Revision as of 18:32, 1 February 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

Discussion with uncivil user on Talk:Unidentified_flying_object

LightAnkhC|MSG 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm currently having a problem with Jlray and this user's comments on Talk:Unidentified_flying_object. His comments create an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. He's commenting in a very hostile and uncivil manner and it seems that he does not assume good faith. His first uncivil comments were posted here. I then told him about it, but he did not cease to comment in a uncivil manner. (See here and here).

Hopefully somebody can help out, so I can continue the discussion (of course him beeing a bit more polite :-) )

LightAnkhC|MSG 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To others, it is easier to see the problems by looking at this diff where they were removed. I have left a stern warning on the user's talkpage. If he continues to post uncivil remarks, let us know. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, I'll let you know. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Seems like he still does not assume good faith and is still very impolite on the article's talk page. diff Comments such as You are both trying to dodge the facts of the matter. or Neither of you have addressed the long list of glaring errors and possibly deliberate misrepresentations of facts that pollute this article and prevent it from being informative in any meaningful way. To the contrary, some here seem actively interested in discouraging anyone from noticing the fact that this article, on an important subject that needs to be covered, is a paranormalist's sick joke and little more. Are not what I'd call civil and assuming good faith. It creates a hostile atmosphere. I will not post another warning on the user's talk page (although it would probably be appropriate), because I could have a conflict of interest; since I'm already involved. I think I need a little bit help here :-)LightAnkhC|MSG 16:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Well, nothing has changed: Now users are beeing accused of insulting him and changing his arguments diff. Where's the good faith here? It's really frustrating. Any advice? LightAnkhC|MSG 09:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

It looks like I need to explain what exactly LightAnkh is talking about here, because she isn't fairly representing the case. I invite everyone to take a look not just at my comments but at all the available comments on the UFO discussion page (bear with me because I'm still trying to figure out all the Wikiepdia HTML hotkeys). It is abundantly clear that the UFO article needs massive editing and, contrary to the accusations leveled against me and my brother (who also took part in the discussion), we specifically refrained from immediately setting about touching up the article because we wanted to get the consensus of everyone interested. Imagine my surprise when, because of this, I was accused of being a "sock puppet" and was accused of trying to distort the facts of the UFO phenomenon, an especially infuriating accusation given the glaring bias of the article as is. I am not being "uncivil," I am just very disappointed that an attempt to achieve intellectual consensus on an article that needs to be saved has been warped into a series of baseless personal attacks against me.

Jlray (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

• Personal attacks against you? Sorry, but you are the one who's making uncivil comments on the article's talk page and does not assume good faith. Nobody was uncivil against you. Filing a case on WP:SSP (see your closed case here) is not a personal attack. I will address all comments concerning the article on its talk page. I hope we can continue the discussion in a civil manner now.

• To the others, please don't close the discussion yet. Just in case :-) LightAnkhC|MSG 15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jlray, the sockpuppet accusations against you were absolutely warranted. Your behavior has been uncivil and inappropriate. Rather than cop to it, you keep referring to these sockpuppet accusations and the state of the UFO article, as if that excuses your behavior. It doesn't. You were accused of sockpuppetry because both you and your brother use the same computer, on different accounts, and make hostile, inappropriate comments of the exact same nature on the exact same pages. And that's taking your word for it. Such a situation obviously merits an SSP complaint, which was made appropriately and in good faith. You need to drop whatever resentment you have about that, clean up your act, and move on. Stop making personal commentary, stop being hostile, and contribute constructively. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, neither of those have any bearing on how the discussion has gone on that page. I happily invite anyone actually interested in looking past the smear here and look at the attitude of the majority of the editors on the UFO page. I am not defending my past behavior as this person is also incorrectly insinuating here, I am trying to explain it. I consider it a courtesy to put up with accusations of this manner that have absolutely no merit of any kind and are utterly baseless, as the record will show. You are free to stew up further rumors and false accusations as you like; I, however, feel more inclined to dodge the mudslinging and endeavor to fulfill my stated aim of being a good Misplaced Pages editor and try to improve that article. You guys have more important things to do than make up new reasons to insult me, and I have better things to do than pretend that they are relevant. Jlray (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

Jlray, your efforts to improve the UFO article are much appreciated. However you have made one mistake as far as Wikiquette is concerned. Admit it and move on. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand: this is an unacceptable comment. Filing a WQA report, SSP report, etc - when merited (which in this case, they were) - is not an "insult." Asking you to contribute constructively and civilly is not an "insult." Continuing to ignore WP:CIVIL (which is a policy, and policy is not optional) may result in more serious, administrative action against you. I strongly suggest you reconsider your rejection of such policies and your unwillingness to discuss your conduct. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:WebHamster

WebHamster (talk · contribs)

• -- personal attack/incivility

• -- user created new MfD nomination in blatant violation of WP:POINT

• -- personal attack/incivility/just plain inappropriate remark at MfD

• -- personal attack on the user's opponents at the MfD.

• -- blatant bad-faith assumption and personal attack

• -- user's refusal to assume good faith

• -- this was a response to my warning the user about WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.

• -- another response to AGF/civility warning, after I took the matter to the user's talk page.

• -- latest inappropriate comment, at RfC

As you can see, I attempted to warn User:WebHamster about violating AGF/CIVIL/NPA, but he only became more belligerent when I did. I think this warrants a polite yet stern warning to the user, imparting to him that his comments are indeed in violation of policy and inappropriate, and that he should try harder to keep a cool head. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:44, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I've looked a bit; seems two things: first, yes, WebHamster seems underdeveloped in terms of wiki-civility; but second, the battleground seems to be inherently contentious, so people with little or no experience with wiki will feel motivated to fight for their PoV. Tough job to mediate. Pete St.John (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree that it's a battleground type environment. Nevertheless this particular user's comments seem more uncivil than others. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:07, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I civily and tactly asked Webhamster to refrain from incivil comments directed at other users. This was his response. It speaks for itself: . If he is reticent to communicate civily with other users, then action may need to be taken. What is the opinion of the WQA regulars on this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note at his talk page. I don't think I qualify as a regular here; if he's persistent then you'd probably have to go for an ANI. But he seems at least rational and voluble, if not obsequious, so maybe patience will pay off. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably say ANI too, recent edits made to this MFD concern me. Rudget. 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to split hairs or anything, but most of the diffs that you've labeled "personal attacks" are more just general incivility and not directly targeted at the person(s) to whom he is replying. There are one or two that, regrettably, are evidently personal attacks, but there are others that seem to be a misinterpretation of harsh, misdirected rhetoric or even of an honest question. Even the incivility is mild for the most part, given the contentiousness of the issue (not that that's any excuse). It doesn't seem that this user has a long history of abusive behavior (though it appears he's had to be straightened out on a few policies here and there, but who hasn't?), so it's likely that he just got sucked into an argument that pushed some wrong buttons. Needless to say, I've seen much worse. The user has been warned and it would probably be best for all involved to just let this one rest if at all possible. There's no need to further heat up the already contentious issue that's being discussed at the relevant RfC. However, I have noticed that WebHamster hasn't been notified of this discussion, so I think it's only fair that he be made aware of it. I will recommend to him that he take some time to cool off. _{(Freaking edit conflicts...)} However, if this pattern of behavior continues beyond this particular issue, I endorse further action. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an extra note, I kept getting edit conflicts as I was trying to post this, so as the discussion progressed, some of what I said became slightly irrelevant. Nonetheless, I've had more good experiences than bad with WebHamster, so I'm inclined to think that he's probably getting a little too impassioned over this particular issue. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I tried a plea at ANI for a warning about the general situation (WP:AN/I#Repeated incivility by User:WebHamster), but was met with a response that implied that I had been acting the same way -- which I don't see, although I admit I can't be considered an objective party here (although I still appreciate Jay's initial warning). Equazcion •✗/C • 22:12, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, you're rushing. You only just posted this Wikiquette item today, right? and we only several minutes ago put notification on his talk page? Wiki does not move that fast. He may not log on until tomorrow...or next week. Please continue your patience. Pete St.John (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No no, I posted at ANI first, and then was directed here. :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

OK that makes sense, my mistake, but your "I tried a plea at ANI..." above could have been phrased better ("I had tried a plea...") and you should have referenced that item at the top in introducing this one, IMO. I'm sympathetic with the problem of picking between Wikiquette, which seems generally too little, and ANI, which seems often too much. But anyway fine, we'll wait for his response and maybe everything will chill nicely. But wow, that's a contentious userbox you guys have going there. Pete St.John (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I had pretty much just copied and pasted the same dealy here, removing the stuff about asking for an admin to do the warning. You're right though, I should've prefaced with that. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:28, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Please see my latest comments at User talk:WebHamster#break. He doesn't seem to be interested in commenting here at WQA though. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:44, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

It was recommended that mediation be tried here rather than coming straight to ANI. Admins are reluctant to block unless it is shown that the user is reticent to change their behavior, and WQA remediation would at least show that other users involved had tried to correct problematic behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

← I understand that, and I don't dispute it. I'm just not sure where to go from here. The user doesn't seem to be willing to change whatsoever. See the latest: . Equazcion •✗/C • 15:24, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What can you realistically expect from an editor who has been forced by a couple of others with an extreme POV into defending, on general grounds, the right to state the opposite extreme POV that he doesn't even support? Denying one's own political convictions for a higher purpose can make one a bit edgy. — WebHamster has stated that you are referring some of his remarks to yourself that were not intended for you, and your latest clash is related to this. When you said "I have no idea what your point is" you referred to WebHamster's reply to you. But this reply started with "(ec)", which I would suggest is an abbreviation for "edit conflict" and means that WebHamster spent a lot of time thinking about this reply to Phoenix-wiki, and so even though it was posted after your reply it does not refer to it. If you reread WebHamster's post with this knowledge I am sure it will make sense to you. Now if we suppose that (at least initially) it never occurred to him that you misunderstood who he was referring to, then your reply must have looked to him like real or pretended stupidity, distracting from an important point. — Such escalations will always happen; we can only try to follow certain rules to make them less likely. If you want WebHamster to learn something from this conflict, as opposed to "winning", I suggest that you stop contacting him directly on his talk page and give Pete's informal mediation attempt a chance to work. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about the edit conflict. I didn't notice that. But still, what we can realistically expect is civility. It's true that some harsh responses can occur initially due to the edginess of the debate, but that has to stop at some point. The incivility has continued long after the fact. This isn't a "clash" between me and this user. WebHamster has acted in bad faith and incivility towards myself and others, and has consistently lashed out at anyone who attempts to discuss his behavior, including an admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:52, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think that's very good advice. Continuing the discussion on WebHamster's talk page is only likely to be inflammatory. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's my belief that this WQA is absurd, and further evidence of the precious unworldliness of too many editors who hide behind the banner of WP:CIVIL without understanding what civility either means or entails. Sure, I'd agree that WebHamster's language was at times a little colourful, and perhaps not always as diplomatic as it might have been, but to unilaterally attempt put the blame on him for the – probably avoidable – escalation of the argument is to show a staggering lack of self-perception. I would rather have a hundred WebHamsters, not afraid to call a spade a spade, than one who goes crying to WP:WQA when their thin skin gets a little scratch. Civility does not demand agreement, and it does not preclude robust debate, which is all I think this was. Civility demands respect, but respect can't be demanded, it has to be earned. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave most of this alone, but if you check my final comments at User talk:WebHamster, I explain there my motivation for posting this WQA. And, civility to a certain degree is respect, and doesn't need to be earned. That's the policy here. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:59, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I had already seen your final comment on what I hope will be, at least for the time being, your last posting on WebHamster's talk page (see my comment above). It is in fact what drew my attention to this discussion. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with your analysis. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that seems apparent. I was directing you there only in response to your contention that I've made this WQA posting out of hurt feelings. My intent is explained there. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:25, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I would like to report a very serious breach of etiquette by this user that included a clear example of bully and the use profanity.

The individual flagged a topic within 9 minutes of my creating it. Frankly, it is a highly specialised topic of which I am sure he has no knowledge whatsoever,

I flagged up that I was present and working on the topic, I was involved in its techincalities and linking it to other specialist pages and portals.

Despite this, and whilst communicating with other contributors, WebHamster started to engage in what I can only describe as a thuggish, pedantic and hectoring edit-war against myself and another editor ... whilst I attempted to develop the page.

Additionally, he immediately turned to aggressive profanity in discussion on the matter "starting to piss me off" when finally cautioned by a third party.

The Misplaced Pages needs to look such behaviour and decide when it considers such behaviour conducive to the development of an educational facility, especially where very specialist topic are involved that were, frankly, well over the heads of aggressors. Especially those aggressors that are allowed or choose to administrative tools.

I think in this case a caution is required. This is not behaviour that would be tolerable in an academic environment. I see he also repeated himself the same day with another deletion case . Thank you. The user name no efforts at courteous communication whatsoever in the first place. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have crossed swords with Webhamster today but I certainly don't interpret his behaviour towards me, or towards anyone else in any of the above links, to be any more than robust argument - certainly nothing to go running off to teacher about. Let's all try not to be so sensitive. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And continues to harass with the same aggressive profanity following the discover of my comments here, . --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Hoffman

Could someone take the time to introduce the editors contributing to Talk:Steve Hoffman to our basic policies and guidelines regarding how to conduct themselves in article talk pages, as well as the purpose of article talk pages? A new discussion on the article talk page should be enough. Most are new editors and WP:SPAs. A number of editors, including myself, have tried to assist with the disputes there. Part of the problem is that most, if not all, of these new editors contribute regularly to forums where similar discussions have taken place. Simply put, they are treating this article talk page as if it were a continuation of their forum. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Irishlass0128

Could someone please look into this users actions on the following site

Yes, please do, look into the discussion, you'll see I've been trying to keep the peace. I did, indeed, question someone who came in and immediately claimed to be a former admin. As is indicated on the page, I was under the, now apparently misguided, impression that it was okay to move discussions to a different place. CARS, is upset that I doubt he is a former admin. He claims I'm calling in other admins, I did. I did because he said he was so I believed that to be an open invitation for me to ask others to look at the situation. Although I certainly wasn't too busy calling in admins, that took just a few minutes. Why did I call them, because assuming good faith only goes so far. Asking people to assume a new editor is a former admin goes too far. I asked other admins, what I believed his former brotherhood, to look into the claim after Cars said that is what he was going to do. Not a case of "two wrongs" just a thought process that it must be okay since he was doing it. But I only asked they look into the claim of former admin, nothing more. The full situation is, two brand new editors have come in and started problems, one with immediate disruptive edits and the other claiming to be an admin. So, yes, look into the situation. I've only tried to help and up until I questioned Cars, he said I had been. IrishLass (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been addressed by Admin. User:MangoJuice. The discussion is still opened. However the discussion is finally moving in the right direction now that someone stepped in. Rather the user is blocked or not, is up to admins. In Best Regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not an administrative notice board. If you want admin attention, see the WP:ANI. Please do not presume that others are acting in bad faith, when they are simply following the manual of style, the community accepted guidelines for how our articles are written. I see no evidence of incivility or personal attacks, only a content/style dispute. If this has been overlooked, please provide diffs, like the instructions for this noticeboard ask. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG

A couple of extremely uncivil and unjustified remarks directed toward me: I don't know if any action is warranted, but I would like to submit this here just for the record. -- Levine2112 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a matter to take up at the arbitration enforcement discussion in progress. Don't try to fork or forum-shop the discussion here. It's a part of the ongoing discussion there and should be handled there. It appears that your behavior is open for discussion in that matter, as you are a party to what is happening there. I will not comment on the nature of JzG's remarks because I do not have the time to contextualize them properly. Also, there is no need for you to put anything "on the record." This is not a court of law. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arb Enforcement discussion has nothing to do with the incivility JzG laid upon me. It has nothing to do with JzG at all. He piped in to defend the editor whom the Arb Enforcement is about and in doing so personally attacked me. To my understanding, Arb Enforcement would be the wrong forum to pursue a behavioral issue such as this. Wikiquette alerts is - to my understanding - the correct forum. -- Levine2112 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you bring up an issue on an administrative alert board, your behavior is also just as much under examination. JzG's comments may seem hostile, but you made a complaint and you can't pretend that you're an uninvolved party or that you couldn't possibly have anything to do with the problem at hand. I'm in no place to decide if he's right or wrong in his assessment of the situation, but he's an admin responding at the arb enforcement board. You simply cannot say "The Arb Enforcement discussion had nothing to do with ," because it did. He is in the position to evaluate your behavior, and your opinion of whether or not he was too harsh is clearly not objective. Whether or not his comments were appropriate must be considered within the context of the ongoing Arb Enf complaint, and considering it was on a page that is presumably monitored by hundreds of admins, I can't imagine someone wouldn't have spoken up if it wasn't out of line. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

refactored: I happened to notice a comment that I feel is prejudiced and uncivil, this user describes another user as being "batshit insane", as someone who lost someone to mental illness, and working in the mental health field, I strongly feel that this is inappropriate terminology (sort of like calling a black person by the n word.) I have noticed upon checking out this user's history that he frequently uses this kind of language towards other users. What can be done about this?: (near the end of the page). If this is the wrong place, where can it be reported?Jonathanwins (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement by Jonathanwins is a lie. This is banned vandal, Tweety21 (talk · contribs), forum shopping. Revert, block, ignore. This particular vandal is a particularly tiresome troll and knows she is not welcome here. --Yamla (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:AuburnPilot

Fished for unreliable sources, in violation of WP:GOOGLE and refuses to work towards consensus.

On Theistic rationalism, I removed the unreliable sources and replaced them with fact tags, and noted in the AfD discussion as to why I did that.

Auburn reverted my changes and responded (on the AfD discussion), "I'm not going to read through everything you've written above, but I have read the sources and I haven't misquoted anything."

If he's not going to at least read my assertions, we can't work towards consensus, can we? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time responding to Zenwhat's continued unfounded accusations against me. Ever since I blocked him for violating the three revert rule, he has accused me of being everything from a POV pusher on articles I've never edited, to a single purpose account. He has no understanding of our basic policies, and demonstrates this through his continued misapplication of policy and bad faith accusations. Zenwhat is quickly wearing thin the patience of this community. - auburnpilot talk 05:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs where this user violated either civility or personal attack policies? People often skim or skip parts of discussions that they needn't address. This is not a breach of WP:CONS (which is not generally something this alert board deals with). --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Auburn: My past actions are irrelevant. I have demonstrated ignorance of policy in the past and it has unfortunately made me look like an imbecile (particularly my repeated assertions that certain users were admins when they weren't! File:Blush.png). Despite that, what's relevant here is the actual facts involved in this case, not attacks on my character.

Cheese: WP:Etiquette says that part of etiquette is working towards consensus. I thought this would be appropriate since if an editor is willing to revert but not read the justification for why that edit was made, consensus is impossible. I'd considered sending Auburn a message on his\her talkpage, but if he's not going to read my posting on the talkpage, would that do any good? Doubtful. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see some diffs as well. I've asked Zenwhat on more than one occasion to present diffs to back up his assertions, but I'm still waiting. I've never attacked Zenwhat, and you'll never see him provide a diff proving otherwise. - auburnpilot talk 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is true, but standard content disputes, sourcing disputes, etc are not handled here. Saying "I'm not going to read all of that" is not, by any stretch of my imagination, incivility. Perhaps I have a limited imagination, but I'm just not seeing it here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1, if you could please move this to where this dispute should be handled or let me know where I should go, I would appreciate it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is an issue about what sources are allowed or not, the WP:RSN might be a good place to start if you intend on escalating this dispute. However, the talk page of the article is generally where these issues are discussed. And please keep in mind that you should be assuming good faith on AuburnPilot's part. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Escalating"? That sounds like something a person would do in bad faith. You mean going to the next step in dispute resolution, right? BTW, I didn't know they had a noticeboard for that, so thanks! I'm sorry to waste your time with unnecessary postings like this. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Escalating is when you go from one part of a resolution process to the next one. You know, as in "escalate" - to go up (think of it like stairs). It's the correct word, pretty much standard. Don't worry about wasting people's time - if I had better things to do, I would be doing them (or you know, at least rationalizing them away before coming on Wiki). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathanwins (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)I happened to notice a comment that I feel is prejudiced and uncivil, this user describes another user as being "batshit insane", as someone who lost someone to mental illness, and working in the mental health field, I strongly feel that this is inappropriate terminology (sort of like calling a black person by the n word.) I have noticed upon checking out this user's history that he frequently uses this kind of language towards other users. What can be done about this?: (near the end of the page). If this is the wrong place, where can it be reported?Jonathanwins (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cheeser1 (2)

Though he/she is a volunteer here, this person Cheeser1, in responding to a civility complaint against me, accused me of something I did not do and refuses to retract it. He/she is being extremely prejudiced and I need another editor to review the comments on my talk page (talk). I agreed to the civility charge, but there is a larger issue here. I cannot let this accusation stand that I actually threatened someone when I did not. I am disturbed that he/she showed interest at all in my point of view. Neil Raden (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* What is with it with people and filing frivolous complaints against people responding to a WQA? Asking you to keep your behavior in line is not a personal attack. If you are concerned because your behavior on Misplaced Pages is causing you problems in real life, you have three options: stop using your real name on Misplaced Pages, stop wishing other people harm and being otherwise uncivil, or stop contributing to Misplaced Pages (especially since all you do here is comment on an article about your wife's medical protocol). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Totally outside editor, looking at this for the first time. The original complaint that was made about you ("you" meaning Neil, not Cheeser!) was about a post on someone's Talk Page that included the phrase "But if he can't turn their hearts, he should turn their ankles so we can recognize them by their limp." You then went on to tell the editor to "soak her ankle." It was part of a parable, yes, but that's not exactly a warm and fuzzy sentiment, is it? You also posted it on the Talk Page of an editor with whom you apparently have a longterm adversarial relationship, both on and off Wiki, so it's not at all surprising that it was taken as a threat or a wish for harm. Frankly, if someone who wasn't a friend left a message of that nature on my Talk Page, I'd take it as harassment and a threat, just s Dev did.

Whether or not you see it as a joke, making any sort of threat of bodily harm is unacceptable on Wiki. Cheeser1 did nothing wrong by warning you about it, and your complaint here really is frivolous. DanielEng (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt, I think Cheeser1 did step a bit out of line in responding to Neil. It's not to the point that I think any serious harm was done, but I can see how his directness (paraphrase: "Go elsewhere, because this is totally unacceptable") could inflame more than help. I'll leave a note on his Talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use quotation marks if you are not quoting me. Not only is that statement, as far as I'm concerned, totally misrepresentative, it is not a quotation at all. I have no further comment on this matter, because I'm done dignifying this stuff with any sort of response. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to address just that one specific point (the paraphrase from KieferSkunk). First, the use of quotation marks to distinguish grammatical sense is normal: Alice said something like "good morning" attributes the demarked phrase to Alice, even though it specifically does not atrribute the specific words to Alice. As a mathematician Cheeser1 completely understands this, so the arguement that the (self-described) paraphrase is not a quotation, is specious and eristic. That leaves the representativeness of the paraphrase, which of course is somewhat more subjective. I'd make three points regarding that: first, the phrase "go elsewhere" is not a good representation. It reflects the tone of the actual quote, but is in itself particularly inflammatory, and Cheesher1's original avoided such particulars. Second, IMO the actual quote is uncivil and the paraphrase was an honest (if imperfect) reflection of KieferSkunk's reading of the quote. The "totally misrepresentative" assessment is wrong. Third, Cheeser1, like me, sometimes fails to express himself perfectly succinctly. That makes quoting particular phrasing for uncivility very difficult. I actually try to be more terse when I lose my temper, but one cannot judge oneself. Incidentally, I find the poetical use of the parable to be very mild, rhetorically, compared to much of what I'm used to here. I myself wouldn't expect Cheeser1 to bring a WQA against me if I expressed the desire for all his neuronal soma to simultaneously increment their homotopy class. Pete St.John (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake! I just seriously burned myself, as the key word "paraphrase" was a late addition to KieferSkunk's remark, after Cheeser1's reply. So on the strictly technical point about use of quotation marks, I let myself be misled. For that I apologize to Cheeser1. Regarding the late ammendation, however, much better would have been to replace blah "foo bar" with blah "foo bar" or some such editorial device to make the ammendation explicit. Anyway, ouch. Thanks to Hans for pointing this out to me. He really is patient. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry for the confusion. I had indeed meant that to read as "this was meant as a paraphrase, not a direct quote". I will keep that in mind for future reference. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit that I was referring to. While my quote was not verbatim, it is close to what you said. That particular diff was what I took issue to.

I would like to state, for the record, that I do not condone Nraden's actions and am not validating them. I am specifically referring to your response. I am not asking you to leave or to stop helping out. I am only asking you to be mindful of the policies yourself - it's all too easy to break them while telling other people about them. (See WP:AAGF.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should clarify that Cheeser's responding to Neil, and the overall substance of what he said, was not out of line. It was the way in which he responded and argued with Neil that I felt was counterproductive. I regret that my earlier comment made it seem otherwise. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to point out to Nraden and Debv that, short of murder, the most promising strategy for "winning" this conflict is to maintain an impeccable conduct in the face of the other party continuing on the current level of immaturity. ("Holiday greetings", offsite publishing of Misplaced Pages communications, absurd accusations against mediators...). My impression is that the long-term goal of both parties is that both be banned. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Cheeser's remark above about how I should "escalate" the dispute was rude as well. Escalate may literally mean "to go" but it connotes bad faith. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1 has already explained the technical meaning of "escalate" to you. I myself regularly use this term in real life. Telling cold callers to escalate the call, i.e., to put me through to their boss, is a sure way to make them hang up immediately. This has nothing to do with bad faith. Please read again what he wrote, and make sure to assume good faith. You will realise that far from being sarcastic he gave you reasonable advice. When you replied irritatedly, he immediately understood the misunderstanding and calmly explained it to you. Since you were quiet after that I thought you had understood his explanation. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See Google results for "escalate the call". I have chosen the telephone version of this use because it is particularly easy to search for. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note I mentioned the connotation and specifically said that the "technical" definition is irrelevant. A person is not going to say, "escalate the dispute," unless they're talking about bad-faith edits, because of what the word escalate connotes. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are reading Cheeser1's mind just like I am reading his mind. But you are assuming bad faith (innocently, of course) and I am assuming good faith. The technical use of the word uses the metaphor of a process as stairs, and escalating (from French "escalier") means ascending one step. In this technical sense there are no emotional connotations whatsoever. And it is obvious from context, once you follow my advice and reread his statements while assuming good faith, that by "dispute" he meant "a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate", which can be escalated by following a process step by step until it is resolved. In contrast to a conflict, which can be escalated by making it worse. Cheeser1 is here to defuse conflicts, not to escalate them. It makes no sense to suspect him of intentionally using inflammatory language. He unintentionally used one ambiguous formulation in a blatantly positive context. Picking the negative meaning is exactly the counterproductive behaviour that the AGF principle wants us to avoid, because it creates drama out of nothing. --Hans Adler (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not mind-reading. I'm reading connotations, which are as much a part of language as definitions. To use your own example, technically, there are a number of synonyms for dispute. Despite this, would you actually claim that the following sentences are identical, in meaning?

• "User X and user Y were having a disagreement."
• "User X and user Y were having an argument."
• "Use X and Y were bickering."
• "User X and user Y were bitching at eachother."

The last one is definitely bad etiquette and the third one comes close.

And again, to use the word escalate:

• "I escalated the mountain."
• "I escalated the stairs."
• "Steam escalated from the teapot."
• "Yes, I've been on hold for 15 minutes, could you escalate me to your boss?"

It sounds patently absurd. I understood his point, but it was rude to suggest that I'm acting in bad faith and after seeing somebody else complain, I thought I'd comment as well. Lastly, I find it appauling that you'd suggest that users should be banned for etiquette violations -- in a case where they aren't even the ones being accused. Were their actions so objectionable to begin with, surely, you should've put forth such a case before this point, particularly if you're concerned with avoiding unnecessary drama and unfounded accusations. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will just point out: (note the definition that refers to escalating a complaint in a support-type setting, which is what we are in). I can't believe this is still going on. This is the most blatant non-WP:AGF I've ever seen in my time as a Wikipedian. And also, for the record, two of four of Zenwhat's examples of the use of "escalated" aren't even correct. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I left an extensive comment on Zenwhat's talk page, as I don't think it makes sense to continue this here. I have learned from this that the WP:AGF article may need more explanation, perhaps in the form of an essay that explains why it is needed on the internet (no faces to look at) and that it is something one actually has to learn. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do WP:AAGF and WP:POT help at all? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure who this is directed to. In this context you could theoretically mean any out of three people, and so there are no less than 7 possibilities. Could you please clarify? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my request. I half expect the 8th answer, which would be "No one in particular; I just thought these essays were a bit like what you proposed." But this involves a bit of mind-reading, which seems to be dangerous in a situation such as this where people are living in one of two severely different realities. In any case thanks for the reminder. I do think that these essays are relevant. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)?

My question about whether the essays helped or not was directed mainly to you (Hans Adler), but those essays are applicable to all parties. I had intended to point you to some essays that I felt served the same purpose as what you were proposing - they're likely not the answer to whether WP:AGF itself needs to be clarified, but I find they help out a lot when discussing situations like this. — KieferSkunk (talk) &mydash; 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree absolutely. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are a nice self-selected sample. I don't know why I would ever expect you to call out a peer in a case of contributory incivility. as for the above, can you guys spell "wank"? What does any of this have to do with my complaint? If you can't figure out what I meant from the context, you need to get out a little more. This guy is a powder keg. I may be blunt, but I don't hang out on WQA posing as a mediator until someone disagrees with me (although I guess he did give you some more fodder for semantic disambiguation with his comment to me "Get a life."). Anyway, I don't care, just keep him away from the page I'm working on because he has no reason to he there except to harrass me, which he is doing with the COI banner (note, DebV described herself as COI in her complaint against me, which Cheeser1 has apparently overlooked). And here is my last question to you prodigious parsers - where was the assumption of good faith in interpreting my holiday greetings? If you're going to talk the talk, well, you know the rest. Neil Raden (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, not helping your case, buddy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Well, if there was any doubt as to your intentions before, your incivility here just now has really justified everyone's comments. I don't know you, and I did look at your complaint, as well as the allegations against you, with an open mind. I also made a point of not reading your article of interest so I would not be biased one way or the other. What I saw from your own words and comments to DebV was a conflict between two editors that have an acrimonious relationship outside of Wiki, and seem determined to drag it here as well. You have made over 15 edits, some significant, to the Wiley Protocol article. Whether you are currently editing it or not, you've contributed and you're very closely affiliated with the subject, so the COI tag on the Talk Page is appropriate. The COI tag on the article itself does not specify which editor has the conflict of interest, so it could apply to either you or DebV. The issue is already over at WP:COINand the consensus there does not indicate that the tags are 'harassment' or inappropriate.

You are not allowed to assume ownership of articles on Wiki, so no, nobody here can keep an editor away from an article for you. It's an open project and everyone has a right to edit every page. If you don't like how they're editing, talk it out on the Talk Page or seek a third opinion. If there's vandalism, report it. Otherwise, you will just have to learn to get along with others. If someone sees what they believe is a personal attack or threat, or believes that you are not acting in a way that benefits the project, s/he has every right to warn you about it. If it bothers you, ignore it, or change your behavior. DanielEng (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans Adler: In our talkpage discussion, you were rude to me as well, but I didn't bring it here because I mostly think it's silly to run to WP:WQA every time somebody makes an assertion of "incivility." In our discussion, I disagreed with you about Cheeser1 and you characterized my disagreement as "your version of reality." Hence, the claims about how you left a lengthy comment on my talkpage and want to clarify WP:AGF may be true, but they are misleading. You don't call a person's disagreement their "version of reality," while at the same time portraying yourself as a patron saint for civility. Administrators are frequently "snooty," when it comes to discussing policy violations and examples of this can be found all over various noticeboards. I don't particularly think it's a problem (sometimes it's funny to watch them do it), provided that it's enforced equally, which it isn't -- not because any "cabal," but because of human nature which tends to cause us to gather into silly, irrational cliques. Misplaced Pages policy should attempt to address this some way and, in this one case, I thought that commenting here might be helpful to encourage Chesser1 to be a bit less caustic and terse as many people often are.

Anyway, because of the way you spoke to me on my talkpage, I removed your comments and ignored you. On this basis, I don't intend to continue this debate here or elsewhere. I simply wanted to leave my statements here to clarify the historical record when this page gets archived. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean, just look at the Dreadstar discussion below. A SysOp is accused of censorship and the conversation gets archive tags clamped down around it. Horrible. Just horrible. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For someone who filed a complaint against me for (appropriately) using the word "escalate" you sure are prone to ranting and tossing around words like "horrible" and "clamp" and "silly" and so forth. Now that is silly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dreadstar

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

Dreadstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talk:WTBDWK.

Per a rather rude suggestion by Dreadstar I've decided to mention some problems I'm having with this user's behavior at this article.

First of all, Dreadstar has been assuming article ownership by claiming consensus in instances where there is obviously great controversy. He's been consistently baiting me through the use of continual accusations about myself and seems to be genuinely uninterested in assuming good faith about my suggestions or proceeding through normal processes of content disputes. It would be nice if some uninvolved editor would tell him to stop this kind of behavior.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things, a) what exactly in that diff do you consider rude? b) If you feel you're being baited don't bite. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

b first)Biting simply isn't allowed. I'll note that Dreadstar is more-or-less asserting that he's been around longer than I and so has some understanding of the situation that I cannot grasp. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

a second)Here are other relevant diffs where this user is being particularly rude by asserting article ownership, commenting on contributors rather than content, and claiming consensus with little justificaiton: , , , , . This is all that the user has contributed to the discussion over the last few days. Obviously, this user doesn't think that he can do anything but be confrontational and basically tendentious. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, you are hardly a newbie, so WP:BITE isn't quite applicable here. You have been around long enough to know when and how you should react to something. What I see in the diffs is someone trying to carry on a calm discussion. What you are doing here is the same thing other users have tried to do to you in the past. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, what I'm doing is pointing out that I have a problem with Dreadstar. Also, note that WP:BITE applies to places where people are new, not just Misplaced Pages in general. He asked me to escalate the dispute resolution so I did. I think that by continually referring to me rather than my proposals (he has a tendency to talk about "what you are doing" rather than dealing with the situation) and by referring to consensus in order to contradict people stating other opinions, and by asserting article ownership he is basically being tendentious. I'll also point out that this user is an administrator and is therefore held to higher standards per WP:ADMIN. One more thing, I'm happy to have a discussion with you, Rlevse, but you are hardly a neutral character in this situation. 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)

I'm just as neutral or non-neutral as Raymond Aritt or JzG in the disputes you get into. Believe it or not, my primary goals are peaceful editing and better articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what your goals are, that's irrelevant. And I don't see Raymond or JzG commenting here, do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I reserve the right to comment like any other editor, but I will not act as an admin since I could reasonably be seen as involved. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

←I agree with Rlevs, there is nothing uncivil in Dreadstar's comments. Also, the accusation of WP:OWN in the statement of this WQA is inappropriate. Dreadstar has not exhibited that behavior. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you act more-or-less as a meat puppet for other members of WP:PARANORMAL, I don't know what we're supposed to get out this. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Now this comment by ScienceApologist looks to be an uncivil and personal attack on Jack-A-Roe; and it appears to violate ScienceApologist's ArbCom restriction not to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Clearly an assumption of bad faith, a blockable offence under ScienceApologist's ArbCom restrictions... Dreadstar † 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you may need to sleep over it to understand it, but your complaint is frivolous. You were overreacting and making phantastic, unsubstantiated accusations. It seems quite possible that Dreadstar felt you cannot possibly believe what you are saying and tried to call your bluff. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That interpretation implies that he is not assuming good faith. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of meatpuppetry, in itself and aside from your arbcom restrictions, is uncivil and just plain silly. I've edited those articles only rarely, but in the few times that I have seen you in action, I've observed complaints and accusations from you towards others, and no examples of friendly, mutually respectful collaboration on your part. Your filing of this WQA violates WP:POINT and is a representative sample of what I've seen so far from you. That is not an effective way of making progress or getting the results you want. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, can we leave these things until tomorrow? Please see my comment at the end of this section. It seems that ScienceApologist has followed my advice. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but why continue it tomorrow - why not just close out this alert now? I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it sincerely, to actually place the resolved tag... I see no reason to continue it at all. It's just a content dispute and doesn't belong here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If we close this now, we don't give ScienceApologist a chance to comment here in a calmer state. That's basically my only objection, but I feel it's important. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what I've done that's rude, I believe I've been civil and have abided by policy. I have commented on a few of ScienceApologist's actions, but I have done so according to policy. I have merely been trying to convince ScienceApologist to participate in the ongoing quest for consensus, part of which he has even exhorted other editors to ignore, even though it is a valid step in the dispute resolution process; and this after ScienceApologist made a very rude comment about the poll, saying "this poll sucks".

I did change my comment to make it more accurate, that "we" are going around in circles, but I don't think the wording where I suggested ScienceApologist was going around in circles was rude. It appears to me that he is, and in several areas, WP:CON and WP:NOR being two primary issues we've returned to over and over. I certainly apologize if I've given offense. Dreadstar † 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've removed the "Dreadstar Supporters Respond" section. I was going to remove the "Dreadstar Supporters" section, but someone beat me to it. :) That, quite frankly, makes a mockery of the WQA process, and it is not helping your case at all, ScienceApologist. WQA is not here to polarize people against one another - if you want to do something like that, please file a Request For Comment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the links you've provided concerning Dreadstar's behaviour, and I find his remarks to be civil, and your claims to unfounded. Further, since I have been working on this article for awhile I have yet to see him behave in a way that is not civil. Since the discussion most of the time on the Bleep article is convoluted and complex I've felt Dreadstar's efforts to create a focus to be appropriate and commendable.(olive (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

We should stop right now. The incident we are discussing happened less than two hours ago. Per WP:MASTODON it is counterproductive to discuss it now. As the article in question is blocked anyway, may I suggest that everybody takes a break now? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If this edit by ScienceApologist isn't an edit war declaration, I don't know what is. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in fact hard to interpret this as anything but an invitation to practise the bold, revert, discuss method. When seen in context it becomes clear that this invitation refers to talk space, not the typical place for edit warring. Rlevse, could you please explain how this misunderstanding happened? --Hans Adler (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Outdated and disparaging remark about a WP editor should be removed

On Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism/Skeptic watchlists, one (and only one editor) is singled out by a disparaging remark involving content disputes. This editor has not even edited since September 2007. Morgellons Under very aggressive attack from User:Pez1103 Ward20 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The page you are referring to has not been edited since May 2007, a short time before you joined the project and became very active on the same article. If this is at all a Wikiquette issue, then fixing it seems to be much more constructive than discussing it much later. Why don't you just remove this remark with an edit summary like "User:Pez1103 (Special:Contributions/Pez1103)/User:72.231.188.136 (Special:Contributions/72.231.188.136) stopped editing in 10/2007." It really doesn't look like an issue for this board. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I will do that, I just saw it for the first time yesterday. I wanted to get advice from some neutral parties because as you stated, I have edited that article frequently. Ward20 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

user: Happyme22

This user/editor is truly bullying the Nancy Reagan article. If you look at the article's history, several editors have tried to create a more neutral POV to the criticisms of the subject, but Happyme22 will not let go. Even if this writer has made major contributions to this article does not give him/her the right to argue his points to a stubborn degree that his "opponent" becomes exhausted and gives up.

The article remains somewhat skewed and does not give an appropriate degree of validity to the criticisms of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this earlier comment by this IP might be taken into account when evaluating the above complaint. Tvoz |talk 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in politics, but this Wikiquette alert appears to be baseless. The reversion of uncited claims, especially potentially controversial ones is not a reason to file this alert. Further, Happyme22 volunteered to check and confirm the claims. Happyme22 also deleted a picture, but that picture was not cleared for posting, and appears to have been deleted. Further, per Tvoz, there should have been a warning left on that IP addresses Talk Page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, looks like Tvoz did that already. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur this is a baseless alert; Happyme22 is a cooperative, collaborative, civil editor and I've seen no problems on the Reagan articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please look at the contribs of the IP who filed this report; that's the issue here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Inder315

This user was blocked for sockpuppeteering and forumshopping but after his block expired he has returned to his old ways and is making personal attacks against me. Here's the list of his insinuations against me on the Talk:Sonia Gandhi page (in reverse chronological order):

1. Said I was "connected to" Sonia Gandhi
2. Called me "adamant and spolied person"(sic)
3. Started a section titled "ReluctantPhilosopher's creditbility"(sic) (Started section through proven sock Mimic2, then supported through Inder account)
4. Asked me to "go to Sonia and grab a congress ticket ... done enough praise" - by his proven sockpuppet User:Mimic2
5. Called me a "big fan of her"

He has previously added content like "she enjoys the company of many men" to the article. He was warned by User:Mezaco before for adding non-biographical political criticism to the article. But he just refuses to stop edit-warring and name-calling. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Inder315 (talk · contribs) for easier access. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for the other assertions? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done that, thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tearing my hair out here fellas Will someone please help? They guy's providing false references and inserting his opinions into the article!!! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I should reply the allegations on me so that this self proclaimed owner of article Sonia Gandhi scholar does not get benefit of my silence. I don;t know which FALSE REFERENCES he is talking about. If you check the history, you will easily find who started personal attack. He terms "political commentary " to each and everything (including properly sourced material) which he does not agree with or does not like, to be precise. He is also known to find various excuses for deleting a section of part of section which he does not like. Examples of execuses

1. Unsourced or poorly sourced (all the sections which he talks about are properly sourced).

2. Grammatically incorrect (could be, but is deleting a section is definitely NOT a solution to it. Why he does not correct it?)

3. Political commentry (now it is his opinion. What gives him a right to delete a section without a second thought?)

4. Not notable (Who is he to decide it alone?)

5. This does not have a place in wikipedia (Again the same. Is he owner of wikipedia?)

He demands "discuss first, THEN revert" but if one checks his editing history, he had been reverting all sections earlier without any discussion. He started doing it for namesake when he was warned by some senior editors in the very same forum. It is important to note that, he has been cleverly hiding this fact from the wikipedia users.

One day, he raised a query about a section, "I'm going to fix it; if anyone can provide any good reason why I shouldn't, do it now." I answered it in a most elaborate way. Still he removed it without any second though. And looks like in his dictionary fixing means deleting. deletes referenced material.

He is also terming me all the possible terms like ridiculous. He always give reference of events which are telvised but refuse to accept the biggest news of the day as a source. He thinks that a milestone in Sonia Gandhi's political career, is a trivial event.

I personally do not hold any grudge against Sonia Gandhi or anyone. My simple idea behind putting the material in this article is to give a fair and neutral sourced information to all genuine wikipedia users. Seems like this guy has been dominating the article for a while to make the article look like a fan site and a campaigning site. And about the critism section which he always talk about, please check the edit history and you will find that it is me who introduced the section and the above scholar had removed it twice. So Mr. Scholar, do not advocate using that name. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but the problem arises when you try to impose that opinion on others. And exactly same is happening here.

My aplologies for being so elaborate, but it was important to bring to everyones notice how some people are acting as if they are owner of an article and have started policing, resulting is denial of fair and neutral information to all wikipedia users, for whom wikipedia is just next to bible.

Inder315 (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The false reference is about the Abhishek Singhvi quote which you subsequently retracted. The diffs are there for all to see. And all your content, which consists of nothing more than psephological analysis and a one-day news item, ought to be removed in accordance with WP:NOT, besides WP:NPOV, WP:N and WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not said false or poor reference only for Abhishek Singhvi quote. You have said it for all other sections mentioned above. The diffs are there for all to see. And I am fed up of answering your comments (may be 1000th time I am telling now), "which consists of nothing more than psephological analysis and a one-day news item" is WHAT YOU THINK. For God sake do not impose it on the entire wikipedia. You may be love Sonia Gandhi, but keep wikipedia out from this. You have converted this site into a fan site and have been dominating the article for a while. It was interesting to see your reaction when i removed the statement "Some people think she is a sanyasi". Who said so? When? Any evidence? If she is sanyasi, why is in politics at the first place. She should be in Himalayas. Why you did not remove this statement if you are so much for evidences and notability? Or was it just because you are happy only when someone praises Sonia Gandhi? I am sure if anyone enters any praise statements without a single reference, you will keep it. So relax and stop blaimng others.

Inder315 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm perplexed nobody here is saying anything against this user's abrasive attitude. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you have not answered any of my queries (may be you don't have any answers for the same). In stead you have again started personal attack. This shows how badly hurt you are when your dominance on an article is stopped by someone else. You are an irresponsible editor with no respect for others. Now you have started questioning others just because you wanted some action to be taken on me. I don't know why you are not blocked till now. So stop dominating wikipedia for whatever intentions you have. Inder315 (talk)

Anybody?? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created an RfC for this at . Neutral editors are implored to comment thereat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SlamDiego

User:SlamDiego's discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barzilai paradox is combative. He has driven one person from the discussion with veiled legal threats regarding libel (check his comment line); the user driven from the discussion (User:Zvika) drew this attack for suggesting that we maintain some civility. I have had some personal clashes with him regarding the article itself (Barzilai paradox and Talk:Barzilai paradox), and so someone other than myself should probably call him to task and remind him about WP:No legal threats. Considering the edits he wishes to make to the article itself while the AfD he proposed is still open, he may also need a reminder concerning disruptive edits, should the AfD fail. RJC 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I do not see any edits from User:SlamDiego after the civility warning, which I note was redacted.

2. The edit summary in question reads: "Because I mistakenly thought that you wouldn't willfully libel me." I don't see this as a legal threat. It may be an accusation of libel, but that is not the same thing as threatening to take legal action. Saying something like "If I thought you were libeling me, I would sue you", or something to that affect. Also, is there any indication that the User:Zvika has been "driven" from the discussion. There was a strongly worded statement, but nothing uncivil in regards to his comments on the AfD. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

After some hunting, I do see that there was some discussion carrying over to Talk. I'm seeing a misunderstanding, but nothing that I would call uncivil. SlamDiego may have misunderstood something Zvika wrote, and Zvika may have taken SlamDiego's response a bit strongly, but there is nothing uncivil from where I stand. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the concept of libel is not peculiarly legal in nature. Note, for example, that The American Heritage Dictionary defines libel thus

1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b. The act of presenting such material to the public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

Only the last of these definitions is peculiarly legal, and I was plainly not claiming that Zvika was dragging me before an admiralty or ecclesiastical court. Further, while “libel” is defined under law, so are a great many other things, such weights and measures. But making reference to these things does not in-and-of-itself imply legal reference, let alone legal threat. First Amendment absolutists, who include me (and, famously, Nat Hentoff), in fact believe that libel, though repugnant, should be legal. That doesn't mean that we don't have use for a word to name the act of presenting to the public false publication that damages a person's reputation. —SlamDiego_←T 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Phil Hall (US writer) and user DoubleCross

Ecoleetage (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

During late December and early January, the user DoubleCross engaged in a hostile flaming attack against writer/actor Phil Hall on an IMDB forum board. Since then, he has twice attempted to bring his IMDB abuse to the Phil Hall Misplaced Pages page. Although his flaming was twice deleted under the complaint of troll behavior, he has threatened to continue to revert the deletions. Such behavior is, at the very least, infantile; at worst, it is borderline stalking. I am asking for administrator assistance to keep DoubleCross away from the Phil Hall (US writer) page, as his goal is to harass and humiliate Mr. Hall. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just beyond nonplussing.

I had never heard of Phil Hall before reading those topics on IMDb's Contributors Help message board about him. What people there claimed about him led me to look at his page on Misplaced Pages. What I asked on the talk page is, I feel, a legitimate question raised on that board: at the time, the Phil Hall article said that Hall had been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in 2006, but Pulitzer's own web site does not list him at all. That's a pretty big deal, right--an unsourced claim about a Pulitzer Prize nomination that Pulitzer itself doesn't even mention? That's why I posted a comment: I wanted to be sure there was nothing I was missing about that, since I was going to be bold and just remove it.

(Also, a couple of days after I posted that comment, Ecoleetage--who probably is Phil Hall--edited the article to remove the thing about the nomination, instead saying that Hall's book review column was just submitted to Pulitzer--the very thing I said was apparently the case on the talk page! He also didn't mention that he is the person who deleted my comments for "trolling".)

Ecoleetage's complaint also contains a blatant, stunning lie. I do have an IMDb account--I implied so on the talk page by saying that you have to be logged in there to read the topic I linked to--but I never once posted in those topics, "flaming" or otherwise. Not once. I only read them, which, like I said, is what led me to look him up here. Think about what Ecoleetage is saying for a second--even if I had posted in those topics, how would he know that? How could he possibly know what my user name on that site is?????? (It sure isn't 'DoubleCross'.)

Anybody who sees this, take a look for yourselves at the discussion history and see if any of the content of the two comments I made there falls remotely under flaming or stalking or hostility or humiliation or whatever else. Jesus Christ, what a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense. - DoubleCross (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Ecoleetage: I'm afraid I have no way to even verify, let alone deal with, off-site conduct. With regard to Talk: Phil Hall (US writer), you may wish to review Misplaced Pages:Talk#Others.27_comments. As pointed out there some editors do not believe it is appropriate to remove even personal attacks and blatant incivility. Although much of User:DoubleCross's comments are irrelevant or include original research and references to off-site discussions, I can't see what the justification was for deleting them, particularly as they indicate the rationale for the change on the article which you made. I notice that you also referred this WP:AIV earlier in the same day that you brought it here. Your comments on that referral suggest you may wish to review WP:Vandalism. In the future you may wish to consider discussing your concerns with other editors rather than removing their comments and accusing them of trolling. I notice that some of your edits on other pages contain original research suggesting you know actors whose pages you are editing. Please be sure you disclose any conflicts of interest (review WP:COI) and refrain from "original research" which other editors may delete as with any unsourced material. You may also wish to review WP:NOR regarding "original research". These may be the articles which you have the most knowledge and interest in, but you may wish to consider editing in some other topics, where the appearance of possible conflicts of interest would not exist. Finally, if User:DoubleCross were really a troll, you would have been feeding DoubleCross by the truckload.

• User:DoubleCross: your references above to page histories were helpful, however, in the future consider using this as a place to de-escalate the situation. Your accusations that User:Ecoleetage is actually the subject of the article is unsupported by any facts (having a small topic as one's primary interest is not evidence of identity). Your talk page comments were not entirely useful and you should try to keep your talk page comments focused on the mission of building an encyclopedia.

• I note that you are both experienced editors. I am sure you both know that you need to use caution when writing about living people (including on talk pages) and comply with WP:BLP. Maybe you could both take a step back from this article and take some time editing other articles before coming back to this one. In any case, I hope you will both agree to edit and comment with civility. Unless User:Ecoleetage has genuine WP:BLP concerns about the talk page material, it should be restored. Maybe in the spirit of reconciliation User:Ecoleetage would do that.--Doug. 03:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Another suggestion, it might be worthwhile for User:DoubleCross to consider refactoring the talk page comments to omit the unsupported, WP:NOR and irrelevant material and to simply state the concern regarding the Pulitzer site not supporting the statement, essentially a WP:V concern. This is sometimes used in WP:Mediation, see e.g. Misplaced Pages:Mediation#Why_should_mediation_be_confidential.3F. The original will remain in the history of course. Do you think that might be possible?--Doug. 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! To answer some points raised:

The question of Mr. Hall’s involvement in the 2006 Pulitzer Prize competition was a mistake on my part and it has been fixed. The Pulitzer organization’s web site (which only lists winners and finalists, not all entries in the competition) states being an entrant in the competition is not the same as being a nominee, which I didn’t know. Since the correction was made, there is no mature reason for calling attention to an extinct error.

The original DoubleCross message includes a link to an IMDB forum where Mr. Hall was the subject of harassment by trolls and flamers. This is of no value to the Misplaced Pages readers, nor does it bring any depth to understanding Mr. Hall’s achievements in writing and cinema. I see no intelligent reason for its inclusion.

Since DoubleCross acknowledges that he never heard of Mr. Hall, I might recommend that he learn more about the subject before editing this article. For my part, I only work on articles where I have knowledge of the subject. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree that the link the IMDB forum has no place here. Not because of the content cited, but because it's not a reliable source in any event (see WP:V). However, I must disagree that DoubleCross needs to learn about the subject before editing: 1) DoubleCross didn't edit the article, 2) There are many valuable edits one can make that require absolutely no knowledge of the article, 3) editors without personal knowledge of topic often lend perspective that can help ensure a neutral point-of-view. Remember, it is a guiding principle of Misplaced Pages that: any editor may edit any article. I also believe very strongly that the relevant content on the talk page that led to this discussion, must be restore. I will look again at the page history and suggest what the edit could be made to look like without changing the meaning if you and DoubleCross could agree to that in concept.--Doug. 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug, but I respectfully disagree. DoubleCross' complaint is not relevant because the complaint was centered on the IMDB flamer forum which, as you stated, does not belong here. The mistake about the Pulitzer submission has already been corrected, so I see no reason to call attention to extinct errors. As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, well I hope it is, I haven't heard from User:DoubleCross on this matter at all. I am, however, going to issue a warning on User:Ecoleetage's user talk page for three concerns I have, as I am concerned that the editor may not be taking them seriously and there needs to be a record that is accessible to other users. The concerns are 1) refactoring other's comments because it removes a valuable record of the reason for edits, notwithstanding the irrelevant material that was in the original comments; 2) failing to assume good faith; and 3) suggestions that the editor may need to self-evaluate with respect to compliance with ownership and conflicts of interest. In the future please assume good faith and not refer to other editors as trolls merely because their comments are written in an inflammatory way.--Doug. 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• In the interest of fairness, I have added a caution note to User:DoubleCross's talk page regarding the use of irrelevant material and compliance with WP:BLP.--Doug. 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages: "Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do."

Posting links to forums where people are being flamed, insulted and humiliated (as DoubleCross did) does not meet this definition of acting in good faith. I sought to correct the mistake, as per the definition, and I get a "warning" while DoubleCross, who threatened to repost the irrelevant link, gets a "caution"?

Fairness would be placing "caution" notes on both of our pages. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify, "caution note" is not a recognized term on wikipedia and nothing on the post on User:DoubleCross's page uses that term. It is merely intended to indicate a level one warning for which there is no special tag and is not meant to minimize the matter. At the same time, the matters recited above and on User_talk:Ecoleetage are too numerous to ignore, I chose to customize a standard warning message rather than use several different warning notices for related conduct which I thought would be unfair. I have posted a note on User:Ecoleetage's talk page to the effect that the user disputes the warning. Warnings don't have any particular effect on their own and an admin or other user may decide whether they wish to give this warning any particular weight.--Doug. 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – User has been blocked. DanielEng (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Another editor warned the IP User to refrain from personal attacks. --Doug. 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress; comments welcome

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Resolved – Advised editor to disengage from this and ignore the IP user. --Doug. 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere – issue best addressed at WP:RSN. DanielEng (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution