Revision as of 05:50, 3 January 2008

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. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA 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

User:Arcayne

I have detailed below just a few incidences of Arcayne breaking Misplaced Pages policy. He has been blocked seven times for this--although two blocks were lifted. He has also exhibits WP:OWN on the 300 film article.

Incivility

Arcayne accused me of having a "merry little band", and having a "frail post-Persian psyche". Arcayne has told me to use my "noggin". He has called me and other editors at the 300 article "Petulant, vengeful children"

Arcayne has accused those that disagree with him of being "a pro-nationalist group of editors".

Alteration of other users edits on talk

User Arcayne has changed the header of a section on his talk page, even though I created it. The original header was "Stalking". Please see . His edit summary was "May talk page - if I wish to change contentious edits, or headers, I will." This is very misleading since I never accused him of stalking me (that is, until months later when definitive evidence was provided), which the changed header "Who's Stalking Who?" implies.

He removed my answer to his question from his talk page. . And called the answer, which was sourced from ArbCom, vandalism (rvv).

Sniping in talk pages

Arcayne sniped me on Dmcdevit's talk page and recieved this admonishment by Dmcdevit: "Please do not refer to other ediors you disaree with as vandals, as this is uncivil". Furthermore, to his accusations of harassment he responded "The proper response to harassment is not response in kind."

Sarcasm and tone that has been disruptive

"That I find little patience for proven POV editing is not against Misplaced Pages policy; while I choose to be perhaps a bit insulting of the POV nonsense and not at all sensitive to the frail post-Persian psyche, I would remind you and others that it is not my job at WP to make you feel better. You have mommies for that, and I am not your mommy"

"I am presuming you read it, since you track my edits."

Prejudice comments

"...your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits", Arcayne later claimed he was talking to the Iranian government, but could not explain why he was talking to the Iranian government on my talk page. You will see further examples of him saying he was referring to other people when he is attacking me.

Accusation of Stalking

Arcayne has accused me of stalking on multiple occasions. Please see . He also accused me of stalking The Behnam and harassing him on Dmcdevit's talk page. I did not stalk in either cases.

Arcayne stalking me

Arcayne recently followed me to the Persian Gulf article and tried to argue with me there. He had never edited that page. This happened during a dispute on the 300 film article. Please see . This is a prime example of wikistalking. I decided not accuse him of it until there was definitive evidence (I did not want to violate AGF).--Agha Nader (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps it would be important to point out that all of these instances (but the last, referring to the comments in Talk:Persian Gulf) are more than six months old. It's my understanding that the source of his Wikiquette alert is from a sub-page of his user account called RFC/User:Arcayne, created back in April of this year. Talk about holding a grudge. I believe he was inspired to submit this here because he would have found some difficulty with finding someone who would agree that a six-month-old RfC was worthy of consideration. And even 6 months ago, Nader's own conduct (and misinterpretation of events and statements taken out of context) would have sunk him in any RfC proceeding.

It also bears mentioning that Nader is currently arguing in the 300 article (which became FA after all the partisan editing went away) that we should be using the word 'Iranians' to replace 'ancient Persians'. And has been scolded by other, established editors for edit-warring and initially refusing to discuss a contentious edit. When he finally made his way to Discussion, he began making fairly impolite comments, which have become increasingly uncivil.

As far as the contributions to Persian Gulf, there have been three I've made in over 2 years. the first was to tell folks to essentially calm down, and the second was to counsel Nader for accusing someone of sockpuppetry (where RFCU and SPP are immediately available and can resolve the situation quickly and without the perception of personal attacks). The third time was to point out that Nader needed to read the earlier post, as he accused me of wiki-stalking, which is odd, considering that he then followed me to another user's page and commented there.

It is unfortunate that Agha Nader seems to consider those who disagree with his point of view to be targets for incivility and unwarranted accusations, and not just in one article, but across the spectrum of his edits. I say unfortunate because, when he isn't pushing a nationalist point of view, he can perform very good edits. Where his nationalism comes into play, he becomes somewhat narrow-visioned (which is fair to say of anyone, I guess). I do wish he would learn to recognize when his point of view is compromised and withdraw accordingly. - Arcayne () 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I have serious concerns about Arcayne's behavior, I am no longer pursuing this claim. I do this because Arcayne and Fayssal have requested me to. I also do this in hopes of resolving this problem.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2007(UTC)

Good luck. I hope the two of you are able to resolve your conflict and will have a better relationship. Hmrox (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Lima

Request for third-party opinion: The respective involved parties have said their pieces. Could some uninvolved editors please review the comments below and offer their opinions? (And could someone please attach this request to the Work in Progress tag?) Leadwind (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is Lima altering two cited sentences and leaving the citations in place. He's implying that the RS says what it didn't say. He came in about an hour after I had added the citations and altered them. This is just the last, clearest example of his campaign of opposition against me. He apparently defends a pro-Catholic POV. Meanwhile, I'm consulting reliable sources on religious topics (purgatory, baptism, early Christianity, etc.). I've got a POV (who doesn't?), but I'm happy to use RSs and simply want Lima to do the same. I want to use several RSs to fashion a standard definition of purgatory; Lima wants to quote the catechism. I can sing a long song of grievances, but let's start with him altering cited information. This has got to be a faux pas, and I hope someone can tell him so, please. Leadwind 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Leadwind (talk · contribs) on this, given that Lima (talk · contribs) is misinterpreting the citations for a non-balanced viewpoint. Other editors seem to agree with this stance as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For what I did wrong, I apologize. When I edited that text, it seemed to me that the statements (which are not between inverted commas) attributed to the source could not have been exact. Does the source say simply: "Jesus did not baptize"? Surely the author of the source knew of John 4:1–2, which says it was reported that Jesus baptized (not personally, but his disciples did). In any case I did not change what was attributed to the source, which is what Leadwind accuses me of: I, in a way that I recognize was wrong, gave an interpretation of the apparent contradiction between the 20th-century source and the 1st-century source to which I drew attention. I thought that infelicities in what I wrote would be ironed out by other editors. With regard to the second change from "doctrine about baptism" to "forms of baptism", I thought this was necessary, because the examples that followed were, I thought, only about the manner in which baptism was administered (the text itself uses the word "form"), unrelated to doctrine (what baptism is, what it does). Does the source really speak of the variable forms of early Christian baptism as variable doctrine? (In view of the touchiness shown, I have since then refrained from correcting a more obviously false attribution of incorrect information to a source.) These two changes, done perhaps rather too hurriedly, followed the other change that I made and that I thought was made necessary by Leadwind's insertion of the word "immerse" as if it were the only meaning of the word "βαπτίζω": the article itself states that the meaning of this word was broader, as Leadwind too indicated when he reported his source as saying that the usual method of baptism was by pouring water over the upper part of the body of someone standing in water. This is not baptism by immersion as usually understood. Now that I have explained myself, I will add that I hope the Misplaced Pages community will reprimand me for what I did. Certain people, who have now got together here and here, have been making me spend too much time on Misplaced Pages, and I would love a pretext to retire. Lima 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, you're creepin' people out. Eschoir (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started on Lima - he has reverted Eucharist 13 times without saying what he challenges among the new material, if anything, deletes sourced content and substitutes distorted paraphrase, constantly argues a position using primary sources, won't answer yes or no questions in Talk, defends a pro-Western Catholic POV, doesn't understand basic editing like usage of in text, has tried to have me banned first as a sockpuppet, then as a sockpuppeteer, tried outing my private Identity, and generally wastes a lot of time dealing with him. Eschoir 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who views the corresponding Talk page can see that I have indeed been pressing Eschoir to discuss our differences of opinion. Lima 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's any question as to whether Lima's errors were innocent, I'm happy to provide context to show that they weren't. But I don't want to jam this page with my litany of wrongs. I'll happily respond to direct questions. Leadwind (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Some further comment is found here. Lima (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind has asked me to comment here-- and I I can substantiate that Lima and I have very different points of view about what a NPOV, Verifiable article looks like. Our specific dispute has been over the article Purgatory. I made major rewrites to the article, but Lima reverted them wholesale. One two other occiasions, I've tried to make similar changes, only to find that my changes were wholesale reverted-- leading me to withdraw from the page until there's the edit-warring situation resolves itself.

I can't go so far as to say Lima's POV concerns are completely without merit, but the net effect of interacting with him led me to seek other places on the project where I could be more useful without having to fight so hard to improve things. Whether Lima's behavior is problematic or whether my changes were problematic is, of course, something neither he nor I can objectively comment on-- but if others have found him to be a little POV-pushy in other context, perhaps he should be looked at just a tad, so see if ya can help him stop. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that Alec's brough it up, let me jump in and say that Lima's repeated pattern on Purgatory is to make life unpleasant for editors that he disagrees with until they leave. That's what Alec did, twice. I've also seen it with other editors. He's been in mediation twice with me, and we've done at least 4 RfCs. The page has had the POV tag since February, and Lima has been the most active and unpleasant in attempts to keep others from fixing the page. Like I said, making cited information wrong is just the latest and clearest transgression of Lima's. I was hoping that a word from an objective third party would help straighten him out, so I set up this alert. Leadwind (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in original research. Please stop making uncivil and snarky comments, especially as editor notes in article space. Also, please do not make edits to prove a point. I implore you to deal with me politely and to work productively towards article improvement. If there's a content conflict we cannot resolve, we can take it to dispute resolution. However, the disruptive and rude attitude you've taken is not acceptable. Vassyana 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research is prohibited. You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible, to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Please take the time to read and understand our content policies. Vassyana 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir quoted Vassyana. Vassyana had been the mediator between Lima and me when we were in mediation. V has since taken a wikibreak and drastically limited their participation, partly because of obstructionist editors on WP. --Leadwind 70.102.136.132 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

With two editors on record trying to get Lima to stop using OR, and two on record trying to get him to stop being snarky, would we be well-served to bump this up to an RfC on Lima? Maybe we wait to see how this Wikiquette alert turns out first? Leadwind (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima got to be too much for me for a little while. I developed an aversion to Wiki in recent days because I might have to deal with him. He is an attention seeking missile who would be on "ignore" in a chat room. He has affirmed that he reverted edits even though he did not challenge the content, which he agreed with, to get me to "discuss" them with him, yet he won't respond to any questions put to him when the invitation to discuss is put to him. I've read his work and mine togeter and it sucks because it is the product of edit warring. His attitude is real drama queen, he is inconsistant, and can't just go about his work and entertain a neutral POV. HE is going to drive away more editors than he brings in. Just my opinion. Eschoir (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What now? It seems as though we've said our respective pieces. I hope that the Wikiquette alert leads to some experienced third party sharing their perspective on these conflicts for our benefit. Leadwind (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Plese note the shambles that certain areas of History of the Eucharist are in because of Lima's persistant arguing with sources. He inserts to engage in war of attrition then argues with the source given. He has even demanded a source for a purely literary allusion, and provided a footnote. Eschoir (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:I AM JOHN SMITH

This brand-new user has come into Wiki with guns blazing: trying to speedily delete/merge sourced major articles , leaving somewhat impolite edit summaries and trying to delete correct information because he personally thinks it's "stupid". His edits are easy to clean up, I don't think he's a troll (although he's been here for four days and knows how to use cleanup and speedy deletion tags?!), and I don't think there's any admin intervention needed, but I do think it would help if another editor or two could have a friendly chat with him about how things work around here and how it's important to be civil and keep NPOV. I've offered some suggestions myself but since I'm working on one of the articles he's fighting about, he might not be listening to me. DanielEng (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Left a talk page note and reverted two unsupported edits. The remainder have mostly been reverted in relation to the speedy delete proposals. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It still bugs me about "artistic" gymnastics. Fine,you win. I'll leave it alone. There's plenty of other stupidly named articles that bug me, and I'll try to be nicer about them......"guns blazing"? LOL--I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this Alert isn't so much about any one article but your attitude here in general. If you approach other articles and editors with the same "if I don't like it or know about it, it must be wrong and stupid" mindset and lack of civility, and you try to disrupt other articles with speedy deletes, you'll just end up reading lots of warnings on your Talk Page and eventually you'll be blocked. And your incorrect edits will just be reverted. That's your choice, though...it's your time to waste. DanielEng (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this edit summary as an example. You're nitpicking grammar - calling someone "retarded" is highly inappropriate anytime, but especially when either sentence is grammatically correct. Furthermore, I'd say the prior version was better than yours. You need to seriously adjust the tone of your editing, and also to not go around deleting things you don't know about, when they have well-written, properly established articles. You might think an article is "stupidly named" but artistic gymnastics is a recognized form of gymnastics, sort of in the sense that ice hockey is a type of hockey. "I don't think this is an art" does not suffice. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note. This user does still contribute. His recent edits have all been reverted with notes on his talk page. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this user is still being less-than productive in some cases. However, he is entitled to remove comments from his talk page. While he doesn't "own" it, it is a space for people to drop him notes and messages, and it's his to purge, tidy, or archive as he sees fit. That's the community-accepted practice. Don't continue to restore these comments, it may only provoke him further. Refer to WP:TALK and WP:USER for more on this issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as though this user has any intention of changing his behavior, which is a shame.DanielEng (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood, but the two comments I added TODAY (December 15, 2007) that you removed shouldn't have been removed. The only comments I added back was from the one headline text of comments from a week ago (December 6, 2007). I assume that you didn't notice the date on the comments that I added and just removed everything. For the future, PLEASE look before you lead. That is all I'm asking. Thanks. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 02:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding on your bitchfest, but I'd like to know why my talkpage was reverted again(?!). I'm not such a bad guy, but my patience is running out here. I'm also not mad at anyone in particular, I even took another break; but still I get messed with! Can we like, get along here?I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed a heading on your talk page, and someone reverted that edit and left a comment. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I figured that part out. I just wanted to know why.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is about "etiquette" in a broad scope, let's forget for a moment what he's done, his user name is the net equivalent of SCREAMING!! Not in all my time here have I seen an editor with an all cap user name. Can that issue be addressed? KellyAna (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could ignore it. ˉˉ╦╩ 02:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And how, exactly, do you ignore screaming? KellyAna (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's a hotel with many rooms; some of them are soundproofed, some of them serve as an asylum. ˉˉ╦╩ 03:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What? KellyAna (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Usernames in capital letters are not a violation of any policy or guideline. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:USERNAME telling us not to capitalize as we choose, as far as I've ever read. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, you can't use all caps in replies, but you can in a user name. I really could have sworn you couldn't. I guess most users know all caps breed hostility, maybe that's why offense was taken by this other editors to this user? Don't know the full story but I do know the name struck me as offensive the minute I saw it.KellyAna (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I was falsely accused of requesting censure, let me be very clear, my QUESTION ~ get that, question ~ was about the screaming all cap name. In all my time here I've not seen that allowed so I asked. I have RUDELY been accused of wanting the user censured. This is far from true. A title case name would be preferred, but I never stated to ban the user because of his name. I was merely questioning the Wiki rules about ALL CAPS in a user name and the etiquette of such a name. KellyAna (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No one here accused you of "censure." You were simply pointed to the relevant policies, which do not prohibit any such capitalization. Furthermore, for someone overreacting to all caps, you seem to use them liberally. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did at my talk page, given that the user was essentially pressing for censure (i.e. action) against a very minute item. The user had no prior involvement with the case and it seemed a little suspicious. The user has engaged in some reverting on my talk page after I archived the discussion, given that the user wanted to report me for being hostile. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to look up the definition of censure, it is not simply to take action it is to ban or quiet someone. You implied I wanted the user banned when in reality I wanted an explanation of the allowability of all caps since it's expressly forbidden in certain areas of Misplaced Pages. I do find it uncivil to accuse someone of "suspicious actions" for expressing concern over a user name here rather than reporting it officially. That seems to me to not fall into the category of assuming good faith. And you were very rude on your talk page. I asked questions which you, in a position to make decisions about others, should have been able to answer but you refused. Your actions were rude, regardless of your opinion. When someone asks an honest question not designed to inflame, it should be answered. But rather than answer you accused and reverted with accusatory edit summaries. KellyAna (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a total non-issue stemming from a total non-issue. I suggest you drop it. Seicer, I suggest you let it go too. It's not worth arguing because neither of KellyAna's complaints have any merit. And no, it's not unfair or rude to say it, it's just the facts of the matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

new comment: I notice that the case is now listed as "resolved" above. I respectfully think it's too early to say this...the user's pattern seems to be to drop out of Wiki for a few days and then return with exactly the same attitude he had when he left. It's only been a few days this time too. I would suggest that we leave this open until the user appears again so we can see if there's been any change in his behavior. Saying "no further uncivil behavior"...well yes, but he hasn't been here to behave in any fashion. DanielEng (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If it comes to the editor engaging in incivil edits, then it can be reopened. But given that the original report is over a week old, and the only major edit he has done since then that has caused any concern was a template that he stated was made for satire, I can't find any major complaints. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, as long as this can be reopened. I hope it won't come to that, but given what I've seen, ten to one there will be more complaints about him when he returns. DanielEng (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Johnbod

During what is otherwise a perfectly normal dispute over content on Domestic sheep, Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been especially snide and abusive. He has made comments such as "Perhaps someone who actually knows about sheep will happen on the article." and has unequivocally called me an idiot. VanTucky 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No one has given any response for some time, so I made an ANI report. VanTucky 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Hardy

--SimpleParadox 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Hardy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made some uncivil comments during an Afd discussion.

This user was also cautioned to desist,, but rather than listen, he just continued.

This user should apologize to those he was uncivil to. Ra2007 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that off site canvasinng for this Afd may have occurred at slashdot. Ra2007 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The offsite post was made by a different user, Beetle B. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)., appears to be informational. Ra2007 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What I said that appears to be considered "uncivil" was that three users were speaking rather emphatically about matters of which they had not bothered to inform themselves. I said that I don't contribute material to articles on how to do open heart surgery (except, e.g. fixing typos, linking, etc.) because I don't know anything about that subject, and those three should do the same, and I therefore found their behavior offensive. It seems different standards get applied on AfD pages---people don't feel they should know anything before they write about it. User:r.e.b., surely one of Misplaced Pages's most respected contributors, has told me on my talk page that I was wrong to attribute this behavior to bad motives because it can be explained simply as stupidity. But I expect if I'd called them stupid, these three users would not be more pleased than they are with the fact that I pointed out that they were completely uninformed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take a heart surgeon to know that WP:NOT does not allow an article on how to do open heart surgery. Ra2007 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite an irrelevant comment. If there is a reason why an article on that topic should not be here, then just substitute some other example. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Quite an irrelevant comment"--The comment is relevant. The AFD was on WP:NOT issues. Also, it was a response to your own "how to (perform heart surgery)" example. Ra2007 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

His example was not related to the AfD issues, only to the idea that editors should stay within the scope of editing things that they are qualified to edit, in some fashion or another. Please don't drag the entire AfD discussion here. The only question at hand here is his comments and their (un)civility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

While it was a valid point that the nominator et al may not be nearly as well informed regarding the topic as you, your comments seemed uncivil at several points: Referring to them as 'illiterate', which appears to be an insult since they are demonstrably not so; Implying that their comments where made in bad faith; and calling TableManners' behavior offensive, well, your metaphor does not apply - TableManners was not adding content, but rather participating in a discussion. --Nog lorp (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively sure he meant mathematically illiterate, which should be clear from the context (but apparently is not). I had a few comments, but since I participated in the AfD, I'll refrain for the moment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not just one encyclopedia. It encompasses a vast general encyclopedia and several specialised encyclopedias on subjects like mathematics, which need (and have) slightly different rules. The majority of people editing content in mathematics articles has a formal mathematical background, which means that they live in a different culture.

AfD discussions on mathematical articles seem to be a general problem because for some reason they attract well-meaning non-experts who are not aware of the cultural differences. They know that they are not experts, they try to take this into account, but they often fail because they have no idea of the extent of what they don't know. Such as the role of proofs in professional mathematics, or the prior discussions on how to treat proofs in Misplaced Pages.

• SimpleParadox made a suggestion based on the mistaken comparison between the language used in proofs and textbooks. After this point was explained to him he left the discussion, but left his vote as "delete", based on his faulty argument.

• Ra2007 stepped in for SimpleParadox by not conceding the point ("I disagree" with no justification) and opening a new line of attack: OR allegations because the proof had no citations. By asking "Encyclopedias do not have mathematical proofs, do they?" he contradicted a well established mathematical guideline.

• TableManners suggested transwikifying to Scholarpedia (which does not cover pure mathematics and will not do so for a long time, and is certainly not intended as a repository of Misplaced Pages proofs). He seemed to attack the question of proofs on Misplaced Pages generally with the words "Sorry folks, but other stuff (proofs) exist on Misplaced Pages is not a good enough argument."

In the context of a mathematical article this was not constructive behaviour and it is no wonder that Michael Hardy became angry. He should not have become (and remained) uncivil. But the major problem is not Michael Hardy, it is structural. Some editors are not qualified to judge on mathematical articles, and some are not qualified to judge on editors who are not mathematicians. A minor problem on both sides was not being prepared to concede a point after stepping outside one's personal field of expertise.

I agree that it would be a good thing if Michael Hardy apologised for having been uncivil. I do not agree with trying to force him into a formal apology. I suggest that Ra2007 afterwards apologises for having started this discussion and for his pointless rhetorical attacks above. Just my opinion. -- Hans Adler (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so someone proposes deletion of Othello and says "Encyclopedias don't have articles about plays, do they?". Another votes to delete, citing the use of terminology in fact commonly used in articles about plays, in Misplaced Pages, in Encyclopedia Brittanica, in scholarly journals, in all other forums, and says "Only in a textbook would that kind of rhetoric be found." Someone objects, asking whether all Misplaced Pages artilces about plays are to be deleted, and asks why this one was singled out. One of those voting to delete says "Sorry, 'other stuff exists' just won't cut it as an argument here'", ignoring the existence a WikiProject on articles about plays (I don't actually know if there is, but supposing...), ignoring the fact that the existence of those thousands of articles is in accord with Wikikpedia policies prescribing their existence and how they are to be written (let's say an extensive style manual for articles about plays, discussed for several years by hundreds of Wikipedians with expertise in that topic).

That's what happened here.

Someone said Encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs. That is lunacy. It is a fact that hundreds of Wikipedians, many with professional expertise in this area, have discussed how articles on particular mathematical proofs should be written, when they should and when they should not immediately follow the statement of the theorem; when they should be relegated to a separate article and when they should not, when they should be in a subpage (as in the present case) and when they should not. Misplaced Pages contains more mathematical proofs than most encyclopedias because Misplaced Pages is more extensive than any other. No encyclopedia would disdain to include a proof of the Pythagorean theorem on the grounds that encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs. No encyclopedia would disdain to include a a history-making proof such as Cantor's diagonal argument on the grounds that encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs; that argument is short and simple and is comprehensible to people who know only secondary-school mathematics, but considered a major breakthrough. No encyclopedia would disdain to include Euclid's famous proof of the infinitude of primes on the grounds that encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs; that proof is short and is comprehensible to any 15-year-old and is considered beautiful by many eminent authorities who have opined on it. These facts are universally known. But nonetheless, we are told this article should be deleted because encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs.

Someone said the language used in the proof was the sort that would be used only in textbooks. But those who have read many thousands of proofs in research journals know otherwise and don't need to be lectured to condescendingly by someone who hasn't.

Someone suggested transwikifying to Scholarpedia. The article would OBVIOUSLY be unwelcome there. Scholarpedia's policy is only to publish INVITED expository articles by experts in certain fields of science and applied mathematics. This isn't their sort of article and it isn't on one of the topics they're currently working on.

I think those users were abusive. They were condescendingly lecturing on subjects on which they know nothing, to an audience of those who do know.

It is said that I was uncivil. Is that simply because I said those people were abusive? If so, I deny the accusation. If not, tell me what is the civil way to say that those users were abusive. Be specific and keep the main point fully intact: those users were abusive. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So now I'll go ahead and comment. I think the only real problem here is that your responses were a bit harsh and give people the impression that you are not assuming good faith (even if you really do assume good faith). You suggest banning and call others abusive, and such things may be premature. It was helpful that you eventually contextualized your use of the word "illiterate" for example, but at the time it may have been mistaken for a personal attack (it appears very near the words "idiotic crap" you know). Mathematics articles are not the domain of only mathematicians, and while non-mathematicians are welcome to contribute, yes sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they are stubborn or over-zealous. But I think a more tempered response may have conveyed your ideas better and given people a better impression of what you were trying to say. I've seen this several times, and I'm well aware of how frustrating it is, and I sympathize. I just think that, in the end, you could have been much more tactful or diplomatic. I'm not saying you have to change your opinion or refrain from commenting, just step it down a bit and try to assume more good faith. Your contributions and opinions are valued, but so are others' - even if they're wrong, misinformed, or stubborn sometimes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record I am not mathematically illiterate. But absolute or relative mathematical literacy is a non sequitur. The Afd was clearly based on WP:NOT. As I previously stated, it doesn't take a heart surgeon to know that policy does not allow articles on how to perform heart surgery, and it doesn't take a chef to recognize a recipe for stewed pork feet does not belong on wikipedia. This is not to rehash the Afd, but to provide context for the uncivil comments. I would also like to note that Michael Hardy seems to be directing what seems to me to be uncivil comments on his user talk page still. Ra2007 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, he's quoting someone else (who happens to be a highly respected Wikipedian and mathematician). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, are you implying that license to be uncivil comes with wikipedia respect and mathematical credentials? Ra2007 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Cheeser1 may be implying that everybody who is an expert on Misplaced Pages (all of it) or knows a bit more about mathematics than what is necessary to add a formula with a summation symbol to an article on an engineering subject agrees that the views that you are still defending here are obviously crazy. If that's what he means then I certainly agree. Please stop your attempts to confuse the two issues. (Are these opinions crazy? Yes. Was it wise to say so and make personal attacks? No.) --Hans Adler (talk) 18:19/19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an extremely convenient (and perhaps deliberately incorrect) interpretation of what I'm saying. That was clearly not what I'm saying or implying and you should know better or at least assume better. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are replying to Ra2007 or to me, and that makes me aware of a problem. Therefore: I am sorry for the part of my preceding comment where I answered with cheap rhetorics to cheap rhetorics. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My indentation should indicate I was replying to him, not you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And it doesn't take a mathematician to understand that a proof is not a sequence of instructions to follow in order to get a physical result, even if it is customary to phrase proofs as if this was the case. If you, Ra2007, really were mathematically literate you would be able to understand this, at least after it was pointed out. I would also like to note that I find it extraordinarily hard to explain some of your edits while still assuming good faith . But I will reserve this for the next Wikiquette alert. One at a time. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Someone said Encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs. That is lunacy. It is a fact that hundreds of Wikipedians, many with professional expertise in this area, have discussed how articles on particular mathematical proofs should be written, when they should and when they should not immediately follow the statement of the theorem; when they should be relegated to a separate article and when they should not, when they should be in a subpage (as in the present case) and when they should not."

Sorry, it is not lunacy. At best it is mere ignorance. If hundreds of Wikipedians have discussed this, and/or there has been precedence, then you merely had to point them to those discussions. Beetle B. (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the lunacy was when users insisted that they knew the role proofs play in mathematics (comparing them to a "how to" or recipe is not very apt, to say the least). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just want to submit a diff to indicate the level of my mathematical literacy.. Hope this helps. But it really should not matter. The Afd was about What Misplaced Pages was not, and did not require mathematical literacy. Ra2007 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a math article to me. You may know physics, you may know how to typeset a summation, but that doesn't mean you understand proofs. Besides, your literacy is not in question, unless you want to continue the dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"At best it is mere ignorance." Okay. At worst, it is worse that "lunacy". Either way, they seemed like crazy statements to me. I prefer "random" to "lunacy" - but, I don't think that "lunacy" is out of order. Tparameter (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While I was quite taken aback by the vehemence and inappropriateness of Michael Hardy's comments on the AfD nomination page, the user's talk page, etc., I will assume good faith and chalk this one up to this editor's passion about the subject matter. I left a note on the editor's talk page and I consider the issue done on my part. If I do happen to run across this editor abusing relatively new editors (who may not have as thick skin as I), I will certainly bring his/her actions up in this space in the future. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution: Michael, in future will you do your best not use "illiterate" as shorthand for "mathematically illiterate"? That should solve this tempest in a tea cup. Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and specific "apparently", since we should comment on actions, not persons. Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder:

1. Why should we tolerate people who write things like "Encyclopedias do not contain mathematical proofs, do they?" asking to be treated with the same respect that good-faith participants in discussions like this are entitled to? That's wrong. We should consider banning that user
2. Why do illiterates who write idiotic crap like this feel entitled to be treated with the same respect that honest people should get? That's just wrong. It is sickening to see the people who hang around the AfD discussions always feeling their entitled to push people around, when those they're pushing around differ from them in that they have some professional expertise in the subject matter and those feeling so entitled are illiterate and dishonest
3. They shouldn't be using this page to demand such tutoring.
4. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I find the behavior of the nominator and two of the discussants offensive.

Hope this helps. Ra2007 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, we can close this, per SimpleParadox. An apology is clearly not forthcoming, and this is not getting anywhere. Ra2007 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Either Michael is right, and mathematically illiterate people are piling on to deletion discussions, in which case, he's calling a spade a spade, or it's false, and they are simply being disruptive. Since it would appear from your history that your main objective here is to be disruptive, it may be unfair to call you mathematically illiterate; you may just be acting that way to further your disruption. You are free to apologise to him for your goading and time wasting. I think there are a lot of other editors to whom you should also apologise. Guettarda (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As of this writing, I have submitted about 17 articles for deletion, and about 10 of them were successful. This is a good ratio, and not disruptive. I do apologize for failing to recognize earlier that attempting to garner an aplogy from Michael Harding was futile. I should have recognized this earlier, and moved to close earlier. Perhaps as I keep my deletion ratio above 0.500, I will come to earn the respect of other wikipedians such as Michael Hardy, and earn the same pass Michael Hardy has received here. In hindsight, it was certainly a waste of my time to attempt to persuade Michael Hardy that he was not civil. Ra2007 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Michael Hardy went beyond the line in some of his comments. However, you aren't raising a big stink about the harshness of his comments but rather the appropriateness of the sentiment behind them. Hardy has a good point that those who think that proofs aren't appropriate material for an encyclopedia's coverage of mathematical concepts have a shaky understanding of writing about mathematics, and it would be bad if a deletion issue on such a topic was settled by those with that level of understanding. I think he got a little over-frustrated and started to be rude, and he shouldn't do that. But at the same time, the core sentiment that you seem to be objecting to is a legitimate one. Mangojuice 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a small point, but I think I disagree with the sentiment you discuss. Someone could be the number one expert in a given field, and they wouldn't be the most qualified to judge whether a given article in that field should exist/be deleted. They might actually be biased toward keeping an article that should be deleted. Knowledge of a field certainly does color how to apply policy, but it doesn't mean that those with little knowledge of the field can't contribute to the discussion, as policy applies to it. --Nog lorp (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Those with little knowledge of the field can provide valuable perspective. Or they can provide ignorance. It's a question of being aware that there are things you don't know, and not persisting in an ignorance-based argument when you get corrected. OTOH, one shouldn't assume that being in the same field makes someone likely to be biased, especially not when we're talking about mainstream academic subjects. Mangojuice 04:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. On first sight I felt that it is probably not worth to preserve the article. But I did not feel qualified to argue, because I did not know the exact background and did not bother to read the proof in detail. So I stayed out of the discussion, only to see much more unqualified people dominate it by insisting on absolutely ridiculous arguments and using rhetorical tricks to defend them. By this polarising behaviour they prevented a sensible discussion with real arguments. The very least that we can expect from those who concentrate their energy on deleting rather than writing is that they give actual content writers who are interested in the article a chance to have an open-ended discussion. That would be less disruptive, and at least in cases like this one it would result in a higher percentage of deletions. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• 10 out of 17 is less than 60% confirmation. Since AfD usually deletes a higher percentage of its articles, Ra2007 is doing worse than usual. He might profit by considering why AfD is disagreeing with him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As a point of interest, let's not forget that the mathematically uninformed have been AfD'ing mathematical proof articles for years (e.g. here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE I added the resolved template to the top of this discussion. The actual parties involved stopped participating two days ago at least. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I will admit that the style of my comments was certainly unkind and could certainly besr editing. The content---that here we have a persistent problem worth complaining about---is valid. And frustrating, the way it persists (in the case cited by Cheeser1, one "strong delete"r said on his own talk page that it should be deleted because it's mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sceptre

I edited the article on Gamespot to include the section on the criticism regarding Jeff Gertsmann, because of the fact that the amount of agreement on the discussion page seemed to suggest it should be included. Sceptre and another editor were the only two editors actively watching the page. So, despite my edits, they were reverted. Per the 3RR, I let it go and did not press it.

However, in the process, User:Sceptre was extremely belligerent and rude to me. I saw some disturbing stuff on his talk page, where it seemed like he was frequently stirring up trouble on Misplaced Pages.

So, after reviewing his edits, it seems to me that Sceptre does not believe in WP:CONSENSUS, which he refers to as the "mob mentality." He is a disgruntled ex-admin that believes Misplaced Pages is in horrible condition because of widespread trolling ("the horde"), which admins are not tough enough against. In the edits he makes, he is constantly accusing users of breaking the rules and of being trolls. He frequently invokes shortcuts to WP rules. He comes off as belligerent, arrogant, and uncompromising. He was warned before by an admin for improper Misplaced Pages ettiqute.

I don't expect him to agree with my edits on Gamespot. I can compromise. Sceptre just needs to be a bit more polite and drop the bad attitude. Another example of what I mean is our discussion over the neutrality of calling Al-Qaeda "terrorists." 69.138.16.202 (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Piece-by-piece response:

1. The Gerstmann incident just stinks of mob-mentality.
2. You're trying to push for rumours in BLPs and HOCs. Rumours that have been rebutted.
3. Local consensus on an article can also not override WP:NOT.
4. RockMFR's post wasn't a warning, it was playful banter (ask him to verify if you wish).
5. As you say, I am an ex-admin, so I know trolls when I see them, and call them thusly.

Will 14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I went over to User:Sceptre's Talk Page, and could not find any discussion between you and Sceptre. Since you noted that he was belligerent and rude on his Talk Page, cuold you post an exact date on which this occured so that we can get a feel for what might have happened? Without concrete information, this would give the appearance of a baseless accusation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  It's present on Talk:Al-Qaeda. I removed it from my talk as it was becoming evident that it was made in bad faith. Will 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diff's so that we can assist you in a speedy manner. I can't find any obvious citations of where Sceptre labeled anyone as trolls or vandals. For easier access: Sceptre (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my post on his talk page was just a joke. While I'm here, I guess I'll comment on the situation - the initials edits to after the Gerstmann thing were absolutely terrible, and caused me to fully lock the article. There was some headway made on the talk page creating a sourced account of the incident, though it still was pretty poorly written. I personally think this should be covered in the article (if only to finally have a few secondary sources in the article), but whether the rumor itself is included is an entirely different matter. The problem lies in the sources we have. We've got some stuff from CNET and GameSpot saying one thing, we've got blogs citing "anonymous sources" saying another thing, and we've got a variety of websites later on providing coverage of the incident (I don't know - did any non-blogs ever pick it up?). The rumors themselves carry virtually no weight because nobody publishing the rumors is willing to give their source or otherwise show their reputation for good fact-checking. The coverage of the rumors (provided by various websites and even GameSpot itself) is another matter. --- RockMFR 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See our discussions on Gamespot here, our discussion on al-Qaeda here. As for RockMFR's comment, it may have been playful, but does that mean it's OK for Sceptre to be rude? The "joke" was still in relation to a rude comment he made.

In the words of the Message Board Help forum at GameFAQs, "Fair. Next."

That was rude. Give me some more time. I can find plenty of more incidences of this guy being caustic and abrasive.

Also, I just noticed that Sceptre put me on the admins' noticeboard for wikistalking, without even notifying me. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And when he reported me to Crum375, he falsely accused me of making edits on Eidos Interactive, Jeff Gerstmann, and Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. I have not edited any of those articles even once. I edited the Gamespot article, but let it go after the 3 reverts. So far, his claim that I am "wikistalking" and "wikilawyering" and "trolling" relies upon me reverting Gamespot and al-Qaeda a few times. So, it's rather frivolous for him to be making such charges.

Please see the paragraph titled "A small thought" on his user page. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note, GameSpot should be monitored for possible WP:BLP and WP:SPS violations, per this comment. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits of Sceptre (talk · contribs), I see no violations of civility or of vandalism. The editor has been making a steadfast effort to revert changes to GameSpot and etc. in accordance to policies and guidelines -- specifically, WP:BLP and WP:SPS. Adding in blogs and rumors that attest to the ability of an individual, no matter if there was a "consensus," is a violation of BLP and must be removed. Per Jimmy Wales, this is non-negotiable and all steps must be taken to ensure that BLP is enforced. Per SPS, blogs are not generally credible sources. And note that per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is gained through discussion, not by voting; looking at talk:Gamespot, I see no general consensus and additional input should be requested from other sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with Seicer here. Sceptre might be a bit abrasive at times, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's out-of-line. I think he might jump to conclusions about who's "trolling" but he seems to do so only when his patience runs out, and it's not up to us to decide how much bickering one must endure before deciding an argument with an anonIP is too much. His observations on Misplaced Pages are bitter, cynical, and quite pessimistic. I can't really blame him. A userpage expressing honest sentiments about how Misplaced Pages functions is not a violation of any policy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering

Placed personal attacks on my talk page and then edit warred to return them after I elided them: , , claiming that because s/he believed the attack to be "true", that it justified the incivility, . GlassFET 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In+deed: there is no attack in Truth. The attribution of 'incivility' and 'personal attack' is bunk. Svaha B9 hummingbird hovering 00:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A tad incivil, regarding the following --

"Your demeanor is that of an offensive primary school teacher..."

"...you are demonstrating your lack of spiritual accomplishment..."

But nothing that would grossly violate WP:CIVIL. For quicker access: GlassFET (talk · contribs) and B9 hummingbird hovering (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding B9 hummingbird hovering's edits at User talk:GlassFET: Per WP:TALK, a user is allowed to refactor comments if they are perceived to be incivil, remove discussions or archive them on their own' talk pages. Revert warring, such as what you have begun at the user talk page, is not generally tolerated. Please be more mindful of that in the future and just drop the issue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My read is that both editors need to take a long breath and consider what has been written. I agree with User:Seicer that there is nothing unbelievably uncivil here. While B9 hummingbird hovering's use of words may not have been the best at taking a situation in the best direction, the statement that was left oner her page by User:GlassFET was accusatory. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Incivil" is a non-standard English construction: "civil" does not generally combine with the adposition "in+". The adposition "un+" is standard. That said, the vowel sound does change with "incivility". NB: Source: (accessed: December 20, 2007)

Ah

B9 hummingbird hovering 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

While we are impressed with your random word assignments peppered throughout your talk page in lieu of an actual reply, can you provide an assessment or reason to the personal queries at GlassFET's talk page? And please stop peppering my talk page with comments regarding incivility: . I can't make heads or tails regarding your comment or even the underlying reason behind them. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking a question of me? I am more than happy to respond. Moreover, what "we" are you 'speaking' for?

A joust in jest

B9 hummingbird hovering 05:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Context: this editor was mentioned in a previous Wikiquette alert, here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GlassFET (talk · contribs) is the reincarnation of a banned user. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please substantiate that? --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A CheckUser report. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please link to it? WP:BAN makes it pretty clear to me that reincarnations are not allowed, unless I've been terribly mislead. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't allowed, which is why I've just blocked it. I received a CU request via email on Alabaster Crow (talk · contribs) being a sock of banned Ekajati (talk · contribs). I checked and that was the case. Then CU also showed that AC was the same as GlassFET and Cundi (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, because up until just now, there was nothing indicating that this accusation was true. Thanks for the information. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Antelan

I approached this editor here regarding his characterization of several of my edits as either hypocritical, disrespectful and aggressive. I have asked him to refrain, but but he has asserted the his characterizations were correct. I would like to get an opinion and request that his comments be edited or removed as per removing uncivil comments section in the WP:CIVIL. Anthon01 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please direct us to the source of these comments and his responses, rather than your discussion of them. Providing diffs is most helpful. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The conversation started here. Her recommendations was carried out. The next day part of the text was reinserted by ScienceApologist. I questioned ScienceApologist on his talk page. Antelan's response is the last part of this diff, where he claims I am being aggressive. I question CrohnieGal on the Quackwatch talk page about the reinsertion of the text. Antelan claims I am being disrespectful and hypocritical.

If you need more information please let me know. Anthon01 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of incivility here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain. Are you saying that characterizing edits as hypocritical, disrespectful and the like is ok? Are you saying that I have not been (uncivil) hypocritical or disrespectful? I assume being disrespectful is a form of incivility. Anthon01 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The diffs you have provided include bickering, content disputes, etc. They do not include any substantial violations of WP:CIVIL. Please look to that policy to understand what civility is, instead of asking me, and check the policy next time before you file a complaint. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you input. I will review the policy. Anthon01 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The myriad disputes going in at Quackwatch and environs notwithstanding, I'm inclined to agree with User:Cheeser1 that there doesn't seem to be much incivility there. Actually, the most uncivil thing I saw in the diffs you provided was your "Thanks for trying" retort to User:Crohnie; I think that User:Antelan was quite right to chide you a little for that remark, and I think that he or she remained well within the boundaries of WP:CIVIL while doing so.

I'd encourage you to take Antelan's words to heart and to take respectful criticism in the spirit in which it is intended, rather than as a de jure violation of WP:CIVIL. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. But "thanks for trying was sincere." Why are you seeing it as an insincere retort? I then went to her talk page here and reiterated my thanks. Please note her response to my thanks on her talk page. Do you still think that Antelan was right? I will ask Antelan if that was his interpretation also. Anthon01 (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It actually appears that you were being sincere, so I do apologize for suggesting otherwise. However, I think you'll find that "Thanks for trying" immediately following an explanation of why somebody's wrong about something will almost always be interpreted as being snide and sarcastic - it's a phrasing you might want to say away from entirely in that context. In light of that, I think User:Antelan's interpretation of your meaning was reasonable, even if it turned out to be wrong.

I'd say that this particular flair-up looks a lot like much ado about nothing; I'd hope it would be easy for both of you to move past. Sarcasticidealist (talk)

Thanks for taking a look. It is likely we will get past it. My apologies if I misunderstood WP:CIVIL and the purpose of this page. Anthon01 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein

This user and I have had disagreements over two or three articles and have tried to resolve this issue on the articles' talk pages as well as on our own. His incessant stubborness and refusal to listen to my complaints about his edits is not so much the problem, but it is his abrasive, frustrating and insulting replies which are (See a few of the most recent examples here: ). He reported me for accidentally breaking the 3RR once, about a month or so ago, and I feel I should respond in kind in terms of his childish insults towards myself. If there is anything good I wish to come out of this, it is merely that Wiki admins be aware of some of this user's unacceptable behaviour. Thank you. Epf (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to look over this just yet, but keep in mind that this is not an administrative noticeboard. Also, I don't know how much good you're doing if you've decided to "respond in kind" to something you seem to consider petty. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought this was a notice board to seek advice on future actions when dealing with incivility or personal attacks. If this is not the correct place to do so, then I'd ask if you could direct me to the proper location. I do not consider this that "petty" since it involves personal insults, but I merely responded by posting this issue here since I thought it was appropriate. Thanks for what help you can offer anyway. Epf (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that it is such a noticeboard, but it is not staffed by administrators. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth a shot trying to resolve this here, provided there's good faith on both sides. Looking at the diffs, it seems that you're both being pretty uncivil with one another. I think a good first step would be just stopping that behaviour, unilaterally if necessary. Do you think that's possible?

I'll leave a note on User: Slrubenstein's talk page to the same effect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The examples of rude behavior on my part - which I admit to and regret - are from the last few days. Over the last several months, however, I have been patient and courteous with Epf. He has made POV-pushing edits to Ethnic group and one racist edit to Franz Boas and in each case I bent over backwards to address his view, explain my view, and explain the larger context for the issue. However, he has always responded to me with an utter absense of good faith and utter disrespect, and has reverted every edit of mine. My conclusion is simple and unavoidable: he has no respect for anyone who has a different view than his, and is a POV pusher. He is relatively ignorant of social theory and anthropological research but has contempt for anyone who knows more than he does. I can try to be courteous, but this will not resolve the underlying issue: he is a POV-pushing troll. That said, I did make a final attempt to be conciliatory here. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the conversation here is a very positive first step, and I hope that it will lead to an improved editing relationship. I hope especially that you can both honour your commitment to refrain from incivility (and it's important for you to realize, User:Epf, that you've been uncivil as well - the problem isn't all on User:Slrubenstein's end, and it would be nice if you'd acknowledge your incivility in the same way that he's acknowledged his. The content disputes are beyond the mandate of this board, but if you're at an impasse I'd strongly encourage the use of WP:THIRD and/or WP:RFC to try to make progress on them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been a witness to most of this problem, and while it certainly takes two to tango (in the sense that both Slrubenstein and Epf have edit warred and both have been incivil up to a point, especially lately - but I've seen worse), I will say that Slrubenstein has struck me as being the more reasonable of the two, and the one who has provided cites every time his position was challenged, whereas Epf's position came across as being his own, and not based on any particular body of literature. Also, I have seen Epf remove cited and sourced material which Slrubenstein introduced, on the pretense that Epf didn't seem to believe the sources supplied backed the information (which sources he admitted he didn't check). As far as I can tell, this looks like it might be better suited to some other DR avenue such as RfC, as there are both behavior and content issues to be sorted out, in my opinion.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ramdrake. I suspect Epf will respond that at Misplaced Pages credentials do not matter. The bottom line is, he refuses to comply with WP:AGF to the extent that he does not even read what I write — as an example, see this edit where I actually provided the AGF link: his first response was that he does not have to assume good faith and then he insisted that I never provided him with the AGF link here and here.

He has admitted to the fact that the point of view he wants expressed in articles is his own: "The other point of view you're ignoring would be, umm, mine (I figured that would be obvious for you), but that is regarding other issues we had" . He is a POV-warrior, and while I appreciate Ramdrake's comments I doubt they will make any difference to Epf. Even his response to my note of conciliation on his talk page is poisoned. Think about this sentence carefully: "You make some valid points I was already aware of but there is still some matters you continue to somewhat ignore." He admits I make good points - but only ones of which he was already aware ... in effect he is suggesting that none of my "good points" have any bearing on our current conflict, because he already knew these "good points." He is simply unwilling to accept anything I may have to say that he does not already believe; if he agrees with me, it is only because he already thought of it himself. Is this really assuming good faith, being respectful, and willing to cooperate with others? He makes no acknowledgment that I made any good points he had not already known. In short, he is saying that the time I took to explain my edits was a waste of time. Just think about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see if User:Epf provides a response to all of this. If so, hopefully we can continue trying to hash this out; failing that, you probably do need to go the WP:RFC/U route (for which you'll need a co-certifier - perhaps User:Ramdrake would be willing?). But for now I'd rather see what Epf has to say, especially since he/she was the original initiator of this alert. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes patience runs thin, in particular after making extensive efforts to address behaviors of users such as Epf. I have been in those situations myself, and keeping cool and polite when there is no change on the user's behavior is sometimes an impossibility. I would wait and see what Epf has to say. An RFC/U may be the way to go, despite being time consuming... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have any direct experience with the conflict in question, I'll say that I've found Slrubenstein to be an above-average editor on the religion pages. Leadwind (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Alphus Omegus

This user and I are having a disagreement on the Ctrl+Alt+Del talk page . The user first submitted some information and sources that have previously been determined, by two separate administrators, to be in violation of WP:V and WP:BLP. This information has been removed numerous times in the past, and thus I reverted the information once again, as no new sources or evidence were presented to support the claims that violated WP:BLP. I then explained to the user on their talk page why I had reverted their edits, and suggested familiarizing themselves with the existing discussion, to avoid rehashing old issues. The user responded on my talk page, and in the talk section of the article by challenging my credibility and intentions. I have attempted to discuss this issue as calmly as possible, despite the fact that the user now insists on what I believe to be personal attacks, instead of discussing the content of the page. I have suggested a truce until we can get some third party interaction here, to hopefully prevent further argument on the talk page of the article.Thrindel (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the onus is on User:Alphus Omegus to bring up your alleged conflict-of-interest at WP:COIN if she or he think it's a problem. If it isn't, he or she should stop talking about it and get on with improving the encyclopedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note at the ongoing discussion at the article's talk page here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help.Thrindel (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just notified this user. Up until then, it doesn't appear that he was notified (although I could have missed something). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Non article related editor issues on article talk pages

I don't want to appear confrontational so I didn't make the editor's name the section header.

From Talk:Evan Montvel Cohen:

...blocked for edit warring, nor been the subject of an RFC. But that’s my credentials. Anyeverbody has been blocked for edit warring, had other issues...|Aboutmovies 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We're all entitled to our opinions, but bringing up past issues which do not have any bearing on current discussions, such as mentioning a block for edit warring when that isn't the issue at hand, is a probable violation of WP:CIVIL,(part of the comment did relate as it was made on a BLP article so I'm not including the whole thing). It also encourages a disruption caused by editors who take such comments personally and turn an article talk page into a personality conflict. Anynobody 02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've left him a polite note at his talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The user and I have been having a conversation on the subject here. Additional comments are welcome. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also left a response. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this issue is best addressed with minimum comment by myself. As much as I want to help, I get the feeling it could just make things harder. However I really appreciate your help :) Anynobody 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The user in question has blanked the discussion from his talk page after I cautioned him that his actions are not appropriate or fair to other good-faith contributors. Perhaps in the future, someone will cite his obstinacy in this WQA complaint in an unrelated content dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they will, sooner or later everyone makes a mistake. When that inevitably does happen, such claims of a perfect record can (though they should not) then become somebody else's ammo, how ironic. However I think that in this case, the outside input from neutral editors combined with what I hope is progress I managed to make in the conversation which spawned the issue here have solved everything. Thanks again, I know how ungrateful people usually are about receiving feedback. :) Anynobody 05:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mais oui!

I'm somewhat stressed and upset by User:Mais oui!'s actions and comments which have taken place in the last 24 hours without warning and feel the need to get some input on his (and perhap my own) behavoir. I should make clear from the start though that this gentleman has been blocked before for 3RR and agressive behavoir (I have not).

The issue ultimately stems (as I understand) from Mais oui!'s political stance on the relationship with Scotland and the United Kingdom. His edit history invariably shows the removing of stubs, categories, and mentions of the UK (often in place of Europe) without discussion or explicitly open edit summaries on hundreds and hundreds of articles. Its a major problem, but one that I've not been involved with or made aware of before now.

That said, my problems seem to be with him removing WP:UKGEO Wikiproject banners from talk pages, again without discussing them on the talk page, or contacting the Wikiproject itself. Examples being here, here, here (which I interpret as a breach of WP:POINT), amongst others, such as this.

Having tried to restore the banner here, I felt I should pass comment about my concerns of ownership on Scotland here (which in retrospect was worded poorly). This seems to have enraged Mais Oui, who posted a huge transcluded civility template on my talk page and began reverting my contributions.

I asked him (most pleasantly, in a calm and controlled way) to discuss his grievance with maturity and civility here, here, and here. Please note Mais Oui's edit summaries, as I feel them to be uncalled for, dare I say (at risk of being ticked off), even spiteful and misguided. I was upset by Mais Ouis comments and made this clear here.

Now I feel unwelcome, dismayed and disappointed. I'm not a perfect editor, and made that explict here, but I feel Mais Oui has gone too far with his comments, and makes out that being a regular and involved contributor to Misplaced Pages is somehow socially unacceptable and an undesirable characteristic.

I feel that Mais Oui, with his actions and edit summaries, is not giving users the dignity they deserve; behaving like a cyber-bully, owning articles and projects and being spiteful to any and all who don't agree with him, or try to give him feedback. As it stands now, with two years service to Misplaced Pages, and an excellent relationship with the editting community, I feel at a low point that this type of thing goes on and hope it is dealt with seriously. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but I might say you need to escalate this to the ANI. Disrupting a Wikiproject systematically, with a zealous nationalist POV, that's a bit beyond the scope of this board because we're getting into content issues and large-scale changes to Misplaced Pages. While his actions are certainly not civil - making rude personal remarks beyond any reasonable scope - I believe the more serious issue at hand needs to be addressed. While his actions may not be such, they seem to amount to large scale vandalism of the UKGeo project, which is very troubling. Like I said, I would suggest taking this up to the ANI, but maybe you should wait for another person to weigh in. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to follow up on this. Is there anything that has happened since you filed this report? Has the improper behavior stopped, remained the same, gotten worse? Have you escalated this to the ANI or elsewhere? I'd like to help clear this up if we can. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not cared to follow this editors actions since, but don't believe I need to as such given the diffs provided already outlining the incivility. Certainly he's changed a few of my edits since and his edit history still consists of downplaying the UK in "Scottish articles" (which is fine, so long as it civil and within Wiki principles). I'm sure however he's aware of this report as I said I would seek advice on tackling this.

Per your input, I haven't escalated this yet until obtaining input from another contributor. I wouldn't be happy with "brushing this under the carpet" as I feel too aggrieved about the number of principles broken in this case, especially as Mais oui has done this before with other users. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've left a note. Hopefully the editor will take some constructive advice. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Calton and Neutralhomer

I've noticed my watchlist lighting up with some acrimony between the two users

• Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For some reason they are edit warring over some old bot messages on User talk:Freethinker1of1 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joyous and cheerful edit summaries distil the essence of the holiday spirit:

• Calton: Not your call, Mr. Stalky McStalkerson. Say, didn't you just get in trouble for abusing TWINKLE?
• Neutralhomer: Welcome to December...and who are you calling "Stalky"?
• Calton: That would be you, Mr. Poor-Impulse-Control. Hey, whatever happened to your pious promise to stop the stalking and blind reversions? Was that taken away, too?
• Neutralhomer: just stop vandalising pages Calton. Hey I lost TWINKLE for 96 hours, you got two blocks and pouted for 2 months.

There's also been some nastiness on their respective talk pages. (, ). Both editors have a history of interpersonal conflict, and both have received blocks for incivility and/or personal attacks. I don't know the full story of these two, but I do know that a) it can't be good; and b) it's not going to get better if the two are left to snipe at each other. Both editors have been here for a long time and for thousands of edits, and both ought to know better by now. I don't know if they need to be directed to mediation, to RfC, to AN/I for a short block—or just to be told by a neutral third party to calm down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's alot of hostility. I've left a note at the talk page in question, and a copy here so that they can keep their responses off someone else's talk page:

Rather than contact you both individually, I'll just interject right here. Old messages are routinely cleared from user talk pages, and it is clear that this is what happened. Reverting such a deletion is not appropriate, but what's far more inappropriate is edit-warring and slinging insults at each other in edit summaries. There appears to be a great deal of hostility between the two of you, and you both should seriously consider cooling it before you are both blocked. You should both know better than to waste your time and energy bickering (especially over something this petty). The both of you need to stop fighting with each other and behave like positive, grown-up contributors to Misplaced Pages. Because this is someone else's talk page you're fussing about, I'll direct your responses to a copy of this message I've left at the WQA. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait. reading the page history,Calton (talk · contribs) has been edit warring over that page alot. Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) is his newest opponent,apparently. I dunno if that helps,I was just commenting. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll (II)

Explicit assumptions of bad faith and other hostile behaviour with regard to numerous users on several talk pages, including Objections_to_evolution, Homeopathy, Young Earth creationism and User talk:Filll. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs so that we can see exactly what's going on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know what I have done that is so egregious.--Filll (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding self-admitted pov-pushing by this user . Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have made a mistake with you diff. Guettarda (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The diff is correct, thank you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I confess that I don't see how the diff constitutes POV pushing. Could you clarify a little bit, User:Guido den Broeder? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

By claiming that no references are needed because it is obvious from 'our articles across Misplaced Pages', in addition to twice reverting an edit on which, at that time, there was consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Of hij niet begrijpt. •Jim62sch• 20:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the difficulty here is linguistic, I suspect.--Filll (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding more personal attacks as we go. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That one does actually strike me as a little bit uncivil. Could somebody provide me with a little bit of background to the dispute, so I can see what's going on? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Look at WP:USERNAME. It's a valid concern, at least to some extent. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't speak Dutch, so if the user name translates to something offensive, then I agree that's a concern. But as I understand it, there are people in the Netherlands named Guido, so I think absent evidence to the contrary WP:AGF requires that we allow this. Besides, if there is a problem, it's better dealt with at WP:Usernames for administrator attention than here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but surely if the worst infraction is a (misinformed) question about the use of (something mistaken for a) racist epithet, what kind of merit does this complaint really have? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I need some more diffs and quite a bit of context before I'd feel comfortable passing any kind of judgment on what's going on here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The name is Italian. Its only meaning is 'guide'. Not so rare that you wouldn't have people with this name in the USA, with so many citizens of Italian or Dutch descent. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• (after numerous edit conflicts)* Objections_to_evolution: I wrote that the statement in the text that these objections were widespread was, to my knowledge, not correct. I waited for replies. Two users agreed, upon which I changed the text to reflect that this was primarily so in the USA. I get complimented for the new text. Along comes Filll, and reverts my edit. So I put a fact-tag instead. Along comes Orangemarlin, and removes the tag. Guettarda who is so very helpful here, also shows up as a creationist. No evidence for this wide spread is presented. Instead, Fill sends me a warning, starts a series of posts where he 'criticises' my English, quickly followed by several other users, and claims that no evidence is needed because all is obvious from 'our articles across Misplaced Pages'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. As I understand it the problem is with . I agree that you were being perfectly reasonable to request sources, and I agree that User:Filll's response was somewhat over the top. I also think, though, that your accusation that he was here to push POV was a violation of WP:AGF. If both of you had been more civil and kept cooler heads, I think that you would have found this dispute easier to resolve. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• again, after numerous edit conflicts Homeopathy: A good number of users is discussing a better wording for the sentence The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. Along comes Filll, and accuses everyone present of pov-pushing, crud, being jokers, etc. When we protest, he claims that we are biased. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry GdB, but that section of Homeopathy has been discussed a hundred times. And more than Filll, but myself, Adam Cuerden, Tim Vickers, ScienceApologist, and the list goes on, have reverted edits to that section. The article is approaching a high degree of stability. OrangeMarlin 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussed so many times, and still wrong and pov. Wow, are you doing a great job. But, obviously, that gives Filll the right to insult everyone over and over again. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What insults are you talking about? Once again, if you believe someone has insulted you, provide diffs to substantiate such a claim. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Like these: Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't wholly insults. I guess calling a group of people "jokers" may be divulging into "incivility," but is pushing the definition. I don't see any insults -- just someone who is tired of having his comments criticized at every corner. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So, basically it boils down to you complaining about other editors who hold different viewpoints than that of your own. You haven't provided sufficient WP:DIFFs to state any instance of persistent incivility, vandalism, etc. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am complaining about the manner in which Filll elects to adress other editors who hold different viewpoints than his own. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is at least one other side to this. And we could trot out our own set of diffs to show that this is not only ridiculous, but that GDB is engaging in WP:DE and generally tendentious editing. However, I think everyone should just ignore this silly tempest in a teapot and allow people to actually be productive. This comes close to trolling, as far as I am concerned.--Filll (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited Homeopathy at all, so the above is another example of your insultive behaviour. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What "insultive behaviour" are you talking about? Once again, please provide evidence of such behavior; until you do, I am marking this as closed. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating the complete uselessness of this page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with civility policy (and while you're at it, try reading WP:POT). Becoming hostile and despondent towards this alert board is not going to help the situation. I suggest you cool it and move on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Guido has been forum shopping around, presenting the same information at User talk:JzG#User:Guido den Broeder. He pretty much gave up there after he received information that was not in his favour. I pretty much believe this case is dead: Guido is ignoring anyone who crosses his path and refuses to heed advice. Whether he is burnt out or not, is no standing in his arrogance or AGF vios. Don't like our answers? Then please seek your assistance elsewhere, but with your continued arrogance here and elsewhere, and your continued forum shopping, you won't find much help. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I presented information because I was asked to do so. Thanks for adding to the fire, is the pile not high enough already? Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

Stalking , open hostility to many users on all pages where he is active, disruptive edits, abuse, profanities, continuously trying to initiate editwars and get other users blocked on pages where he has contributed or discussed nothing, etc. etc. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs so that we can see exactly what's going on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny how Guido characterises OM's actions as "stalking"; Guido is the one who just shown up at articles on which OM is one of the primary editors. Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that 'shoot the messenger' is once again a most popular sport on Misplaced Pages. What's the point in having this page, then? Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shoot the messenger? Nope. Point it out when people are trying to abuse the system? Looks so. Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See ANI, now. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Where you got the same message. Please don't forum shop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And we have another shooter, also holding the arrow at the wrong end. Following procedure here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, no shooting: Teresa is pointing out that you are venue-shopping in the hopes that your indefensible accusation will gain traction. •Jim62sch• 20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is obviously false (look at the history) and a clear violation of WP:AGF. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Issues here should not be simultaneously reported to other alert boards. It's forum-shopping by definition, and is not "procedure." --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Putting the same matter on different boards makes it difficult to resolve anything. Also, to the OP, after looking at the two diffs you provided, I can't see anything more than perhaps a personality conflict. I haven't read anything in your diffs that shows he's stalking you or being uncivil.DanielEng (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look? The issue reported on ANI is a different one. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. In both cases, you're still accusing the user of rather serious offenses, and based on the diffs you've provided, you're completely off the mark. Nobody's threatening or stalking you. You're going from one forum to another in the hopes someone will take action against the user and give you a better answer, but you're really not going to get anywhere with this. Maybe it's a personality conflict, maybe it's a language barrier, and maybe it's the holidays and everyone's tempers are short...in any case, maybe it'd be a good idea for you to step back, take a deep breath, and avoid interacting with this user for a while. DanielEng (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

These are different offences that belong on different pages. A threat must be dealt with on ANI, not here. It's not my fault that this user chooses to escalate. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They're not offenses. They're comments that you're allowing to upset you needlessly. Looking at all the diffs again, it appears that they were on other people's Talk Pages--not yours--and you're choosing to interpret them to mean more than they do. Or else you are abusing the system and just making a frivolous complaint. Do you know what stalking really is? If the editor were following you around and leaving nasty comments on your Talk Page, that might qualify as Wikistalking, but it doesn't look as though that is happening.

This page, as it says, is an opportunity to get an objective third-person perspective on problems. Looking at this, as a complete stranger who has never worked with either you or OrangeMarlin, my perspective is that this WPA and the ANI are both pretty baseless. Nor do I see OrangeMarlin doing anything to 'escalate' this situation. Of course, you don't have to listen to me or any other editor, but it seems as though you're wasting your time with all this. I'm sure you'd rather be editing than engaging in a stressful debate that's not going to go anywhere, right? DanielEng (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what I was doing. I was happily editing, when Orangemarlin came along, as he did before. End of happy editing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, let the matter drop, and go back to happy editing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:208.104.45.20

This user appears to have a persistant IP address, as he usually is posting relevant contributions on pages specifically related to linguistics. However, he has a complete disregard for the rules of Misplaced Pages and major civility issues. Today alone, please see here and here. This has been going on at a low level for months, from light edit warring to deleting talk page messages to outright personal attacks and profanity. How should we proceed with dealing with him. CSZero (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrected links. If you are linking with a regular URL as you did above, one bracket is sufficient; text description is separated with a space rather than with | . For easier reference, 208.104.45.20 (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Is it possible to wikilink (versus URL) to static version numbers? It looks much neater. I ask because somebody already came through and reverted his response to me and my response to him, so putting in the current, dynamic version isn't too useful. CSZero (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous versions of pages cannot be wiki-linked (nor can diffs). Just use the URL of the page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll (III)

This user has accused me of being biased, selective reading of policy, disruptive editing (in a project page, in a projject in which I had only made 1 edit at the time), and religious recruiting (which I honestly don't even understand). He has also reverted good faith edits, claiming they violated NPOV, which is not grounds for reversion, "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate." at Help:Reverting. Furthermore, he has removed multiple tags, claiming that somehow asking for citations is a violation of NPOV. He has consistently failed to Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. I have asked this user multiple times to assume good faith, and he continues to not do so.

See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject intelligent design "Selective reading" at the end.

See User talk:Filll where I and another editor ask him to maintain good faith, and he claims that we don't understand policy.

See Objections to evolution revision history where he removes challenges to material, with no explanation, and reverts good faith edits without cause. He seems to have done so several times, to other editors, in this article.

See Talk:Objections to evolution "NPOV" where I am accused of religious recruiting.

This does not seem to be the first complaint regarding these issues with this user. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be much more easy for us to assess this situation if you provided the relevant sequences of diffs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be with edits such as this. Fill reverted a fact tag on the basis that consensus was needed before adding it, which is totally incorrect. Given that the proceeding reference makes no mention of the disputed statement, a reference should be found or the statement removed entirely. At any rate, I reverted that edit on the basis given above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

, . GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the same fact tag. Go for it dudes, why don't you write me up too. OrangeMarlin 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's not a poor attitude, I don't know what is. Take it up with the mediation committee or request a third opinion as this is more of a content dispute. But removing fact/cn tags is not the way to go -- those statements are wholly unsourced and should either be cited or removed since they can provoke dispute. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, this edit makes more than enough sense to me. Being unnecessarily redundant or over-qualifying particular claims presents them as dubious or specious (ie not NPOV). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although that wasn't the same as removing fact tags throughout. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so where's the civility issue? This sounds like content dispute(s) or possibly a misunderstanding of WP:R to me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Objections to evolution he accuses me of "religious recruiting" (which doesn't even make sense). And Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject intelligent design he accuses me of being disruptive, several times, instead of assuming good faith. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to make our lives just a little easier. There's a lot of discussion to waddle through. Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the diffs are listed above. In see "NPOV" at the end. In see "POV issues" where he refers to "people like you" and "Selective reading" where I am called disruptive. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing alot of content disputes and people with very different agendas (my assumptions of good faith notwithstanding), and there's alot of headbutting going on. What is a fact? What is falsifiability? Several of you seem to be up to your ears in a content dispute that doesn't seem very fun. That seems to have lead at least two people to file more-or-less frivolous complaints against Filll (above). So what's up with this one? Filll says you have a religious agenda, Filll says you are disruptive, and Filll says you are pushing a POV as if you're writing a tract. If he believes, in good faith, that you are, then he's entitled to say so (and it appears that this is the case). Is his tone less-than-complementary? Yes. Is he showing a lack of patience? Perhaps. But I'm still at a loss as to how "people like you" can't be interpreted as it seems to be meant: people on your side of your content dispute, who say the things that you say. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous? He called me a religious fanatic, with no basis whatsoever, and then he reverted fact templates! He has a history of doing so as well. I'm absolutely baffled by what you're saying. He can be uncivil if he believes it is true, in good faith?GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not read my comment correctly, and have jumped to some pretty odd conclusions. Please take the time to read what I said thoroughly. For example, saying "you are disruptive" is not an example of incivility, unless the accusation is made in bad faith. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that, by it's nature, made in bad faith? Isn't calling someone disruptive necessarily assuming that they are not acting in good faith? What am I misunderstanding? GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You called him uncivil. How is it any different? Try reading WP:POT. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? And are you saying that I did the same to him? GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not by its nature, but in this case it is. Cheeser1, the assumption that such qualifications are made in good faith is lost as soon as, when challenged, no explanation is provided. Further, even if one has genuine feelings like this, it is not civil to voice them repeatedly at every opportunity. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'll ask you both to refer to WP:CIVIL and WP:POT, which you don't seem to understand. Everyone on this alert board but you, all of the third, fourth, fifth opinions, they all seem to point this back to you as a simple content dispute that you've conflated into some massive ball of incivility by Filll. It's just not the case. If you want to use this alert board, you're going to have to live with it when your complaints have no merit, not drag it out into accusing everyone but yourself of being wrong about the issue. If you've already decided that Filll has been uncivil, and you already know how wrong it is, and you have no intention of assuming good fiath or working past that issue, then what are you doing here?? --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not claim that people do not understand policy each time you draw a different conclusion. If several people come here and say that they feel offended by a user, respect that. If a policy allows this, than perhaps the policy needs adjustment, or the policy is less relevant than you thought. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Frankly, I think this is all just as ridiculous as the attempts by other editors above (Are they really different editors?) to brand me as some sort of ill-behaving malcontent. One editor cannot just declare that 100 other editors and a year of work is all nonsense, on his personal say so, and get his way, without building consensus. One editor with no sources cannot just remove sourced material, and get it to stick, with no discussion or conversation or agreement. One editor cannot just act unilaterally, and if anyone opposes him or tries to get him to slow down, declare that those opposing him or trying to slow him down are acting in an uncivil manner. This is completely silly.--Filll (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have legitimate concerns about sockpuppetry, you should see WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

ReluctantPhilosopher's dominance on page "Sonia Gandhi"

A user ReluctantPhilosopher is repeatedly deleting articles on page "Sonia Gandhi" giving reasons like "Poorly structured" or "Non grammatical". We had various times requested him to modify the section to help us, but he simply deletes the sections. I think he is deleting it just because he does not agree with it and is giving some adhoc reason for the same. Anyone, please help us here. Inder315 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For easier access: ReluctantPhilosopher (talk · contribs) and Inder315 (talk · contribs). Comments forthcoming. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This looks like a content dispute. Could you please provide diffs of incivility? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that ReluctantPhilosopher (talk · contribs) is blanking considerable portions of text at Sonia Gandhi under the pretense that it is unsourced, unstructured and very poorly written, per edits like this. But the evidence clearly shows that the user is blanking considerable portions of sourced, structured and fairly well written text which has been reverted by various editors. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing more of the edits, the prior version from Inder315 (talk · contribs) is a bit... lacking. A minor POV stance that can be easily corrected, but not through repeated blankings or mass deletions of valid sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(Crossposted from Seicer's talk page) Would you mind doing a little homework before you go about admonishing responsible editors? The person has been adding completely non-notable pieces of everyday news to the article and seriously damaging its quality. I was entirely justified in reverting his edits to an article which had just beginning to have some decent shape. The person has been repeatedly abusing me on my talk page, calling me "slave of sonia gandhi" and a "congress party worker", edits that I have had to deletle every time. What does that say about his wikiquiette? Inder315, Mimic2 and Nkulkarn are probably sockpuppets of the same person. I've got to say I am really dissappointed at your attitude. Amit@Talk 08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is bluntly refusing to acknowledge the error of his edits. He is removing mass amounts of sourced, structured and fairly well written material, contrary to his edit summary. He has not gained consensus or even discussed his edits before reverting. At least discuss the proposed changes, what could be in error, and do it in a way so that your edit isn't strongly POV. It would be nice if he could assume good faith and tone down the comments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The edits I removed were NOT NOTABLE as per WP:Notability. It's perplexing Seicer is asking me to assume good faith and engage in discussion with a person who has called me names in the past. I can't understand how he describes material like "now it will be interesting to see what sonia says" as well written. I maintain that I was entirely justfied in removing the content without discussion. My edit history is impeccable and I invite other editors to examine for themselves the portion I "repeatedly" deleted, and comment on how encyclopaedic and well written it is. The "mediators" are in grave error which they refuse to acknowledge Amit@Talk 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not my comment, but thanks for attributing another user to me. The accusations can stop now, but if your conscious has not fully cleared, you can take it to WP:SSP. Your poor civility is showing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid WP:N has nothing to do with article content. Notability policies/guidelines refer to what we can have an article about, not what kind of content we put into the article. Also, in addition to assuming good faith, you should at least make sure you're accusing the right person of being out to get you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Seicer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing this case myself, here's my take: This is obviously a heated content dispute that has started to get personal on both sides, which means that everyone should step away and cool off for a little while. As I usually do in such cases, I'll try to address both sides in turn:

ReluctantPhilosopher: Per consensus policy, if you make a large-scale edit that is quickly reverted, regardless of the policy that you're citing, it is up to you to avoid getting into a revert war by bringing the discussion to the relevant talk page. Misplaced Pages content is achieved through community consensus, which by its very nature means you cannot decide unilaterally what is notable and what is not. Not even us admins can do that - when it comes to controversial edits, we have to go through the same procedures as non-admins in terms of discussing why content should be added or removed. To insist that people accept your version of the article is to exert ownership over the article, and it works at cross-purposes to WP's intent. Please, after allowing for some time for all parties to cool off, engage in open discussion about the article's content on its talk page, and remain focused on the content, not your fellow editors. Also, remember that poorly-written content does not necessarily have to be deleted outright - it can always be improved. The question is whether a well-written form of the content is suitable for Misplaced Pages at all.

Mimic2, Inder315, Seicer: Likewise, you should also be willing to engage in consensus-building discussion rather than simply fighting ReluctantPhilosopher. It is true that the sections he removed were, in several cases at least, poorly written and (at least to my eye) in violation of WP:BLP and/or WP:NPOV. I'm not qualified to pass judgement on the content itself, but I can say that it did not appear to conform to WP's standards for this type of content. I think that, as part of your consensus-building discussion, you should discuss ways to improve that content should the decision be to keep it in any form. In the meantime, please refrain from engaging in attack threads such as "ReluctantPhilosopher's creditbility (sic)" - it doesn't help, and only serves to inflame other users. It is an assumption (however justified it might be) of bad faith, and there are more appropriate ways to request comment on the matter.

Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, KieferSkunk, for offering a more balanced perspective on the issue. The reason I didn't discuss those changes on the talk page were: (1) I didn't think those edits were serious enough to be discussed as they were in blatant violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:Notability, and (2)I was fairly certain arguing with those guys was going to be futile. In any case, I accept your advice of "cooling off" and will let the article stay in whatever state it is now. Or perhaps other editors could improve it. Thanks. Amit@Talk 17:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There are other, more appropriate methods, but essentially page blanking and applying false edit summaries to deceive editors is not the best method. If the content is so disputed, I suggested seeking consensus or even discussing the proposed changes beforehand, but you reverted to a rather POV state -- much what you were trying to avoid. Want to cool off? Discuss the changes first and at least let other editors know what the issue you present is. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Seicer, my comments apply to you too. Everyone needs to cool off, or you'll just keep sniping at each other like you did just here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the part where Reluctant Philosopher came after Seicer on his talk page. Seicer has kept a cool head as far as I can tell. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page regarding the issue, but it is probably a misunderstanding, not noting that after I made the revert based upon the edit summary (not so much weight on the content), I was attacked for the edit on my talk page and then labeled a sockpuppeter. Definately not assuming good faith on the part of User:ReluctantPhilosopher (who has a confusing .sig). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is appalling. I NEVER called Seicer the sockpuppetteer, nor did I attribute that old hostile comment (sonia ganshi fan...) to him. I don't know what he is talking about. Amit@Talk 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Chesser noted it above as well, but perhaps this edit summary will assist. If that was not directed towards me, then it was generally misunderstood by others and could have been reworded to reference the editor in question, not attributed under my reply. If it was in error, then you have my apologies, but please revise the post to clarify who you are attributing the socking to prevent further confusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I just said that nkulkarn (talk · contribs), mimic2 (talk · contribs) and inder315 (talk · contribs) were probably sockpuppets of the same user, but not you. and I attributed that comment to nkulkarn, not you, as was clear from the diff. And now you know how upset "responsible" editors feel when they are, apparently, "attacked".Amit@Talk 02:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to see we are on the same page again :-) Have you reported it to WP:SSP? The edit contribs aren't all too encouraging but he hasn't edited since the 26th of December, so I would give it a few days to see if he reemerges. Looking over the edit summaries of those you listed above, they are rather similar but nothing is definite until a check has been done for good measure. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven't reported it yet, but may consider doing so. Looking at the contribus it is obvious that all three accounts have contributed mostly to sonia gandhi page, and occasionally to Manmohan Singh. Thanks! Amit@Talk 03:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You should be sure to sign in while editing Misplaced Pages. Forgetting to sign in confuses other editors (we have User:ReluctantPhilosopher posting with signature "Amit@Talk" but not logged in, so we get an IP address too). It's difficult to keep track of who's who, and also compromises your privacy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for getting into a healthy discussion. Also very good points have come up like "Misplaced Pages content is achieved through community consensus, which by its very nature means you cannot decide unilaterally what is notable and what is not. Not even us admins can do that".

About sockpuppets, if someone thinks (just because I have added mostly to two pages Sonia Gandhi and Manmohansingh) that three accounts belong to me, he is welcome to do so. But it is not the fact. Also I have modified the two articles mainly because those are the two most prominent leaders in Indian Politics. Also, nowhere wikipedia policy states that one has to modify these many articles to prove that you are a authentic editor. Regarding the edit history, I am sure that editing only 2 articles is better than removing large sections giving some reason and assuming that the thinking is fact. Inder315 (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I missed some statements here by User:ReluctantPhilosopher. He says "I didn't think those edits were serious enough to be discussed as they were in blatant violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:Notability, and (2)I was fairly certain arguing with those guys was going to be futile". Now what does it mean by "I didn't think"? It is very clear now that even admins can not pass such messages. Secondly, what makes him think that "I was fairly certain arguing with those guys was going to be futile"? He does not want to argue, that is fine. But he has no right to judge us like this. Will it be acceptable by him if I say "I would have started a discussion, but looking at his past comments, it could have turn violent". I request User:ReluctantPhilosopher to be more open. Inder315 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:ReluctantPhilosopher cool time is over in 2 days. He is going to "fix" the sections "Critism" giving reason "The section "Questions are being asked now .... all wins are due to sonia agandhi and all losses due to party memebers" and several sententces in the section "Notice by the election commision of India" read like a political commentary and have no place in an encyclopedia, besides they violate WP:BLP".

One new excuse has come up for deleting sections. If the reason this time is "political commentary", then we would need to delete 80% of the article given the fact that she is a political leader. How about deleting sections like "Leader of Opposition", "2004 elections", "UPA Chairperson" giving the same reason? Are they not "political commentary", as my scholar friend thinks? Also, about the statement "have no place in an encyclopedia, besides they violate WP:BLP" How many times I would need to repeat that "Misplaced Pages content is achieved through community consensus, which by its very nature means you cannot decide unilaterally what is notable and what is not. Not even us admins can do that" He is exactly doing this. How can an individual say what should have place in wikipedia or not?

I request some senior contributors of wikipedia to jump in the discussion against this dominance and help wikipedia users who deserve to have a neutral source of information.

I appeal to the mediators here to please see my comments on Talk:Sonia Gandhi and decide for themselves whether they are valid or not. Also please look at the contributions of Inder315 (talk · contribs), Nkulkarn (talk · contribs) and mimic2 (talk · contribs) and decide for themselves if they are sockpuppets. It's an open and shut case. Thanks Amit@Talk 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You have declared that it is an open and shut case. Then why are you asking others to decide themselves. You have developed the habit of considering your "opinion" as "fact" and you have started giving judgements also (like owner of wikipedia). Also, I saw your comments in the discussion secion of Sonia Gandhi. It is strange you consider someone elses contribution as "Political Commentry" just because you do not agree with it. If you do not like the facts, you have option not to visit the article. All the best. Inder315 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who has invited others to see what is political commentary and what is biographical information. Why are you so afraid of neutral editors finding out the truth. Amit@Talk 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please help me out here with this difficult editor? Imagine adding everything ever said about George W. Bush in newspapers to the article on hime - it would be sourced alright, but wouldn't be biographical. Can someone please examine the nature of the content in dispute and end it once and for all. And as far as credentials are concerned, the edit histories speak for themselves. Thanks. Amit@Talk 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consider opening an Request For Comment or a Third Opinion. Those are the proper places to request help with content disputes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KieferSkunk. I will do it instantly. And Thanks Mr. Amit for calling me a difficult editor. Good that everyone knows who is difficult. It is actually you who gives different execuse everytime for deleting a section which is a fact and you do not like it. Looking at your contributions, it is clear that you are a fan of Sonia Gandhi. Fine. You can start a blog, start an orkut community or any webpage for that matter. But please keep wikipedia free from your praising. Inder315 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not take every opportunity to lash out at someone with whom you have a content dispute. Both of you are clearly on opposing sides of a dispute related to the content of an article, but it's pretty obvious that this is yet another shot you're taking at him, poorly disguised as a thank you and conclusion to this discussion. If you're going to report someone to the civility alert board for what seems to be far more of a content dispute, you should at least tone down your lashing out at him, no matter how justified you feel you might be in the content dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCU, Inder315 (talk · contribs) = Aslam1234 (talk · contribs) = Mimic2 (talk · contribs) = Nkulkarn (talk · contribs). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Loodog

I'm usually the one here answering concerns, but I was hoping to get a little help with a hostile/uncivil user who's been making a point of treating me as though I am a vandal / troll / disruptive editor, instead of what I am (a long standing contributor). I believe the sequences of events will speak for themselves:

Mainspace at Physical attractiveness:

1. deletes a perfectly well sourced, and in my opinion relevant, piece of information based on an assumption that it "belongs somewhere else" - although it was not moved anywhere
2. I restore the deletion
3. edit war begins
4. edit war ends when I cite the appropriate consensus-building policy
5. I take the initiative to find compromise and moved the content in question into its own section, which was mutually agreeable

Talk at Talk:Physical attractiveness:

1. discussion finally begins on the talk page with a reiteration of his edit summary
2. I address his concerns about how it fits in the section by recommending he move it instead of deleting / edit warring over it
3. decides, unilaterally, that the content has "no place in article"
4. discussion ensues, including sarcasm, a complete misunderstanding of consensus building, and an inappropriate personal sexual remark
5. reiterates unilateral judgement that it "has no place in article"
6. desipte unilateralism, he then files a "motion to ", then an RFC, and then an RfM

1. I repeatedly explain that I am assuming good faith and want to go through the consensus-building process
2. I address his challenge to the agreed-upon move of the content into a new section, a challenge he made to make a point about how I allegedly can also act unilaterally (although since we agreed that it didn't fit the section it was in, my actions were not unilateral)
3. accuses me of "blocking consensus" by not capitulating to his deletion
4. asserts that his opinion is paramount because he has "done lots of work on ", going so far as to label my inclusion (or rather, my opposing deletion) of (at least arguably) relevant content as "adversely affect readability and usability of ikipedia."
5. prompts me to "give it a rest" despite his filing an RfC and leading the conversation directly into a discussion of my intent and apparent negative impact on Misplaced Pages

User talk at User talk:Loodog:

1. personal attack / unfounded "trolling" accusation
2. refusing a mature request to settle the incivility
3. threatening to report me to the ANI for asking him not to make personal attacks / unfounded accusations of trolling
4. polite courtesy notification of this WQA post

Being a regular here, I have probably been a bit too longwinded in laying this all out, but lots of diffs are usually what help me sort through others' complaints and I'm hoping that what I like to see in a WQA post is also what's going to help any of you who want to give your opinion. Thanks in advance. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To third-party mediators, I have no problem with Cheeser and now believe him to be a well-intentioned editor, but since the content issue that started all this has been resolved, I would like nothing more than a divorce. I would like to let any personal issues drop and would appreciate never being contacted again by Cheeser except for content issues on articles.

Cheeser and I are strangers who don't know each other who interact on the internet. We are therefore under no obligation to end things on good terms, especially when efforts to do so have only inflamed the situation. Thank you.--Loodog (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Misplaced Pages is written by consensus, as was made clear. It is a collaborative process that requires you to accept the input of others, graciously at that. You cannot "divorce" someone, nor can you deny your obligation to be civil. Content issues are not the only issues for which one is required to answer. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this all went wrong when the decision was made to restore the deletion rather than discussing it on the talk page at that point. Continuously citing consensus policy while ignoring important supplements to that policy, such as WP:BRD, leads to the heated discussion/debates that occurred above. While incivility (and this word gets thrown about so much, especially by those who engage in ad hominem arguments themselves) has no place in said discussion/debate, it is important in this case to note that two other editors chimed in on the relevant talk page. One even mentioned his impression of Cheeser1's written tone as being "angry" , an impression I agree with.

Many of the summaries of your presented diffs, misstate/oversimplify what actually happened. For example, the "refusing a mature request to settle the incivility" summary on diff number two under Loodog's talk page may have seemed reasonable to you, but when one actually reads your "request for a mature apology" one will note the clear implication of immaturity or childishness on the part of Loodog. That does not help things at all, especially when dealing with an already upset editor. Loodog's statement makes it clear that he is finished with this issue, even if you are not, Cheeser1. At this point it seems as if you just want someone to step in say "You're right, he's wrong."

Disengage, forget about it, and move on to continue being the long standing, positive contributor that you are. I refer to your own words in another Wikiquette alert earlier this month: " contributions and opinions are valued, but so are others' - even if they're wrong, misinformed, or stubborn sometimes." That was good advice and you should probably heed it even if you are on the wrong side of it this time around. When confronted with perceived incivility, simply disengage and allow yourself some time to cool off. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you please explain why I, the user who did not make personal attacks or uncivil comments, needs to cool off? He was hostile, acted against consensus, and labeled me as a troll and blight on Misplaced Pages. My asking him to stop and/or affirm that he won't violate polices/guidelines in the future, when dismissed as a non-issue, that's exactly what this alert board is for. Why does it seem that you are affirming his (false) assertion that he need not take responsibility for the incivility and hostility he has exhibited? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that you've decontextualized what I said: it was directed to the uncivil party, not the complaining party. In fact, it was in reference to digging up months' old blocks in order to discredit someone in an unrelated content dispute. It had/has no bearing whatsoever on the general function of this board: to notify volunteers about civility violations (which have clearly occurred) and seek outside opinion as to how to best handle the offending editor. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SpinyMcSpleen

This user continues to add judgmental tones in edit summaries and is biting other users. Apparently has no desire to assume good faith. He is apparently trying to edit war over mutliple articles with users he does agree with reverting other's edits as "rubbish" and telling others to "get a life" . He has placed a message on his talk page specifically asking other users not to post any messages there unless they are an administrator . --Nn123645 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He appears to be quite terse, however I wouldn't jump to conclusions about malevolence or hostility - he does appear to be tidying and fixing things up in an attempt to contribute positively. As for his talk page, he cannot decide who posts there, however he can choose to ignore comments by anyone who isn't an administrator (at his own peril, perhaps). I have left a brief note. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I did add a note before. However he removed it and added this comment. I assume by Mr. N he is referring to me, which is why I came here. --Nn123645 (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Depending on his response, further action may be a good idea. I think we should wait and see if he responds here and/or at his talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he responded by blanking the page and leaving another comment. --Nn123645 (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Since he requested that only admins contact him, I left a message on his talk page. He hasn't blanked that one yet. But keep in mind that users ARE allowed to blank their own talk pages, and doing so can be taken as a sign that they've read and understand whatever it is they deleted. I would advise not bothering him further - it's his choice if he wants to respond here or not, but if aberrant behavior continues, you can feel free to take further steps in the dispute resolution process. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist

This editor has engaged in a pattern of uncivil behavior and personal attacks. diff diff diff diff Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• While I might caution User:ScienceApologist to consider how his typed words might be interpreted, that is that it might be possible for them to be interpreted as being judgmental of the editor vs. the material, I do not really see a blatant personal attack here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks, only perhaps an attack on pseudoscience. His tone is perhaps insistent or frustrated, but not uncivil as I read it. Are there any personal remarks or more incivil comments you could direct us to? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought calling someone a disruptive agenda-driven editor, to cite one of the examples I've already given, (also seen here), would qualify as a personal attack, but that's just my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that calling someone a disruptive agenda-driven editor would more than qualify as a personal attack. But I followed your old links and your new ones, and I am not seeing that in the difs. I am seeing disagreement, and I am seeing some words that could be seen as judgmental. That's wrong, and I have cautioned the editor about that. This editor does need to be more careful in how he uses his words, and I left what I hoped to be a positively worded caution to him on his Talk Page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to find that in the diff I provided, just search for the word 'disruptive' and you'll find his reply to Anthon01's RfC comment, where he says: "I don't trust disruptive agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer." Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Whenever I loaded the page, I only saw the difs that were near the top of the page .... I never saw the ones lower down. My apologies. Still, I don't see this as a personal attack. The strongest word here may have been the "wikilawyer" comment, but I am not sure that this was directed at any particular editor. Nonetheless, this seems to be covered under "petty" issues on WP"CIVIL. I feel like I am dominating the conversation here, and would like to make sure that if this is a more severe issue than I am seeing that someone will say something. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you've lost me. Just above you said that "calling someone a disruptive agenda-driven editor would more than qualify as a personal attack". Now you say "I don't see this as a personal attack.". I'm out of energy for this conversation for now. Dlabtot (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He gives the identical reply to perfectblue in the same edit. I see now, and I suppose it should be noted, the he is under an ArbCom restriction for previous incivility. But if you placed a caution, perhaps that will suffice. Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if rather than cautioning him, you cheered his behavior, it's possible you've done more harm than good. Dlabtot (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now Dlabtot, I think you are the one who may be implying bad faith. I cautioned him about his use of language, as I mentioned to him that this needed to be addressed. After reading what he was editing about, I supported his editing, not his use of language. The issue here is a lack of civility (which I don't support), not the content of his editing (which, frankly, I do upon reflection). In short, Science Apologist may have been right, but that is not an excuse for using the language he did.

As for your other accusation here, you seemed to imply that you or another editor were called a disruptive agenda driven editor. Those certainly were the words used. I think there is a difference between someone in frustration making a statement about "editors in general", and making a direct statement toward a specific editor(s). I am seeing more the latter. It still isn't the preferred response, and I have left a note as such.

I've already shown you where he specifically directed that comment at perfectblue and Anthon01. I can only present the evidence; it's up to you to acknowledge it. Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, I do find that it helps to avoid confrontation when trying to offer correction, which is why I left the note that I did (which you linked to). I find that opening these debates with stern warnings and lectures tend to not have the desired effect in most cases. I in no way encouraged this user to continue incivility. My encouragement was to continue editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is moot; the issues I've raised here are being evaluated at Arbitration Enforcement, and they will be resolved there. Since ScienceApologist was under ArbCom restrictions for prior incivility, I should have posted there in the first place, not here, so I'm placing the NWQA tag on this section. Thank you for your efforts. Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it depends on context, and I'm having trouble contextualizing it - not to mention it's hard to pick through one diff that contains several comments (sorry for not seeing them all). I would echo the concerns that the tone may not be as good as possible, but that I'm not sure there's any systematic incivility (nor any blatant or acute instances). --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems the matter has been taken up elsewhere. I think this alert was unnecessary. Dlabtot (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after coming back to this after the initial discussion, and seeing the other restrictions, I think the borderline problems, which aren't normally an etiquette concern, are worth taking up based on this previous ruling, but of course not here but at that new discussion. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:D.brodale

D.brodale has made what I consider condescending remarks in the discussion of articles as well as on my talk page. I think he should be informed that this sort of behavior is not accepted on Misplaced Pages. Users don't have to put up with this. The article in question is Rogeulike, as well as comments on his and my talk page. SharkD (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs to show this? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff is the glaring example I see.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'll stand by those words. To date, the unsolicited remarks in question from SharkD remain irrelevant and untimely. As I pointed out on his Talk page, it's nice and all to drop warning on users' Talk pages, but it's all the better when relevance and context are supplied. Both are still lacking, though it all seems moot now that my response has landed here, somehow dragging behind it a past, unrelated discussion of edits. D. Brodale (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why didn't you simply request clarification instead of making rude comments on my talk page? SharkD (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to fan the flames any higher, but I don't see how either my initial or follow-up remarks on your Talk page could be construed as rude. There may be a touch of smugness, though. I have requested clarification a number of times, and have yet to receive it. As per above, I suspect it's moot. It is, as far as I'm concerned. D. Brodale (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above insults that Jeff G. linked to, D.brodale has engaged in generally condescending behavior in the Roguelike article. I can't really point out specific things; it's the general tone of the remarks that I don't like (you kind of have to read the whole thing to get the gist, here). He exaggerates points to make them seem more strong. SharkD (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of minimizing any bad feelings against me, I should probably stay out. It would probably make my edits easier. But I have observed these editors to some extent. This was clearly just another edit war from two strong personalities. Both of them have acted in good faith in making their edits, even if they were both strong-headed. But for one person to accuse the other of disruptive behavior is itself an act of bad faith. This very "wikiquette alert" to one user is itself motivated by incivility from the other. From what I've observed from both editors, resolving this conflict must be a two-way street. A lot of this conflict stems from a misunderstanding of the use (and misuse) of references and research. Randomran (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I think you are mischaracterizing me as strong-headed. In Roguelike I simply made my points regarding my edits and was responded to with denigration. I don't see how I was in any way patronizing. Secondly, I don't see how we were involved in an edit war. After the second revert I posted to the talk page in order to discuss the issue and discontinued the discussion when I felt it got too "hot". SharkD (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SharkD has now mischaracterized my efforts to improve the Artillery Duel article. I am concerned he is trying to do the same thing to me that he is doing to D.brodale. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Artillery_Duel for the misstatement by SharkD and my response. Randomran (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the only insult that I can see is the one Jeff G. linked to. The rest might just be a mountain out of a anthill,but I don't know. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeff G.

I believe this user is stalking me. Seem's to have an axe to grind. The attention is kind of flattering, but to put it succinctly: Don't taze stalk me, Bro! 99.247.120.178 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. I see no stalking going on, although you've recklessly removed a few prod templates without cause, and he reverted a couple of them because (frankly) you need at least a reason to remove a prod on something as silly as Jupiter Station, which clearly is not a suitable article topic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To name a few:

it pains me 99.247.120.178 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits (e.g. this one or this one) are vandalism. Reporting you for it is not inappropriate, and if you make more than one such edit, a single editor may find more than one and report them both - it is not "stalking." If you are willing to take the time to make this report, I hope you could invest the time in becoming a constructive contributor to Wikipeida. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Alientraveller

This editor has taken over the Bond 22 article, even when a relevant cite is given or multiple editors make changes. He believes his word is law, check editing history etc. (Example: He believes an early interview is fact, when edited to give example where the example states that changes may be made he says that its a plan and can not change, this is incorrect. multiple editors changed this, also, when given a recent change with a credible source he changed it back again - did not pursue in case of banned for "edit warring" - cite source used before) etc. 217.42.137.69 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to remove some citations, such as this by claiming they are a spoiler, but I don't see it as being that large of an issue. Another editor reverted the missing citation. Even if it is an early interview, if it was published and can be verified with a credible source, then it can be included. Note that WP no longer has a spoiler template, per a TfD decision -- an no current fiction template either.

Per WP:SW, it is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. I believe that about sums it up. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. Taken over the article? Pfff. Alientraveller (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lobojo

This user seems to be very angry at my suggestion that a certain source is unreliable. I have objected to using Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict because it is a non-scholarly work published by AIPAC and criticized for lacking footnotes and a bibliography. He has responded that I am "suggesting that we reject a source since they are zionist or neoconservative" and that "This is a disgusting and nauesating suggestion," "This suggestion is simply obscene," and "This is an obscene suggestion that would seem antisemitic if it were ever put into effect." See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. <eleland/talkedits> 04:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the civility issue. If you can't settle the issue of the reliability of the source between you, perhaps an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The choice of words is not the best and I would recommend User:Lobojo tone it down but it seems essentially a content dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot, though I would extend caution to Lobojo and Elland. This seems to be a content dispute, and I think both sides got a little heated. Deep breath, read the points of the other person. Find a point of agreement before resuming your respective stances. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice

I've tried everything possible to be as civil and friendly with IronAngelAlice as I possibly could. I've tried every possible resolution that I could think of to work with rather than against her/him on articles here at wikipedia. I even went so far as to award the half-barnstar, barnstar, in hopes that we could cooperate together on an article and come to consensus and understanding. User_talk:IronAngelAlice#Barnstar.

For those who are not aware, I previously posted problems with this same user on the ANI page, not knowing that I skipped steps in the dispute resolution process. This was a mistake that I made, but editors there noted and explained the steps in the Dispute Process to me, and I thought that the matter between IAA and myself were resolved, and I declared the matter closed on the page. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=180575112) If you look at the work that I tried to do with IronAngelAlice after this, you will see nothing short of utmost Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith edits.

Today, on the Talk:Fetus#Drawings_unintentional_POV IronAngelAlice is continuing with personal attacks on myself, assuming Bad-Faith on my part, and purposely mischaracterizing my edits to the David Reardon page. Additionally, the user is accusing another of "canvassing" myself, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Additionally, I must insist that none of my edits were to the David Reardon page were "disruptive" or "POV". For this user to mis-characterize my actions and expand any content dispute that we have to other pages breaches wikiquette. Specifically, the user is engaging in personal attacks and assuming Bad Faith where there is none Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith . It is my understanding that this notice board is a lower level phase of the dispute resolution process, and my complaint should go here, rather than at the ANI page. I really want to work with the user rather than against them, but I feel that outside intervention is now called for. I ask that I get assistance here. I wish to resolve whatever issue exists between IAA and myself and not have this blow up any further. I've gone out of my way to follow policy and resolve our differences, but I fear that I have been unsuccessful and that it's time for help. That's what I am asking for here. Help. Thanks in advance. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I'll throw this out for consideration here:

1. User_talk:IronAngelAlice, I think that I understand why you are taking the stance that you are, but as an outsider, it seems like you came on a bit strong in your post, rather blatantly accusing of POV pushing. Personally, I wouldn't have opened with that. Go back and take a look at what you wrote, and just think about another way to word this without changing what you feel or think.

2. I think that User:Orangemarlin took a good approach: let the pictures stay until something more "real" can be found. I agree that in scientific depictions, artistry is often times not a substitute for photography (or similar).

3. Ghostmonkey57, could you explain why the particular pictures are so important? Would you be willing to see them replace if a more "real" photograph/sonogram, etc could be found? LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely ok with replacing the drawings with sonograms. I firmly believe that if we take that route, we should use the most up to date medical technology and use 3D/4D sonograms rather than the outdated 2D sonograms. My reasons for this are simple.

1. 3D/4D sonograms constitute the latest in medical technology. 2. 2D sonograms are very difficult for a lay person to read/understand. 3. 3D/4D sonograms are much easier for a lay person to read/understand.

I mentioned this in the talk page further up, but the consensus seemed to be heading toward keeping the drawings. Which I have no problem with either. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

To be clear, the wikiquette alert extends much further than the Talk:Fetus comment. I am not the only wikipedia editor to have these problems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=172875647 Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

And it continues. Now IAA is referring to my requests for help and dispute resolution as "bullying" User_talk:IronAngelAlice#Wikiquette_Alert. This really has gone to far, and the personal attacks and assaults on my character are hurtful and beyond the pale. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Yes, I do feel bullied. When we have substantive content disagreements, GM makes it a point to create a Wikialert for me. It is becoming tiresome.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This wikialert was made only after the personal attacks and mischaracterization of my edits. Out of the blue, for no reason and with no evidence, IAA accused me of participating in "Canvassing" with Ferrylodge, then accused me of "POV" and "Disruptive" edits to the David Reardon page. All of this was after I made repeated steps to get along with and work with IAA. Further, this is only the 2nd wikialert that I have ever generated on wikipedia. The first was with the same user on the ANI page, and I *Thought* we had resolved any conflict between us. IAA apparently decided that the conflict was not resolved, and chose to mischaracterize my edits and engage in baseless and hurtful accusations against myself. As I stated, I am not the first user on wikipedia to have experienced this behavior. Some users have even been driven away by it. (See:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Andrew_c#For_the_record) I would like nothing better than to completely resolve any issue that remains between IAA and myself. I've extended the hand of friendship on more than one occasion. I'll extend it once again, but I'd be a fool to continually have that hand slapped away and be spit on by the user. IAA I offer to end this once and for all, but you need to agree to do so. You're accusations were hurtful and misrepresented me, but I offer to forgive and forget if you are willing. The ball is in your court. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I've read what I can through this messy dispute, and I see nothing meriting a complaint on this board. Alice has been very clear in her intention to improve the quality of images in the article, unless I've missed something. Jumping to an alert board every time there's a disagreement could be construed as "bullying" or at least as inappropriate, especially when this board is about civility, and Alice seems to be well-intentioned and civil. She appears to be dealing with other administrative complaints (although there seem to be problems on all sides), but I think this report was unneeded. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Cheeser1 to an extent. I think I understand the mutual frustration that comes from trying to edit what might be among the more contentious articles on this entire site. While I still feel that User talk:IronAngelAlice may have comes across a little strong with some accusations (I think there were other ways this could have been said and still saying what you meant), I am concerned that this forum is being used as an attempt to cut through edit problems (versus civility issues -- which as I noted, are mild at best). LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, LonelyBeacon, I feel that something has been missed in my complaint. This isn't about the Fetus article at all. There is no content dispute. As I said on the talk page, I am ok with the images being replaced with sonograms, and I am ok with the images staying. Either way I don't care. So the content dispute is out the window. I am referring to IAA mischaracterizing my edits, claiming that I was participating in canvassing, and accusing me of POV. All of these accusations were brought from the David Reardon page to the Fetus page. All of these things are assumptions and accusations of bad-faith. Again, The dispute between us is NOT about a content dispute. I believe that IAA has issues with me that I want to resolve, I've tried everything that I know of to do so.

Accusing me of "bullying" calling my edits "illogical" Talk:David_Reardon#Pacific_Western_University I certainly can. Chris Mooney already published it. Why are you doing this? It's completely illogical.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Accusing me of "POV", Accusing me of participating in "Canvassing", all of these things are un-civil.

To show you how adamant I am about ending this dispute, I'll even agree to quit editing the Fetus and David Reardon articles if that would make peace. However, I feel that even that wouldn't be enough and IAA would continue to bring our dispute to other pages. I've offered to her several times to end the dispute, if she won't do so, where am I supposed to go for help?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Like the instructions for this page say, you have to show us the incivility. You haven't provided diffs that demonstrate such false accusations (assuming they are false - don't forget, you do have a POV, we all do). There's enough administrative action going on here I don't know what to suggest next. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution