourself blocked for disruption. I've replied to you on my talk as well, you're entirely welcome to continue discussion there, or not, as you like. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Now ignoring the history we all have, which these editors will inevitably attempt to bring up to confuse the two simple questions:

1. is it considered a personal attack to call another editor a troll?
2. should a admin be defending one user for calling another user a troll?

If so, is it acceptable to call other editors, trolls?

Disclaimer, I left out a few edit diffs, which I can provide if necessary. Ikip (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been discussion in the past as to whether using a template such as WP:DFTT, or using a template such as WP:DICK with phrasing like "don't be a WP:DICK" is actually calling someone a troll (or a dick or what have you) or not. There has also been discussion about whether edit summaries that consist of statements such as "remove trolling" are calling someone a troll or not. These cases seem fairly analogous to me. I think it's a very interesting question and am interested in the community view on this. Note, I've changed the heading because I think the crux of this is not about a particular user (Ikip, Jack, me) but rather about a norm. ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So Lar, would you agree with the statment that characterizing good faith comments by others as "trolling" is disruptive? Ikip (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm no longer really sure, one way or the other. Here's another example (note the edit summary) ... my wife thought it was at the very least, lacking in good faith assumption, if not actually disruptive... what do you think? ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about that edit summary? Would you find it disruptive? Ikip (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the summary I am asking you about, the very one, and I asked you what you thought. Did you want to answer or were you going to wait till I did? ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I strong feel that anyone calling anyone else a troll is a personal attack, that includes A Nobody. How do you feel about it? Ikip (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm somewhat in tune with Malleus, below... if someone actually IS trolling (and there is little or no reasonable doubt about it), it's not an attack, per WP:SPADE. If someone absolutely is NOT trolling (clearly my wife felt she wasn't trolling, when she left a gently worded admonishment at A Nobody's page, and I think most everyone would agree), why then, it probably is an attack, at least a mild one. The cases in the middle, where reasonable people disagree, are the hard ones. Hence why I think this is a good discussion. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why everyone is so precious about this kind of thing. If anyone feels that someone is behaving like a troll, then why not call them on it? Either directly or indirectly in an edit summary doesn't really matter does it? "Personal attack" is just becoming a sad joke, something for the trolls to hide behind. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I agree with you, to a point. (see WP:SPADE )... it's when someone characterises activities that clearly AREN'T trolling when things get stickier... it tends to raise hackles. Maybe we all need to (as I've been saying a lot lately) "man up" ? But see the recent Civility poll. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My view on the "civility" nonsense ought to be well enough known by now. I'll spare you the expletives. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note in passing that one of the omitted diffs was this one: [50] which I found rather interesting. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I really must insist that this not be called "Lar"... the original incident is Jack and Ikip sparring, my warning of Ikip is tangential. I have changed the summary to "Implications of template and edit summary use" again, please leave it that way. If you MUST use names, why then call it "Jack, Ikip, Lar" or something. Let's not edit war about this. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: I guess I'm somewhat in tune with Malleus, below... if someone actually IS trolling (and there is little or no reasonable doubt about it), it's not an attack, per WP:SPADE. If someone absolutely is NOT trolling (clearly my wife felt she wasn't trolling, when she left a gently worded admonishment at A Nobody's page, and I think most everyone would agree), why then, it probably is an attack, at least a mild one. The cases in the middle, where reasonable people disagree, are the hard ones. Hence why I think this is a good discussion. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Lar, your vague position now is really quite surprising because 2 days ago you criticized A Nobody for calling someone else a troll:

03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Have to agree with Jack here... AN is starting to look like the source of the problem to me. Complete failure to constructively engage, blows off advice given by others, characterizing it as trolling, repeats behaviours warned about, and so forth. Time to impose the proposal made on John's page and then enforce it, because it's pretty tiresome.[51]

14:30, 14 August 2009 (ec) Ikip: They may be "facts" but they're irrelevant. Who did what first is playground talk. This constant beating Jack about the head with charges of stalking, harrassment, "he started it", etc, while characterizing good faith comments by others as "trolling" is disruptive.[52]

It is okay for Jack to call A Nobody a troll? [53]

But it is not okay for A Nobody to call another editor a troll?[54][55]

Who decides who is a troll and who is disruptive Lar? You do? You then have the authority to block other editors you are personally involved with?

You are a highly involved and biased editor Lar. You are defending an editors personal attack while condemning another's. That is not the expect behavior of an administrator.

If you block A Nobody or I, you seriously jeopardize your admin privileges:

Wikipedia:Block#Conflicts_of_interest

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

There have been several recent arbcom cases about involved editors blocking others they are involved with and many admins have been desosyped.

So no more threats about being "blocked for disruption".[56]

No more reverting Jack's personal attacks followed by using your admin status to defend these personal attacks, because it makes you look like you are abusing your administrative authority, which you did tonight.

I would highly appreciate it if any uninvolved editor would revert the personal attack of Jack Merridew[57] which administrator Lar seems to fully support.

Thank you for your time. Ikip (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's quite the wall of text.

1. First off, you've confused WP:DTTR (about not templating the regulars) and WP:DFTT (about not "feeding the trolls")... two quite different pages. I think you need to take another look at what you've said in light of that, it may need some considerable revision.... specifically it is not correct to say that I have called you a troll and you need to retract that.
2. Second, I think (as you do) my wife's comment to A Nobody was one that almost no reasonable person would characterise as trolling, and A Nobody was out of line to remove it with that edit summary. It's pretty cut and dried. Other comments raised in this discussion seem less cut and dried to me. If reasonable people disagree about something it's not so easy to say "don't do that thing".
3. Third, if I felt someone I was involved in a dispute with needed blocking, I'd find an uninvolved administrator and ask them to take a look and decide for themselves. Don't confuse warning with blocking. I feel free to warn, but not to actually block. I think your admonishments to me go too far, I've been an administrator since 2006 and I know how things are done here. Perhaps better than you do.

I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the DTTR mistake, my apologies for my mistake. thank you for pointing that out. Ikip (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You should restore the comment and strike-thru, as it can be confusing to simply remove it. UnitAnode 04:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, strikethrus are vastly preferred after other people have responded. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• The biggest problem I see above is Ikip removing another user's comments at the AfD, as well as his dropping templates on regular contributors, and now trying to prohibit Lar from using his tools. Trust me when I say that Lar will not be losing his tools anytime soon. He's one of the best administrators we have on this project.

  This needs to stop, Ikip, as it's unproductive and pointless. And please do not change the name of this thread back to "Lar", as his participation in the incident only arose out of your own initial misbehavior in removing Merridew's comments at the AfD. UnitAnode 03:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nod, @Unitanode. However I think there may be some merit in considering the questions asked (when we cut away the irrelevant material we're left with two good questions):

• It is okay for Jack to call A Nobody a troll?
• But it is not okay for A Nobody to call another editor a troll?

Well, my answer to that (as I said above) is as follows... it's OK to call someone a troll, if they are indeed trolling (although there may be more effective ways to address the matter). It's not OK to call someone a troll if just about anyone would say there wasn't any trolling. So then:

• Jack's characterization of A Nobody as trolling: Correct, IMO. Jack could have made his point more effectively though, and I recognise not everyone agrees... which is why instead of removing, a reasoned response to the comment is a better approach.
• A Nobody's characterization of Josette as trolling: Incorrect, IMO... and I dare you to find anyone who thinks she WAS trolling.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Given your and your wife's defense of Jack in various venues, such as at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive69, it really feels like husband/wife tag teaming to have both start up arguments with me practically simultaneously and when I have no extensive past interactions with either in seeming defense of that user and when I see hyperbole laden edit summaries like "So sick of all the fan cruft BS" with a WP:PERNOM vote rather than argument once again in support of that same editor with whom I am in obvious dispute (not to mention their earlier team up to describe User:Daedalus969 as "shit"), I cannot imagine anyone reasonably seeing it as anything but some kind of ganging up or biased attack. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing the point to this whole thread, given this is an incident oriented board and not a discussion oriented board. it appears to be a debate on examples of incivility or personal attacks, using specific example from the parties involved in the debate. It would seem far more useful to open a wider RFC on whether or not Wikipedia:Don't call editors trolls should be elevated to a policy at Wikipedia talk:Don't call editors trolls and avoid using specific examples (which rarely are helpful for deciding future actions). MBisanz ^talk 04:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• There was no need to make this comment directly at the AFD; particularly given the apparent history. Foolish and unhelpful.
• Instead of removing that comment as if it had a sense of urgency, a polite note regarding the appropriateness of the edit, in place of this or this would've been more ideal. Templating regulars in that way was foolish and unhelpful.
• Another set of actions involved reverting the removal, with this warning, and then testing the limits by reposting at a talk page [58] when it would no doubt further provoke the dispute. Together, the actions were more (if not equally) foolish and unhelpful. This is not the first time this has happened. Any further notes, cautions, or otherwise, should have been left to another administrator (that is, one who is utterly uninvolved).
• Are you all looking for ways to further disputes around this project? Or would you rather work in a collaborative environment to help make this an encyclopedia free of problems and disputes? If you all have a chance of getting along, then interact (and use each others talk pages) with a tad bit more respect for one another. Otherwise, make a greater effort to avoid others with which interactions are not positive - so far, such efforts have been limited. If that's the case, then a reminder: if you can't make a mutual effort to avoid even a chance of interacting with one another, then there's a problem - this means avoiding entire Wikipedia discussions where necessary, rather than sliding into a few, like at certain deletion discussions, noticeboard discussions, RFAs or elsewhere. If there's still problems, because a user refuses for any reason, or because you all work a LOT in that area, that's when DR is needed.
• MBisanz has hit the nail on the head on where where the discussion should occur about "trolling" itself. However, there's an obvious difference between pointing out trolling in your userspace, and specifying it in areas like deletion discussions where there's an obvious heightened importance to focus on content (rather than an individual contributor).
• Foolish, foolish, and more foolish is what sums this whole thing up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please do not equate, in any way, Lar's actions with Ikip's here. Restoring content to an AFD that was removed by someone other than the person who posted it is policy-based. Issuing a warning in such a case is simply standard practice. And he did not just "restore" his warning to the page, he left a wholly separate message to Ikip letting him know that removing the initial warning was simply an indication that it had been read. The fault, in this case, lies with Ikip, not Lar. And you mentioned "inflaming" things. What exactly did you hope to do with this extensive post? Mbisanz's was well-considered, succinct, and should have been the last word. Yours seems less so, is all I will say. UnitAnode 04:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  Unitanode, I can understand your desire to participate, even if you only just started editing at Wikipedia-en 6 months ago. However, this does does not mean you can tell me what to do, succinctly or otherwise, so please back off. If the actions were not equally or more foolish, I would not have said so. That is, I'm well aware of what happened here, and by contrast, what ought to have happened.

  Policy pages specify that they should normally be followed - that is, you should not follow it without common sense. Restoring inappropriate content (that also added no real value to the discussion) does not demonstrate the type of good judgement that is expected of an admin. Ideally, a good admin would have tried to explain (to the user who removed the content) why he believes the content should be restored. This involves giving the editor an opportunity to restore it himself or to at least explain the underlying reason why it should stay removed. No where does this involve escalating needless conflict. Note: a warning does not come into this either. There was no urgency to take the actions that the admin did here. Reposting at the talk page where the admin was clearly not welcome was plainly disrespectful and extremely foolish. Any further notes should have been left to another administrator (that is, one who is utterly uninvolved). Though, an established user would be aware that removing text from the talk page also indicates that it was read.

  The approach used by all involved could be considered equally unhelpful and foolish - though I've explained why it would be even greater in the case of the concerned admin. My comments were (and are) not invitations for you to rewrite your view. I'd already duly considered your view which you made earlier, where you glorified the admin in question - quite obviously, I rejected it as both biased and incomplete. Those should be my last words on the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Abusive language by User talk:90.194.217.153

The above IP has resorted to abusive language in edit summaries whilst editing Sébastien Bassong. This is following a couple of reversions I and others had made and a warning I administered for repeated adding incorrect info as per WP:BLP. See here. I have noticed from reviewing his previous edits he appears to have made a habit of this and has been warned on previous occaisions for his actions. I do not wish to inflame the situation further so have stopped editing the page but would appreciate advice and have referred here after reference to WP:CIV. Given his past history and reaction I saw no advantage in trying to resolve this matter by engaging in discussion on his talk page as I judge this would inflame the situation, advice please as although the edit issue in question is petty I am not willing just to let such incivility to go without it being dealt with in the most approriate way, thanksTmol42 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment

Resolved

 – Filing party blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:50, 17 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.

---

Hello I am being harrassed and now accused of sockpuppetry on my static IP talk page. I registered an account back in March and have barely edited with the static IP since then, for some reason some editors are fabricating claims of vandalism from my IP. I then left a note on the talk page explaining that I have an account and he put a sockpuppet tag on it. I am kindly requesting help from an honest Wikipedian. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see this AN thread for a continued discussion on the IP user's actions. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseless accusation. The IP refuses to abide by policy regarding IP talk. Enigma^msg 03:32, 17 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.

Abuse of talk page during block, posting derogatory statements

Resolved

 – Blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:49, 17 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.

---

Chris-Gonzales (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice in the last two days for disruptive editing - and he also appears to be edit warring (block log).

After the first block, his ability to post to his talk page was also disabled due to repeated derogatory postings against people from Mexico and Britain (here and here).

Following the second block, the user has again posted a similar message as a reply to one of his earlier warnings posted to his talk page (here).

This appears to be a chronic issue for this user. At the least, I think his talk page needs to be re-disabling his ability to edit his own talk page for the duration of the current block due to continued talk page abuse. But long term, I'm uncertain what can be done. If someone has this type of racial bias, I have little hope of resolving issues through peaceful discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: I noticed that while I was posting this notice, another user was also submitting a request to WP:RFPP to have the user's talk page protected. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked. Enigma^msg 06:17, 17 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.