Revision as of 19:05, 18 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

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)

Fucking hypocrite! --WebHamster 11:54, 6 February 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)

Why are you so panic? May be someone is putting an information which you do not like? I have told you several times, you are very good in English (that is why you delete sections giving reasons like grammatical error), why you don;t start a blog on Sonia Gandhi. That way you will be able to broadcast any information which you like and no one else would be able to modify it. Inder315 (talk) 04:32, 4 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)

Finally, some user has deleted the above sections. I am also advised to respect the community's opinion. Ok, I would love to respect the community's opinion (community of 2 scholars or may be sockpuppets), but only when I get satisfactory answers to my following queries. 1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004. This is a fact. Why it is removed? 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed? If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements? You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct. I would like to hear an explanation. Otherwise, I would revert back to original version. I hope senior editors will help me and stop this. Inder315 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping. This needs to stay at RFC for reasons given, and your accusations of others being socks is not assuming good faith in the process. Let the process go through, and if community opinion again bears that your text has no relevance or importance to the article, then it should be removed unless you can garner consensus. Edit warring is not an advisable move. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously just accuse someone else of abusing sockpuppets? Last time you were on this board, filing a complaint of your own, it turned out that you have three sockpuppets. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked the comments. They are "rv POV essay, recentism, allegations over-dependent on single 1999 op-ed". ReluctantPhilosopher had been saying it for ages. What about my questions? Are there any answers for the same? Or does wikipedia is a mean of deleting something which you do not like?

Given below for your reference once again. All of them are sourced, you can go to the article and check it.

1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004 barring Goa and Manipur. This is a fact. Why it is removed? If that is the case we should remove the win of Congress inf 2004. 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed?

If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her aam admi slogan can be a part of the article, her role as wife of prime minister (don;t know what does it mean) can be part of it, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements?

You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct. Or modify them to make it look more ornamental English. But is deleting a solution?

I am reverting back to the original and unbiased version. Please stop this.

And I read the policies WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:BLP. Nowhere it talks about not entering facts in a biography. The problem is that you don't like facts and so the user User:Relata refero (may be your sockpuppet), the way you answer on his behalf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder315 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, policies do tell us that Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to stick whatever facts you like: WP:SYN, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Furthermore, continuing to threaten edit wars and ignore consensus (or the lack thereof in supporting the contested material) is highly inappropriate. You could be blocked for such behavior. Finally, keep your sockpuppet accusations to yourself. Unless you have some evidence, I suggest you (a proven sockpuppeteer) keep the sockpuppet issue off the table. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if the project is served by keeping this chap around. Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we talk about policies, how come the following statements, modified/removed/added by me were reverted. Please explain.

Following is the explanation of my edits.

Added by me: She was eligbile to become Indian citizen in 1974 but she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. (This is a truth, hoe does it violate any policy)

Removed by me: As the Prime Minister's wife she acted as his official hostess and also accompanied him on a number of state visits. (No such reference). This is POV. How does it continue to stay in the article, just because someone likes it?

Modified by me: In stead of 'she', I have modifed to 'her party'. If one knows the civics, one should know that a party recommends a person not a person recommends other person. Why it was removed?

Removed by me: There has been considerable media speculation about their futures in the Congress. If we go by your opinion, what is the base for this statement? It is indeed a political commentry. And POV

Removed by me: The 'general view' was that the action could be seen as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation. What is this? Whose general view is this? Clear example of a POV. Has no place in wikipedia.

I would like to have answers from all scholars who advocate wikipedia policy. And even if we assume that I am a proven sockpuppet, that means what? I can not edit on wikipedia? If that is the case how does wikipedia allows me to edit? So stop this.

Also, to answer Relata refero's argument, I have started wondering whether you guys have joined the philosopher (supporter of a party) in maintaining this article as a fan site. I have not seen worse use of wikipedia than this (using the site for campaigning for someone). Inder315 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mitrebox

Mitrebox (talk · contribs) recently came across the article Hungarian league system, which at the time was completely in Hungarian. This apparently prompted Mitrebox to ask "what forigen basterd wrote this crap". I told him that calling the author of the article, Codreanu (talk · contribs), a "forigen basterd" constitutes a personal attack on a fellow Wikipedian. Mitrebox responded by asking "If you don't know who you're talking about how personal can a statement be? ... Technically and legally it's only a question, not a defamatory statement." I responded to this by stating "When you are asking the question "what forigen basterd wrote this crap", you are calling the author of the article a foreign bastard. That's a personal attack by any definition of the word, and no amount of Wikilawyering can change that." Mitrebox then accused me of a personal attack, saying "Please refrain from accusing your fellow Wikipedians of Wikilawyering. It is a instigative trolling statement and may be considered a personal attack." Aecis·(away) 15:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to commendAecis·(away) for his rather through report for his detailed report of this incident and for taking responsibility for his accusatory statement. In this day, with all the politics of conflict going around to see this kind of proactive responsibility is quite surprising and refreshing. I encourage Aecis·(away) to continue on his path and wish him the best in his future endeavors.--mitrebox (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. Calling another editor, even one you do not know, a "foreign bastard" who is writing "crap" is at the least uncivil, and at the most a personal attack. Aecis was absolutely right to warn you about it. DanielEng (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Two WA's beneath this ("veiled threat by user Wikidea"), Mitrebox writes a response that I think is either prejudicial, or can be taken that way ...... I am not 100% sure because his statement is a bit of a ramble. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitrebox should've been more careful about this and an apology might be a good idea. However, since the person he was talking about clearly can't read english, there's no harm done, eh? What's the point, here, of complaining about an edit summary by Mitrebox that Codreanu can't even read? Is somebody here planning on translating Mitrebox's edit summary into Hungarian, so that Codreanu can then flame in Hungarian on English Misplaced Pages?

Also, I looked into the matter and the article above, after this WP:WQA is over, should be speedy deleted. You see the content in the article that's all piped? It was added by a user with an unapproved bot, adding obscure European athletes to Misplaced Pages. An article added that ISN'T in English, containing content that was added by an unapproved bot -- Mitrebox has some reason to be upset over the horribly low quality of Misplaced Pages. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

None of this is relevant, and none of it excuses incivility. Such behavior is inappropriate, regardless of the English skills of the person who is being subjected to personal attacks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article wasn't of the best quality, I agree, but nothing ever warrants calling an editor a foreign bastard. Nothing. Whether the target may have understood it or not is irrelevant. Aecis 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. And I also want to respond to Zenwhat's question, "What's the point, here, of complaining about an edit summary by Mitrebox that Codreanu can't even read?" Firstly, Codreanu can understand at least some English, as you can see in his edit comments. Secondly, and more importantly, there is harm done whenever an editor launches personal attacks against another editor: it creates a bad atmosphere and discourages editors from working here, which degrades Misplaced Pages's quality overall. The best work is done when people have an inclusive, respectful attitude. That's why there's a "no personal attacks" rule in the first place. -- Hux (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs

User Axamir has repeatedly attempted to delete the Arabic names of these Iran-administered, UAE-claimed islands and to delete mention of the (well-cited) UAE claim. (Examples: , among many others.) For several weeks, he declined to justify these repeated deletions either through edit summaries or on the Talk pages. I have reverted these unexplained deletions, each time entreating Axamir to discuss them. He has responded with insults , threats , false statements , deletions of Talk page discussions , apparent sockpuppetry and more reversions . Any assistance would be appreciated. PRRfan (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I invited User:Axamir to join this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston for your invitation to take part in this conversation.

The references the user PPRFAN refers his arguments to, are not valid references. I am afraid I can not accept propaganda. As for mentioning the name of an Iranian island in Arabic or any other languages other than the language of the native people of the island, I do not think it is necessary due to the fact that there are pages put up with those languages and people of those languages can read through those pages.

Here is what I propose, if the user, PPRFAN, is insisting on writing the name of the island in different languages: We can put up a headline at the end of the page and write the name of the island in Arabic and other languages. --Axamir (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Axamir, I'm afraid you'll have to do better than to dismiss references as "propaganda." You will have to demonstrate that those references are false and to provide references of your own. Remember, the point of the article is not to render a judgement about whether Iran or UAE has the valid claim on the islands; it is to properly note that such a dispute exists. Citations for the existence of such a dispute include these: Can you provide more persuasive references that no such claim exists? PRRfan (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PPRFAN: I can not go over this with you all the time. I keep explaining to you but you again take us to square one!!! Please do not mix things up. All I am trying to tell you is that these claims have not been accepted by United Nations and Iran. They were mentioned by UAE but due to lack of back up they were all rejected and they are counted as false claims by United Nations and also Iran.

Kindly provide references backing up your assertions. PRRfan (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to mention these in the page, they need to be placed with an headline, I emphasize with an headline, in the bottom of the page NOT in the introduction.

I am glad that you are justified about the redundancy of using foreign languages other than native language of the island residents in the English page.

I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence. PRRfan (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to read valid sources like Britannica encyclopedia, and .... I will do a major editing of the page as I get some time. --Axamir (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And I encourage you to add references to such sources as you find. PRRfan (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PPRFAN: Please read this again. I hope this time you understand!! As for mentioning the name of an Iranian island in Arabic or any other languages other than the language of the native people of the island, I do not think it is necessary due to the fact that there are pages tabbed up with those languages and people of those languages can read through those pages. --Axamir (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Axamir, the point is that there is an unresolved claim by UAE on the island, which the article makes clear and which is documented by the existing references. Kindly provide references before making your proposed changes. PRRfan (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "tabbed up"? Also, I agree with PRRfan that any additions, especially potentially controversial ones, should be referenced.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Jeff on the issue of references. We need to provide a VALID reference to the any modification we make. As for your question, on the left side there is a list of languages you may choose to view your page with; such as, French, German, ... I do not see any necessity for adding foreign languages to an English page. PPRFAN: Stop doing your childish Undo-game that you have started!! Believe me you not getting any where. You just deleted a well referenced fact about the island. Shame on you. --Axamir (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Axamir, I need not remind you that the reasons we are discussing the matter on this page are your unexplained, unreferenced changes. I am glad you have agreed to abide by the Misplaced Pages principle of citing references when you make changes. I am going to revert your latest unsummarized deletions and allow you to proceed by furnishing a reference when you make further edits. PRRfan (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are the ones related to use of foreign language in the English page. Any foreign language need to be written in a page assigned to them (100 times!). Please understand. You talk about references and all that but I see numerous times that you have deleted a well referenced statement like this:
Abu Musa is one of the Iran's most Southerly island in the Persian Gulf and is part of a six-island archipelago near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz.
There is a double standard between your words and actions. I can not accept this. I would like to let you know that I will edit anything unreferenced, fraud, biased from you on these pages. I am done with you since you evade my questions and try to shoot the ball in my ground in a hope that I let you off the hook. No more correspondence will be entertained her. --Axamir (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Axamir. I'm afraid you are misrepresenting my edits. Let us look at the sequence of edits to the first paragraph of Abu Musa. On 4 February (and again on 5 February ), you deleted without explanation several references backing up the statement that Iran controls the island but UAE claims it. You also introduced several grammatical errors ("Abu Musa is one of the Iran's...", "most Southerly," etc.). Finally, you wrote that the island is Iran's, contradicting the more accurate "administered but claimed" sentence that remained. I duly undid your unexplained, undiscussed deletions of these references, returned the sentences to grammatical correctness, and removed the "Iran's most Southerly" phrase pending a citation. As always, kindly provide a citation for your edits. Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Josepha Marschke

This user added information to pages that was unreferenced and in some cases patent nonsense. I reverted their edits, noting in one case that the edit was probably in good faith, but that as their other edits on the same day had all been reverted I was removing the information just in case. I gave them standard warnings regarding their edits on their talk page. Their response was to call me an "uneducated, pretentious jerk". I am ready to admit an error if they are able to verify a single edit, however would appreciate someone else stepping in to reaffirm my request not to make personal attacks. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could you provide WP:Diffs of the underlying unreferenced edits? Thanks.--Doug. 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite happily.
    • - In this edit (which has not been reverted) a name is given that gets zero ghits associated with the place, and the title of the reference with the author's name also gets zero ghits.
    • - another edit with it's own reference. A search of the New York Times digital archive finds no mention whatsoever of the name given.
    • - a search for the information provided produces a single ghit, of another wiki.
    • - the name provided appears on a single website from a google search, as a client testimonial for a national park.
    • - a google search shows that the person quoted wrote a paper on the Opium Wars for Harvard University in 2004, so to state that they took part is patent nonsense.
    • - the edit that I admitted at the time was probably in good faith, but was reverted based on the user's edit history. In all honesty neither the new nor the old percentage agrees with the 68% quoted on The Lumberjack's Website.
  • That exhausts the entire edit history of this user. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • PS note that four of those edits have yet to be reverted. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from internet access for a few days. I'll try to read through the diffs shortly, hopefully though someone else will jump in too. Thanks.--Doug. 01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I have undone the edits in question because other people were starting to edit the articles with the suspicious content still in them: in the edit summaries I quoted this page. I have not contacted the user again, however it is worth noting that they haven't edited Misplaced Pages again since this whole situation arose. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is likely to get anywhere, the user has substantially refactored your comments and warnings on his talk page. Removing them is acceptable, refactoring your comments to change their meaning is absolutely not, see Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. I think you need to take this issue to WP:ANI. Sorry.--Doug. 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Paul Harald Kaspar and Talk:Wachovia Spectrum

Paul Harald Kaspar has repeatedly deleted the same chunk of text on Wachovia Spectrum, and another user has filed a request at Requests for Mediation on it. This may be overlapping, but I'm more concerned about the user conduct issues. If you read Talk:Wachovia Spectrum#Wrestling content, he repeatedly calls the other editors "wrestling fan kids" and finally accuses the two editors disagreeing with him of being sockpuppets.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that he has refused mediation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry may not be warranted here, but I do not see some glaring breach of wikiquette by this user. On the other hand, can the following threat be put into better context:

I've never edited on wrestling before on Misplaced Pages, or any other sport, but hey, if that's what it's going to take, I think the two of us can strong-arm you over this issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This was the most glaring breach of etiquette that I saw; amounting to a threat that if one or more editors don't like the edit of one, they will simply overpower them. This is not how consensus is reached here. In terms of the editing content, that needs to be more cooly handled on the Talk Page. As for wikiquette, I think there are two editors that need to take a deep breath. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is only fair to point out that User:Prosfilaes, who initiated this inquiry into my supposed lack of "Wikiquette", has refused to explain this much more profound and threatening behaviour. Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The "wrestling kids" attempted to use a newly-crowned admin to block my account for 31 hours for "vandalism" (which was quickly reversed because of it not being vandalism, and not warning being given), and are now stating that one must cite policy to remove non-notable content from articles, while leaving bogus "blanking" warnings on my talk page. It seems that as soon as one of their arguments is refuted, they change it to something else, and adjust their strategy accordingly. It appears I have run afoul of one of the infamous "Wikicliques". Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It was following Paul's statement that "Nothing any of the fan kids has said in any way justifies wrestling content being strong-armed into Misplaced Pages articles by zealous followers of said pseudo-sport." It may not have been the most polite, but I fail to see how to reach consensus with someone who will just dismiss it as the talk of "fan kids" and "zealous followers of said pseudo-sport".

LonelyBeacon, I also strongly disagree your statement that there's not much wrong with his use of the term "wrestling fan kids"; "kid" here is clearly a personal attack, accusing the editors of being immature. In general, there's no need to characterize other editors at all, and whether or not I enjoy wresting is irrelevant to the content. Accusing me of being a fan of a man who murdered his wife and children is completely irrelevant and so far beyond the pale it's not even funny.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Per talk page, this user has failed to provide any rationale for deleting the content. Wrestling is just as notable as other sports/entertainment listings on that page. The user also made similar deletions from other pages , and refused to engage in mediation on the matter. Regarding the "clique" accusations, I've never interacted with the involved parties previously, nor have I been involved with editing the pages. It first came to my attention via the AI page. The blanking warnings are not bogus; you will be blocked if you continue to remove content without citing any policy or consensus for doing so. OhNoitsJamie 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Threatening a block for making legitimate edits is just more attempted "strong-arming". Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced edits do not require a reason to be deleted. While in general it is a good idea to discuss deletions on a Talk Page (even after deleting them, at least to give a courtesy reason, I do not belive that it is necessary. I think taht is a part of aggressive editing. I would suggest reading WP:V.

The blanking warnings are not really called for here. If they cotinue, I think only then would I interpret them as harassment. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed another "blanking" warning from User:Ohnoitsjamie. At this point, whether he/she is an admin or not, I consider these warnings to be harassment from a "Wikiclique". Paul Harald Kaspar (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusiveness (not directed at me)

I'm a third party happening to observe this; I am not directly involved.

Can we get a block on this user for edits like this and like this where he is verbally abusive to another, established (and rationale... one who pulls me back down when necessary)? There is no need, no matter what, for any WikiUser to have to put up with this sort of language directed at him/her. I went back 100 edits also and found this seems to be a matter of course for this editor. Seems like a pattern of bad behavior. VigilancePrime (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report this. A more complete history has been compiled by Dreaded Walrus, which I copy here from User talk:Blue eyes gold dragon.

Incidents of incivility: .

Warnings issued: .

Thank you for considering this. Pairadox (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a user I have been familiar with in the past: See User talk:Dreaded Walrus/Archives/January 2008#I dont delete warnings, or banning templates, which is in response to this, and User talk:Dreaded Walrus#Talk:Pokémon Gold and Silver, which is in response to this. I've been lenient, and civil in the past as this editor has always been easy to wind up, and sometimes a few kind words help (see the first discussion on my talk page I link above, for example), but as we've seen today, doing some good editing does not excuse limitless incivility. Dreaded Walrus 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

thats me! block me for as long as you want, i wont have much internet access anyway--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 09:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

and just so you know i wasnt being a smartass above, 2 weeks till i go to another isp and a lot of time without the net :( --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this case can be meaningfully handled here, as there are other issues besides civility and this user is obviously trying to be blocked indefinitely. I would guess we are dealing with a child who wants to be set boundaries, but there are also other explanations. I have started a section at ANI. An administrator has quietly reacted to my most important concern, but apart from that it is not getting much attention. I suggest keeping this thread open for any further discussion of minor points, and using the ANI thread only if further admin intervention seems necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked BEGD for 72 hours as his behavior has not improved. See his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Gustafson

In this edit, Mr. Gustafson refused to respond to my latest set of questions and changed my post, in doing so continuing to avoid being listed as an Administrator anywhere but in the user database and continuing to forge the signature of his alter ego "Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>". He also made a disingenuous Edit Summary in this edit. All of these actions are uncivil and unbecoming of an Administrator.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. There is no incivility, I am under no obligations to archive my talk page, I am under no obligations to acquiesce to the demands of random users who want me to put this or that on my user page, and I am under no obligation to be listed anywhere. This has been borne out multiple times, and my actions are not just accepted practice, but entirely within accepted policy - perhaps someone else can point that out to the reporting user, though based on and the content of this thread, I have tried, and he either choses to ignore the facts or doesn't wholly understand them. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jeff G. Everything you point to on Mr. Gustafsons talk page has no basis in policy. He doesn't have to have a userpage, and many admins appear in no admin categories - your inclusion is entirely optional. I would also like to bring to your attention, that many users (including the ArbCom) have ratified this position (including his userpage, and not archiving his talk page) and the way he is carrying out this is entirely acceptable. I think this is more of a case of you being mistaken about some policies and guidelines rather than the fault of Mr. Gustafson. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)I see no problem in Gustafson's actions. Maybe a bit of AGF? He's already listed as administrator on Special:Listusers/sysop (if I recall the link correctly), and that's enough. If you want to check if somebody's an admin, that's where you should look. As for the talk page blanking, it's entirely ok. Even vandals can remove warnings, according to our policy. If he would delete it, that would be another thing, but the page history it's there for some reasons, don't you think? Happy editing, Snowolf 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Jeff G., could you please explain where the incivilities in this case are, if any? If there aren't any, I am sure you will consider rewithdrawing your complaing in order to avoid putting yourself into a very bad light. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• He refused to respond to my latest set of questions. I see this as a failure to "give explanations and be communicative as necessary".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any rules that oblige admins to suffer filibustering by clueless users? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What I have done is not filibustering, I am not clueless, and I object to any implications to the contrary.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• He changed my post. This was not a nice thing to do.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the colon he put into your category link to avoid improper inclusion of his talk page in the category, or to something serious? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. How is inclusion of that talk page in that category improper? Also, what he did was in violation of "do not edit others' comments".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He clearly assumed good faith, namely that you did not try to force his inclusion into that category, which was none of your business. Please give a clear answer: Did you try to force this, yes or no? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not try to force this. But I do believe that {{user admin}}, its associated Category:Misplaced Pages administrators, and Misplaced Pages:List_of_administrators/G-O exist for good reasons, and that some users use Category:Misplaced Pages administrators and Misplaced Pages:List_of_administrators/G-O to look for Administrators without the cumbersome http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3AListusers&username=&group=sysop&limit=50.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you did not try to force the inclusion of his talk page in the category, then I can see no possible reason for you to complain. If you do not understand the spirit of our policies you should read them completely, e.g. WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments: "Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments…". And then there is a long list. This list does not say: "If someone makes an obvious mistake that results in a talk page being included in a category, you are allowed to add the missing colon." That's because it rarely happens and because it's so obvious. Just look at the other examples. Besides, what should he have done instead? Leave the mistake as it is, attack you for it, and start the kind of drama that you have chosen to start? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not a mistake, neither did I try to force it by reverting.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• He continues to avoid being listed as an Administrator anywhere but in the user database. The vast majority of Administrators do not do this. In one removal, he wrote in its Edit Summary "I wish not to be pestered by anyone looking for help I will not give."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And his first name is "Jeffrey", in contrast to most other admins, whose first name is not "Jeffrey". Where is your point, please? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I do believe that {{user admin}}, its associated Category:Misplaced Pages administrators, and Misplaced Pages:List_of_administrators/G-O exist for good reasons, and that some users use Category:Misplaced Pages administrators and Misplaced Pages:List_of_administrators/G-O to look for Administrators without the cumbersome http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3AListusers&username=&group=sysop&limit=50.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's still no valid reason for concern. You believe something. Mr. Gustafson doesn't believe it; or perhaps he does but he thinks, or even knows, that he is exempt from it for whatever reason. You are not required to accept that. But if you want to be a team player on Misplaced Pages you need to learn tolerating such differences of opinion, if you can't prove that the other position is against policy or consensus. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does hiding one's status qualify one for being a team player on Misplaced Pages?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• He is continuing to forge the signature of his alter ego "Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>". Forgery is illegal in many jurisdictions.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is well known that both accounts belong to the same user. In almost all jurisdictions it is not illegal for a famous person to write autographs with the alias under which they are publicly known, even if that's not what their passport says. Again, what is your problem with this? How does it hurt you? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect everyone here, especially Administrators, to exhibit transparency (humanities). Also, "In no circumstance should a signature be used to impersonate another user: in particular, a signature should not be identical to the actual username of another existing user, and even more importantly should not link to someone else's userpage."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

???? Are you accusing the person Jeffrey O. Gustafson, when he is logged in under the user name "Mr. Gustafson", of impersonating the user name "Jeffrey O. Gustafson"? The word "user" in this rule is ambiguous, and there is no need to make it clearer because 1) only few people are allowed to have two user names, and 2) these users can be expected to know whether the rule means "natural person" or "user name" when it refers to "user". --Hans Adler (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am accusing Mr. Gustafson of impersonating the user name "Jeffrey O. Gustafson" when signing posts and logged in as "Mr. Gustafson". Misplaced Pages:SIG AKA Misplaced Pages:Signatures is a guideline. I have yet to see his justification for doing so. I have also yet to see his justification for using account "Mr. Gustafson" for non-tedious edits.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• He made a disingenuous Edit Summary in this edit. "archive" does not mean "delete".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Since he seems to be obsessed with privacy (probably for a valid reason, since he convinced ArbCom), he may well have a private archiving system in place on his own computer. Editing comments on your own user page are mainly for yourself, since no collaboration is expected there. And it's not every day that someone comes along and starts nitpicking about trifles, after all. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• You could just stop badgering him and accept his responses at face value. Civility is mandated to facilitate productive collaboration, it doesn't require editors to entertain the petty pedantries of wikiquette for the sake of someone's personal appeasement. ˉˉ╦╩ 20:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Once he asked to be left alone, I merely created this section, notified him about it, and responded in it. How does that qualify for badgering?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I'll be the first to admit that I had some concerns about Jeffrey O. Gustafson's behavior a while back, and I think some of his current behavior (e.g., lack of user page, handling of his talk page) is both quirky and suboptimal. However, those seem like tolerable quirks, whereas your comments here come across as mean-spirited badgering. Any actual point you might have (a notion I am still open to) is deeply undermined by some of your comments above. Perhaps you could take a long walk and see if your views have settled on your return? William Pietri (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes those quirks so tolerable for you? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that at this point, Jeff G. is doing nothing more than pestering for any quick answer or resolve that falls within his favour. I can't find any real validity to his claims, and even if there were, his continued triumphing over a mountain when it is nothing more than a molehill reflects poorly upon his character. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

All of my claims are factual and referenced. WP:CIVIL is still "an official policy on the English Misplaced Pages."   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There's something that bothers me. Why doesn't he ever use his administrative account anymore? He will need that account for administrative purposes. 124.181.26.71 (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I find this comment puzzling. The last actions of Jeffrey O. Gustafson in his role as an administrator seem to have been in December. Administrators are under no obligation to be continually doing work that needs the admin bit, just like all editors are under no obligation to log in and edit regularly. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff G. has made it sufficiently clear by now that this thread is essentially about the fact that Jeffrey O. Gustafson / Mr. Gustafson (who are transparently the same person in real life) do not follow his personal interpretation of our policies and guidelines, and his personal ideas about conduct of administrators. He has not made a single convincing argument based on community consensus or a breach of his interests by that administrator.

Since any civility problems here are at best marginal and bilateral, and since there is an obvious solution (no further communication between the two), there is no real Wikiquette issue here. It is very unlikely that in the informal atmosphere that we have here Jeff G. can be convinced that some of his ideas about Misplaced Pages are minority views. If he insists on pursuing this further, the next step in the conflict resolution process seems to be WP:RFC. But I highly recommend reading WP:ADMIN before doing so, especially the first two paragraphs. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish ISP user

• This is in regard to delete Siobhán Hoey and Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) from an anonymous account that from the WHOIS file are all Ireland-based. Siobhán's effort to being deleted occurred last March 30, but was reinstated on April 4. Aoife was deleted, but I had brought it back in an effort to work on bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton. From both article's histories, I have seen where these edits look like they have been vandalized from these IP addresses. Also, this same user (or users) is attempting to delete Siobhán's article again and tried to put Aoife's article on the February 1, 2008 AfD before succeeding. Please have a look at this because most of these articles are Irish-based and there may be other signs of abuse as well. Thank you.

The accounts in question are shown below:

• 84.203.1.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.97.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.149.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.190.141.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.132.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.98.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.52.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 212.2.170.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.76.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 194.125.21.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.183.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.174.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.202.138.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.16.67.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

We are now in a possible edit war that has been going on for the past two days that i am afraid is beginning to out of control. Please help. Chris (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This exact same issue is posted at WP:ANI and is in a current discussion thread that is less than a day old. If this is an issue of IP vandalism, please see WP:AIV or request to have the page protected from IP edits. Nominating an article for AfD is not vandalism, even if it has been deleted and brought back, and if the nom was made in bad faith, it will be voted down. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an article for AFD is not vandalism. In addition, if an article was deleted per consensus, and you recreated the material with minimal changes, it can be brought back up for AFD or speedy delete. Let the process go through. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article in WP:ANI has now been moved into the Incident archive. Chris (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. For the AfD, all you can do is let it run its course. The admins who handle deletion will be reading over all the comments, and it appears that the consensus will be keep. If the IP users keep interfering with the editing of the article, you can revert, warn and report for vandalism as necessary. If the IP vandalism is consistent and disruptive, after the AfD is closed, you could also try getting the article semi-protected (ie, established users can edit; IPs and newbies can't). Best, DanielEng (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Mukkulathor

Kindly have a look at the talk page for Mukkulathor ethnic group. It is full of personal attacks and abusive language. I dont know how to deal with it and whether blanking a page is permissible as per Misplaced Pages rules. So I request administrators to take action in this regard and against the users involved. -Ravichandar 08:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved this section to the bottom of the page, where most people are looking for new sections. And I agree that the talk page looks pretty bad, although I can't really examine it closer right now. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the talk page should probably be deleted to make it clear we don't tolerate that kind of language. Perhaps someone with more experence will look into it. Otherwise I will ask an admin directly. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've simply archived the older discussions at Talk:Mukkulathor/Archive 1. Pairadox (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ravichandar, if this kind of behaviour starts again, please don't hesitate to come here again or to WP:ANI. Some of those editors should have been blocked immediately. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It was all old stuff, from October and before. If it hasn't continued from then it's not likely to, but I've got it on my watchlist anyway. Pairadox (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also putting this page on my watchlist, just in case. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Matt Lewis

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.

Chronology Re: Matt Lewis (talk · contribs)

Primarily (but not solely) in the context of this discussion USER:Matt Lewis:

• Violated WP:3RR repeatedly reverting other editors without commenting on the talk page (note, USER is fairly new and did not seem to understand WP:3rr, so I am not raising 3RR as a formal complaint here, just mentioning for context.

• Violated WP:NPA by posting personal attacks on my talk page and at the article talk page.

• Repeated WP:NPA here in response to my request that he cease personal attacks.

Thanks for taking a look,

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute to me rather than a WQA issue. As far as WQA is concerned, he called u a POV pusher, and you called him a WP:DICK, right? ReluctantPhilosopher 10:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) (signature added by Wndl42)

In the context of my second objection to the three personal attacks, and after the WP:3RR rules were violated twice, I did refer the user to WP:DICK, a decidedly mild rebuke under the circumstances. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You also seem to have missed the fact that the personal attacks were left both on the article talk page and on my user talk page, so, NO...this is not merely a "content" dispute. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, user notified and issue also discussed here riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: there is a potential resolution I've just placed on the table for USER:Matt Lewis and if successful, this matter will be resolved without further action and I will then withdraw this alert. Please allow a half day or so for Matt to respond. WNDL42 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Comment: I agree with ReluctantPhilosopher here, this seems to be a content dispute more than a WP:WPA situation. Looking over the comments on your page and the article's page, the only thing he called you was a "POV pusher" and a "time waster," which might not be friendly, but don't really fall into the realm of full-out personal attack. It's also OK for users to try to bring concerns about content to your talk page (usually it seems to be done when they want your attention about something in particular) although you also have every right to request that they return the discussion to the article's space if you don't want it there. It looks as though you and Matt both feel very strongly about your respective edits, and if you are at an impasse, you might try bringing it to third opinion to get help resolving the content dispute. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit apprehensive - but I think we can possibly work it out. I'll register my 'defence' anyway;

WNDL42 has one view on 3RR - I never really approached it as far as I'm concerned. We had no 'back and fore' edit war at all - I just carefully removed his new radical stuff to the 'old consensus' of 2 days before - took me more than 3 edits to do as they were fiddly, that's all. I got angry as I was letting him carry on without hinderence then suddenly realised he was still ignoring my advice (ie consensus), and I'd been posting all those points for nothing. The passage had gone into a new direction (and IMO became very inferior, on a number of counts, which I'd been highlighting).

WNDL42 wasn't actually around when I took it back to 'normal' (to a 'stablised' normal too). I then made some new edits that I wanted to do - they might have mixed a little at one point maybe. I advanced it quite a bit afterwards and most other editors are happy I feel - but it's got a bit empty in Talk since I did it! No ones complained about what I've done at all but WNDL42 anyway - which is key, to me. One editor has questioned WNDL42 on part of his (in the passages that we disagree over), and others in other parts too.

It's a content issue, partly over the right 'base' to work from, partly over some 'philosophical' stuff (? - not sure on it yet) - we will have to work it out. Having put in as much work as I have on the subject (and always allowing for consensus) I'm not going to let it spiral off into someone's entirely individual realm! (however eminently sensible it may seem to him/her). We are both reading policy differently that much is clear - on headings and stuff like that. The topic only has a small number of editors unfortunately, so consensus is hard to find here. We might go for advice at some point maybe, I don't know - I'm for the rules anyway.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that many people come here and don't read the diffs, so for the record, here is Matt's post:

pro-Clinton bias on Insight report

Having spent a lot of time looking through your edits to a stablised part of the article, I can now see you have been (1) guilty of clear bias all along - blatantly removing anything that looks half-bad about Clinton out of the article! Even when it's all an attack on her anyway! (2) Madness! I consider you a (3) time waster and a (4) POV pusher. I'm pretty anoyed to be honest - I spend a lot of my time keeping my own POV out, and being objective, and reading/replying to your posts. I'll be reverting to before you embarked on your changes. Don't POV push again - not one of (5) your arguments stands up to logic, and the section is now an absurd misrepresentation of the Insight report!

I'm afraid the story is simply about Clinton - you can't try and hide that on the grounds that her name being used is 'propagating the smear'!! We have no proof of Insight's real intent (it was unsourced) - and we certainly can't over-write our own take on what Insight really meant - and present that as fact!! They alleged what they alleged - and it's the Insight page!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So, there are (5) separate personal attacks in the above diatribe, which was also posted on the article talk page (10) and include others unnumerated here, all attacks occurred before I rebuked the editor per WP:SPADE.

Might I offer here that Jimbo's attention is on this topic, yesterday he posted...

• Agreed. And Ryan was right to conclude I wanted to "make an example", and I did. I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's a content issue, there always is but that has now become a mere smoke screen and a convenient Straw man counter attack. The issue is incivility, pure and simple. WNDL42 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And, if anyone is interested in the kind of behavior that Jimbo was dealing with, and the topics involved, it will be enlightening to click here. Same topic, same behavior and a serious Jimbo intervention. WNDL42 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Being dismissive to the editors that work here, by suggesting that they "don't read the diffs," really won't help your case. I did read the diffs, and while it's clear that you and Matt both feel strongly about the topic at hand, I don't see any sort of personal attack there. It's not a personal attack to suggest that someone is editing with a POV bias...if you feel that you are not, I suggest you talk it out and seek consensus on the Talk Page of the article or seek a third opinion to see if you can reach a neutral ground with the content. You've now had two editors here tell you it's a content issue, and shouldn't be here. As per WP:NPA:

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.

DanielEng (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, your statement "don't see any sort of personal attack there" is puzzling. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. If you are saying that WP:NPA does not apply to any of the (5) examples I cited, then I think your statement is wrong because of clearly stated and unequivocal information found at WP:NPA, and just these few examples seem to contradict your statement:

Per WP:NPA, types of comments are never acceptable

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not.

• "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.

According to WP:NPA, all (5) attacks I detailed above were clearly violated, and that is the only reason why I'm here. FYI, since starting on Misplaced Pages four months ago, this is also the first time I'm here.

Further, your statement "you've now had two editors here tell you it's a content issue" is also (a) irrelevant because a content issue does not justify a personal attack (per WP:NPA), (b) logically fallacious because the existence of content issues are presumed to underlie any and all conflicts (per Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia anyone can edit), and (c) it's not a content issue because the editor has refused several polite requests to remove the offending content from my talk page, and (d) is inaccurate because two editors have not "told" me (see "seems like" above).

Immediately after reporting here, I was immediately and repeatedly disparaged by the same user for the act of reporting here, so whatever small basis the "content issue" had (if any) was immediately gone. The only introduction of "content issues" here was by the offending user himself, posting content issues here is not consistent with WP:WQA

I am questioning your interpretation of WP:NPA based on the points above, and because it appears to be in conflict with a dissenting view expressed by USER:Jimbo Wales here. I will WP:AGF on the basis that either (a) I am a first timer here, or (b) perhaps your editing experience is in areas that are different from the environment Jimbo is describing.

Now, as I have (a) taken the first step here more than 24 hours ago, which was met not only with his refusal to remove the personal attacks from my talk page, but was followed by more personal attacks, may I suggest that some friendly advice to USER:Matt Lewis to simply accept my invitation that he remove the personal attacks from my talk page will resolve this matter immediately, and much more efficiently than an extended debate over comparative interpretations of WP:NPA. Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you on this. You seem to want the WQA to discipline this editor or jump into the content dispute--and we don't do that here. There were no epithets there (see some of the pages of editors who have been banned for personal attacks if you'd like an idea of real offenses--here's a page from another recent WQA, for a start ). If you don't like the answers given to you by the WQA clerks, I suggest you take this elsewhere; we're not here to argue with you on policy. You've already been told that this is a content issue--by editors who have been on Wiki far longer than four months--and you've already been told that you can go to Third Opinion or Mediation if you feel there's an ongoing conflict with this editor. In regards to your talk page, if you don't want the offending content there, delete it. It's your talk page, and you're allowed to do what you want with it. DanielEng (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's two kinds of personal attacks on WP: the ones which we can do something about, and the ones we can't. Calling people time wasters and POV pushers doesn't usually come up to the level of even a warning. Sure, it is stupid to do that, because it makes enemies. But if Matt Lewis wants to drain the good will of other editors in that mild a way, there is no action which can really be taken. In other words, low levels of incivility are their own punishment. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 is right that it was a PA. But it's the kind which should be dealt with by continued engagement and bringing in other editors, and perhaps some sort of dispute resolution. And Matt Lewis will, because of his rudeness, be at that much of a disadvantage. If riverguy42 aka WNDL42 hadn't called him a DICK, he would have more of a political advantage. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks martin, a perfect assessment. I didn't come here to get a formal action, just an assessment and (hopefully) to get Matt to "come to the table", and delete the noise from my talk page. Certainly I should (in retrospect) have come here before responding as I did, and I'm ok with closing the matter. WNDL42 (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want any kind of mark against my name. All the while the article has been moving on - what is the issue here? We are talking on the Insight Talk page and this is going on too - it's crazy. This is a bit of a wind-up for me - the above pasted quote of me being angry I actually left on his Talk page - and not the article's Talk page as it seems to suggest. There are other small inaccuracies in here too (I'm certainly not the person he's painting!) - but it's such a waste of time to me. There is plenty I can say, but I want to keep to the article - it's currently much improving. If the section we disagreed over actually stablises at this juncture (which I'm fine with), our paths are unlikely to cross again. I had actually left working on it, but came back when WNDL42 started taking it in his own direction. I'm quite a polite guy - I just can;t be like that all the time, and my patience was just stretched - though over a relatively short period (in WP terms), admitedly. We are all human. I can't apologise because I wouldn't mean it - I'm just too stubbornly honest that way. My sticking power's a benefit to WP, believe me - this now-dated Obama issue was a real WP mess at one point (it even had its own page created that eventually lost an AfD) - now, over a few different article sections/mentions and an improved madrassa article, almost everyone's happy. We really are not that far off making it old news. WNDL42 (who's new to the issue) is currently 3RR edit warring with someone else, which can frustrate productive edits sometimes - but I still think it's not too far from a compromised stable state. Then I can properly concentrate on my other stuff, which I'm anxious to do! Why all this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The WQA is not a black mark on your name. Move on. If you're too frustrated, take a break. It's as simple as that. Don't fret. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine - it's just it's still classed as 'work in progress' and has been linked to on the Talk page - I take it gets closed when it gets closed. Looks like the 'half section' in focus has now finally found consensus, so I have actually moved on, as I said I would. I've got a good feeling it will settle now as it was almost there anyway, before the disruption started. It's simply thanks to intrinsic allegation details (removed - without any support at all - for supposedly "propagating a myth") being returned to the article for observers to mull over and edit (and without breaking a single 3RR too) - I take a bow.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I filed this WQA and I can easily delete it. All I'm asking is that you go to my talk page, click on "edit this page" and delete the entire section, make a civil gesture in your edit summary and then I will delete the WQA and we can both chalk it up to experience and get back to work. That's all I'm looking for. Cheers! WNDL42 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As you have been told, if you don't like what is on your talk page, delete it. Once a WQA is filed, you don't have the right to delete it--the clerks here will close it. Nor do you have the right to use a WQA as "leverage" this way to try to get another editor to do what you want. I'm closing this discussion before it goes any further. DanielEng (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SouthernElectric

This user is coming close to violating WP:POINT in this discussion here (and in related discussions here and here). I've given up trying to reason with him/her and would prefer an uninvolved person to intervene. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much disruption on the part of the user there, and it does seem to be a content dispute. Are you of the opinion that consensus has been settled? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think it looks more like a content dispute rather than a real civility issue. Obviously there is a lot of tension there, but it looks like the situations I have seen several times between mathematicians and non-mathematicians, on mathematical articles. It's a structural problem. I think all the ideas for a consensus are already in the discussion: If you put all the measurements in miles and chains, the railway enthusisasts will be satisfied (including the real enthusiasts from metricised countries, I suppose). The non-enthusiasts won't bother to convert chains into yards (or furlongs or whatever), so they will only know the distance up to a mile; but surely that's enough for them? When they see chain distances they will think: "I didn't know they are using otherwise obsolete units for railways", and be happy to have learned another interesting thing from Misplaced Pages. So the main question seems to be whether or not to convert the units into kilometres as well, for the few non-enthusiasts from metrised countries who stumble over these articles. I think if you all sleep over this, you should be able to find a solution for that as well. It certainly looks like a very minor point from the outside. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it originated as a content dispute (on an article talk page which was then moved to the project talk page ). I intervened in an attempt to get the facts straight (there were lots of fallacious arguments being used) and to try and restore some order , as it was descending into a slanging match, with two firmly-entrenched viewpoints. I also felt it was necessary to draw certain contributors' attention to some of posts, like this ()and this () which I felt to be inappropriate.

I'm not of the opinion that consensus has been reached--quite the opposite, in fact. To me, the disruption on this user's part is getting in the way of us reaching one. Him arguing that "we're not discussing X, we're discussing Y" is disruptive and a nuisance.

To Hans Adler: would you care to repeat your points on the project page? What you say is entirely sensible, and is the sort of clear thinking that needs to be brought to the discussion.

(If here is the wrong place to report this sort of thing, then where is, given that WP:RFC and WP:ANI aren't?) --RFBailey (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A content dispute should be settled on the talk page in question. If consensus is not clear (it actually seems to be clear here), you might wind up filing an RFC. You made several remarks regarding SouthernE's comments, stating that they were "wholly unacceptable," but the comments you are talking about are borderline (at worst) incivility. It would be, possibly, easier for us to figure this out if you gave the right diffs: don't show us what you said about him, show us what he said. You've linked mostly to comments that you made (although some of them contain diffs of their own, which I've just mentioned don't seem to substantiate much of a case against SouthernE). You claim that he and several others have been hostile towards a third party, but I don't see any diffs that don't just look like a content dispute (one in which the aforementioned group of users is probably right). --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did "show what he said", in my original post. The diffs containing SouthernElectric's edits which I felt to be disruptive are the ones I posted originally: to be clear, I'll repeat them here . The diffs I posted containing largely my edits were an attempt to give some background as to how I became embroiled in this mess, that's all. For the hostile behaviour I was alluding to, read all of WT:RAIL#Metric/Imperial system (Moved from Talk:WestCoastway line) (and the related discussion at Talk:West Coastway Line).

Regarding whether there is consensus or not, I would agree that there is a consensus that miles and chains should be included. However, some of us are trying to address the concerns of those who believe that metric units should be included somehow, for instance by having the functionality of {{convert}} improved. This user arguing "we're not discussing that, we're discussing this" (diff) is the real problem that I was trying to bring here. It's not up to him to decide that something is "totally irrelevant" (diff) to the discussion, just because he isn't interested in discussing it. --RFBailey (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but none of that is incivility. It may be miscommunication, or disagreement, or even a lack of time on SE's part to understand better what you're trying to say (or maybe he's right and it is irrelevant). None of this is incivility. If the diffs you've provided are the only ones in question, then there's really nothing going on here. If anything, you need to slow down when it comes to accusing others of acting in bad faith or hostility. His comments do not appear to be out of line. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was incivility; I felt that the edits were disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. --RFBailey (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I was also named by RFBailey in the list of editors accused of bad faith or hostility to his consort, which is a POV and hardly in keeping with good faith. I too have no objections to metric units (km) being included after the recorded Imperial distance measurements. Misplaced Pages should be about verifiable information, much of the information that this user complains about in Template:West Coastway Line is verifable (in miles and chains from the pre-grouping railway junction diagrams (1914)) - although no source was quoted in the template. This argument appears to be one of mutual intolerance between youth (under 25s) and those not in that category. RFBailey has made it clear which side his loyalties are, and his use of hyperbole against other editors in not particularly helpful; although he has made belated attempts to contact some of the participants in an attempt to cool tempers.Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to defend my actions, in response to Pyrotec's post above, I'd like to say the following. First, I don't have a "consort". Second, the reason I listed Pyrotec was because of this post at WT:RAIL, which I felt rather missed the point that was being made (she didn't appear to be suggesting chains were difficult, just unfamiliar). I'm not claiming that the miles/chains measurements aren't verifiable either (of course they are, and I doubt that even hardcore metric-pushers would dispute that), and I'm not "complaining" about them necessarily. At no time have I "taken sides": I appreciate both sides' points of view. And, if I'm supposed to provide diffs for everything, I'd like to know which posts of mine (s)he feels contain hyperbole.

For the record, I am over 25, but was also subjected to the British school system at a time when all new books, schools TV programmes, etc., etc., would use the metric system over imperial measurements to levels of absurdity (for instance, I remember a schools geography programme from around 1990 about the River Severn, which was constantly talking about kilometres), so I can appreciate that there are people in the UK who have a better understanding of metric rather than imperial measurements. That's not to mention that there are millions of English-reading people around the world (of all ages) in fully metricated countries. Personally, I'm not intolerant of imperial measurements: I use them all the time! Our job as editors isn't to force either system down readers' throats, but to write encyclopaedia articles that can be understood.

Finally, the reason I posted on this page was because of disruptive behaviour, not necessarily because of incivility, and definitely not because of the content dispute. If this is the wrong forum for that, then I apologise. --RFBailey (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:SouthernElectric now claims to have left Misplaced Pages, and his user page and talk page have been deleted at his request, after receiving a 24-hour block for a matter unrelated to this. This discussion should therefore be closed, I think. --RFBailey (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk-page flaming and insults

User:JasonAQuest responded to an initial communication from me here and here with an attack on my politeness, here, throwing out the first volley of personal insults ("condescending", "presumptuous").

I continued to be polite, even when he insulted the work of our Project Group. He finally flamed me here, with personal insults ("mean-spirited," "You treat people like retarded children," etc.).

It's incredible to me that someone starts right off by insulting you and insulting your Project, and then calls you "mean-spirited" and more as he himself is flaming you. Aside from this, he makes suspect claims that a large number of my longtime fellow and colleagues — many of whom have been kind and generous enough to place Barnstar awards on my page — would refute.

I ask for some help to make him stop insulting me and slandering me. Please help me. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you notified the editor in question on their talk page about this alert? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright I did that myself and posted a note. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This exchange actually began with Tenebrae completely reverting a good-faith edit I made, which (in addition to the change he objected to) contained a perfectly legitimate addition to the article. A minor offense, but hardly a civil and constructive opening. The "flame" to which he refers was an attempt to explain that his manner of dealing with people is not always appreciated or constructive. I advised him of my past bad experiences with him (I've edited anonymously for quite a while) and of others' comments to me about him, to help him understand how he's perceived by some of those who don't give him barnstars. I'm willing to take the lumps for that outbreak of frankness.

I admit to criticizing the WikiProject Comics guideline he was enforcing (a rule for formatting biographical articles which is not widely applied and is disputed in WikiProject Bio) as an "inappropriate demand"... but I don't see how that's an "insult" to him or the entire Project. I did describe one of his comments as "presumptuous", but that's because "thanks for understanding" does in fact presume that I would understand and agree with the guideline (I did not). Finally, what I said to him is only "slander" if it's untrue that he has upset other editors and gotten into fights with some of them. I could take the time to dig up examples, but I don't think anything constructive would be accomplished by that. I'd rather focus on the content than on this one person with whom I have troubles. I'll continue to avoid him as much as our overlapping interests allow, and I ask that he try to restrain himself as well... and maybe try to understand how his tone and William F. Buckley-isms might be off-putting (though I don't presume that he will). - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the MoS guideline or not, and whether it is enforced on every article or not, it's still there and must be respected. If you don't agree with it, that's fine--you have the choice to refrain from editing biography/comics articles or to raise your concerns on the MoS page and perhaps see if you can raise consensus for a change. In the meantime, if it's there and in use on an article and you're not respecting it, another editor very much has the right to leave a note on your Talk Page reminding you about it. Editors leave such notes for each other all the time on Wiki. It's not because anyone thinks you're stupid; it's usually because there are pages and pages of policy on Wiki and it's easy to forget something or to be completely unaware that a particular policy is in place. If you look on admins' pages, you'll see that they call each other out all the time.

Tenebrae's note to you was succinct and civil, and was completely appropriate. Did you ever think that he left the note to give you the courtesy of letting you know why you were reverted and keep it from happening again, instead of just deleting your work out of hand? You could have ignored it or left a short "thanks for the info" acknowledgment but instead you went off on a long uncivil diatribe on his Talk Page. Looking at other entries on your Talk Page, it appears you've also been less than friendly with other editors. Your tone and manner come across as being hostile, even if that isn't what you're intending. Stop and think about what you're writing. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

TomPhan's postings are condescending

TomPhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ..and inappropriate. He doesn't seem to learn at all. Given the hostility and history of his interactions with me, I suspect he is an WP:SPA sock of someone, though I don't know who. Anyone who can help would be appreciated. For specifics, please check his edit history (less than a couple of dozen edits). Given his request for a "self-block", I would request an actual block to be listed in his history (but given his lack of concern for such a block, I truly doubt it will help too much other than to have it on the record). — BQZip01 —  00:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. His edits don't seem to match those of a "new" user, no. The first step might be to figure out if he's a sock and work from there. I'd normally say this should go to suspected sock puppets but since you don't know who he could be, maybe a request for CheckUser might be appropriate. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU submitted accordingly. — BQZip01 —  05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to edit your RFCU request (I don't think I can, anyway) but you might want to clarify it a little as to why this user looks like a sockpuppet. You might want to specifically note that the user's very first edits were comments and votes on RfA matters and that the user left comments that seemed to show some familiarity with you--both of those points are red flags that point toward a possible sock. Best, DanielEng (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe you based on past interactions(between BQZip01 and myself, I don't know TomPhan), but to make things easier for those who may not know you could some examples be cited? Anynobody 05:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. First of all, please look at his edit history. His edits are all related to my RfA (all users contacted responded in my RfA). as for his disruption, here are some examples: (please note his accusation of a crime in this one) — BQZip01 —  05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:69.91.139.228

Between 22:59 and 23:03 today, posted 6 messages to 6 different users, all variations on the theme "I don't like you." (Actually, I assume that's what the one in Spanish said.) , ,,,, Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a standard drive-by IP vandal to me--probably a bored kid--especially since there are no constructive edits in that IP history at all. I left a L3 warning on the Talk Page; if it continues, they'll likely be picked up and blocked by an admin somewhere along the way. Best, DanielEng (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Thanks. Now, I feel loved. Awwwww. - Arcayne () 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

I suspect him of trolling, he is refusing to listen to me after I give him sources, being rather rude, wikistalking me, and I'm trying my best to be calm, assume good faith, and try to reason with hi, but he won't cooperate. I would appreciate him being temp.blocked to see if he'll cool down. -Karaku (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, this user considers comments such as this and this assuming good faith and being reasonable. See User talk:Karaku#Troll... for the whole conversation. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Trust not the Penguin. Karaku has only been editing for a few days, and has already been blocked for 24 hours. His activities are very frustrating and disruptive (such as the WP:SNOW nomination of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann for deletion) and people have been extremely patient. Harry the Dog (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Karaku, with your vague accusations here you seem to be continuing a pattern of just saying "I am right and you are wrong" and not justifying this in an intelligible way. Currently the only person who has a chance of getting blocked is you. If that is the best you can do, then you need to learn a lot to become the kind of team player you are expected to be here. Please make a harder effort to argue facts rather than personal relations. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry- Nominating Madeleine McCann for deletion is not disruptive, it's helping. It seriously isn't notable. But let that go on at the AfD talk page. I haven't been editing for a few days- more than that, I've been here before editing under an IP, i believe, and decided to make an account. I was blocked for a day for the (pointless, no offence meant) 3RR rule. And don't act like TrP has never been blocked before. I'm a positive contributor, and trying to help the articles, and i'm getting Wikistalked and trolled by TrP. I'm getting annoyed by him and being as calm as I can without unleashing personal attacks.

Cheese- He is wikistalking me, He seems to watch my contribs page, then rv nearly every single edit I make, then won't listen to me. (Such as him not listening to me on Code Lyoko and Matoran). I am not a problem, thank you very much. I'm the one trying to be calm about this and trying to get it resolved, but TrP just has to stay in his own little world and believe what was there before, even after i give sources. My comments are not innapropriate, and I am behaving.

Hans- I have tried to tell him I'm right in a more detailed way, but he won't listen, he'll just RV it. Even when i GIVE SOURCES. Why do I have the chance getting blocked here? Trying to help Misplaced Pages? I am trying to argue facts, but TrP is refusing to listen, -Karaku (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"He won't listen." Yes, that's likely to happen when you try to push an excentric position against the consensus of everybody else, using weak arguments. E.g. Madeleine McCann not notable? An article with 185 references? And insinuating that Penguin has been blocked before when it is demonstrably false is what we call a personal attack. It's normal behaviour in school yards, but hereabouts you can be blocked for it. The policy for this is WP:NPA. For easy reference: Here is your block log and here is Penguin's block log. You have been here since January, and Penguin has been here since November 2005. I would say the difference is striking. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to make me an angry bastard here? Yes, She isn't notable. I don't care if there are 5358934 references. Now this is not the AfD page for her, drop it. I have not been here "since January", I've been here longer than that without an account editing. This just proves I'm being ignored once more. -Karaku (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are responsible for your emotions. If they are out of control I strongly suggest you take a break. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zebra91

Zebra91 (talk · contribs)

This user continues to revert the removal of content from a school article (Patrician Brothers' College, Fairfield). Three editors, including myself have put forward their opinion on the article's talk page, however Zebra91 has made it clear on the discussion page and on user pages that they do not intend on backing down (e.g. here and here) and subsequently the discussion seems to be going no where. I suspect the user has also used a new account and two IP's to support themselves or improve their image (e.g. here, here and here). The situation seems to have gotten out of hand and i'm not sure what to do. Would appreciate some input/an uninvolved person to intervene. Loopla (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For the abuse of alternate accounts, file a report at WP:SSP. For the edit warring see WP:AN/3RR. I don't see particular incivility, just a horrible misunderstanding of what should and shouldn't be in the article and doesn't seem to understand that nobody has the "right" to edit Misplaced Pages (and that consensus must be respected). --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems like a chronic failure to understand WP:NOT and WP:N - common in newbies, but the aggressive attitude is somewhat problematic and may result in protection of the article. Orderinchaos 14:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Quizimodo

I wish to report Quizimodo for uncivil behaviour and responding to a proper comment with personal attacks. On Talk:Dominion, Soulscanner responded to unhelpful personal remarks made by Quizimodo

Instead of personal attacks, why not tell me what your take is on any of the three quotes given above. How have a misinterpreted these? --soulscanner (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I added my own comment:

There would be less occasion for ad hominem remarks if, as Soulscanner says, material was consistently cited. This is the major failing of the article. Quizimodo accuses 'flagrant misinterpretation'. It is certainly an interpretation, but how he can judge it is a misinterpretation I cannot tell. I for one don't read his quotes the way he does. This is the problem with relying too much on one text: it can be interpreted different ways.--Gazzster (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

He responded: Well, most of the commentators to date apparently disagree with you. As well, your commentary is even more applicable to your ally in this: given editorial behaviours to date, entailing the flagrant dismissal of references already provided regarding other notions (e.g., multiple reliable references attesting to the official/legal nature of 'Dominion' as Canada's title) and other long-standing dickery, are you really surprised by the reaction? Quizimodo (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And: 'My ally?' Frankly you don't deserve a response.--Gazzster (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the emptiness of your commentaries, we are not missing much. Quizimodo (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing provocative in my comment. The jab about ‘my ally’ was completely unjustified. The last remark even more so. I responded on his talk page:

I do not know what I have said to merit your rudeness. Your attitude toward me and other users who happen to diagree with you is ridiculous and bloody-minded. Your comments about 'my ally' is completely inappropriate. Assume good-faith and show some respect, even if you don't mean it. And if you carry on like this to me or anyone else you will be reported.--Gazzster (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He responded on my talk page: Your comments have been read. Misplaced Pages isn't your mother. Spare us your threats. Now, run along ... Quizimodo (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied:

The warning stands. And you've just given it more justification.--Gazzster (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then:

I quiver. Do not comment on my talk page, capiche? Quizimodo 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He then removed my comments from his talk page (which he may do) with the comment ‘removing juvenile commentary’.

I request that Quizimodo be warned about his uncivil comments. They are all too frequent, and obstruct meaningful discussion.--Gazzster (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It breaks my Wiki heart to see things getting personal on Misplaced Pages (particulary with Valentine's Day around the corner). For now, I request a starting over approach, a shaking of hands, a hug. Therefore I hold out my hand to all involved in the Dominion disputes & make a personal request. Forgive one another, put aside personal frustrations & remember, we're all Wikipedian. Do I see any hands (please respond with Aye). GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to forgive. But my issue is Quizimodo's rudeness. If he isn't going to show respect to other Wikipedians a bucket load of forgiveness means nothing.--Gazzster (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've personally asked him to come here. I'm hoping I can also smooth things between him & Soulscanner; Soulscanner & G2bambino aswell. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quizimodo has chosen not to appear at this Wikiquette report. He's given his reasons at my 'talk page'. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quizimodo tends to be uncivil with anyone who disagrees with him, even slightly. I've recently filed for mediation over dealings with him. He generally bullies anyone who disagrees with him when he is not being arrogantly dismissive. His tendency to focus on personal attacks on editors who disagree with him is matched by a talent to avoid any comment on referenced material. Quoted from Dominion Talk page:

You are drawing conclusions from Forsey which are not stated. The Heard references are contradictory. The burden of proof is on you to prove the assertions made, which you have not done, not on me or others to stoke it. Quizimodo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Which conclusions am I drawing? --soulscanner (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As before, erroneous ones. Quizimodo (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Be specific. Which conclusion am I drawing from Forsey that is wrong? --soulscanner (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you be specific and provide clear and direct quotations as requested: the above is insufficient.

As well, your hypocrisy is grating, deferring to Forsey in this instance, yet rejecting his assertions when you don't agree with them regarding the legality of the title, etc. Enough. I will comment next when there's reason to. Quizimodo (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have. The Heard quotes say that Canada remained subjugated to Britain. How does Forsey contradict that? What claims am I making about Forsey that are wrong? Please assume good faith and dispense with name calling. --soulscanner (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not. Heard indicates that Canada was granted powers of self-government while still remaining subjugated to Britain -- the two can coincide. Forsey makes no claim in the above passage regarding Canada's autonomy, only about the continuance of responsible government. Thus, your assumptions are erroneous.

And, coming from G2b's 'associate' (in your words), you reap what you sow. If you wish to engender good faith, edit as such, remain silent, or withdraw. Misplaced Pages isn't your mother. Quizimodo (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets stick to the subject. Heard clearly states that the new federation got no new powers or autonomy from Britain. Do you agree or disagree with that?

I disagree with your interpretation of the subject matter, including Heard's assertion. Quizimodo (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind me. Do you agree or disagree with Heard? --soulscanner (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Minding you aside, I neither agree nor disagree with Heard -- it is what it is. Quizimodo (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

--soulscanner (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's an example of Quizimodo obstructing a discussion by uncivil behaviour. Quizimodo, please give us an undertaking to be civil to others, and to try and listen to what they are saying.--Gazzster (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Offers of mediation here and here were also rudely rejected here. --soulscanner (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is how Quizimodo responded on GoodDay's talk page:

Thank you for your attempts to broker peace and foster amity. Unfortunately, I will not be participating in that discussion: it has no standing whatsoever, and (as with many other aspects of this situation) is an unnecessary distraction and time-waster for which the purpose and outcome are unclear. As well, I will not provide additional fodder for those who have issues nor will I provide an opportunity for said editors to snowball. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious from this response that he doesn't even acknowledge the complaint, let alone address it. So I believe it's time to take the next step. I will post a report to Admin.--Gazzster (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, a RfC definitely might be an option for you. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a posting at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm as bit new to all this. Is that the best thing to do?--Gazzster (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out Misplaced Pages:Rfc. I'm trying to figure it out myself. --soulscanner (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, ta. But I doubt further discussion will do any good, given that he doesn't even acknowledge the complaint. I might just wait for the response from the noticeboard.--Gazzster (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is mostly for situations needing immediate intervention by an administrator. They don't tend to intervene in cases of incivility unless it's crossed over into personal attack and is serious enough to justify a block. There might not be a lot they can do here. If Quiz. won't go for mediation and you want to pursue this, your next step would be RfC. RfC is used when other means of dispute resolution (mediation, WQA) have broken down or failed and the situation is ongoing and serious enough to warrant further attention. It doesn't matter if the user wants an RfC, and it doesn't involve discussion with him--basically it has outside editors commenting and perhaps making a binding plan of action for dealing with the situation. Best, DanielEng (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My complaint is now referred to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Quizimodo.--Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

64.107.58.130 / 68.60.240.82

For several months now, 64.107.58.130 has been engaging in a seemingly willful, consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. S/he has repeatedly inserted problematic text (OR, POV, essays, text dumps from other websites, etc.), and continually reinserted it with significantly uncivil edit summaries in response to its removal. See e.g. here here here, here), and here — this is a nonexhaustive list taken just from Chrysler Hemi engine, which was indefinitely semiprotected as a result of this editor's repeated disruption.

Further, and of greater concern, this editor has used various articles' and users' talk pages to launch personal attacks and other significantly uncivil behaviour, to declare Misplaced Pages policies and norms irrelevant, and to issue statements of intent to continue behaving disruptively — as well as persistently deleting SineBot's automatic signatures of this user's talk page comments. See e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (nonexhaustive list from Talk:Chrysler Hemi engine); here from User talk:Anthony.bradbury, here from Talk:Ford FE engine, and here from Hemi engine.

I have patiently and repeatedly tried to reach out and engage this editor constructively, see here, here, here, here, here, without success. I had a brief glimmer of hope when this editor made some constructive and Wiki-compliant edits to Hemi engine, and I made special effort to thank him/her for doing so, but as you can see from the diffs I've provided, that appears to have been a one-time thing, not an indication of growing awareness or coöperative spirit.

This user obviously has a lot of passion and interest in particular topics, and it seems a shame for that to be channelled into disruptive, uncivil, divisive behaviour rather than productive, coöperative behaviour. I could use some additional perspective on how an editor such as this might best be handled. Thanks in advance. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Scheinwerfermann's characterization of my actions, motives and contributions. I have been forceful in my responses, but only because it has always been 'his way or no way'. I have, according to other editors (Duk) contributed valid and accurate material which has been blocked, deleted and deemed unacceptable by Scheinwerfermann for reasons that seem opaque and obtuse, cloaked in huge cut-and-paste verbiage taking up space, but not addressing the problems. Scheinwerfermann refuses to cooperate, refuses to accept others' viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that I am an editor who has just happened across this dispute, have never edited any of the articles contributed to by the complainant or the plaintiff, and am not a sockpuppet.

Having examined the edit history at Chrysler Hemi engine, as an example, I have to say that most of the contributions by 64.107.58.130 seem to border on original research, introducing a slanted point of view, and with no attempt whatsoever to verify the insertions made during the edits. There seems to be a definite campaign to right some wrongs within the article. Whatever we may think individually of the subject of the article, we should not look to introduce our opinion into it (though we should, conversely, look to remove all other obvious opinions we come across which have been placed by other editors). A thorough re-read of all the Misplaced Pages guidelines is urgently needed, and, for now, some cooling off is also much required, I think.

And that goes for the complainant also. It is not really policy for blind reversion of complete edits, a dismissive act which should only occur in cases of vandalism. Those parts of the plaintiff's contributions which are not original research or non-NPOV should remain within the article, as long as they are relevant to the subject. Invitation should then be made for third-party reliable sources to be included (where missing), by tagging with the {{fact}} device in the edit.

There also appears to be a measure of patronis(z)ation creeping into some quite strident posting to talk pages. For instance, describing a fellow editor (whatever you think of their edit history) as "an editor such as this" (see above) is hardly likely to placate them. It's dismissive in tone, and is a veiled incivility, and will naturally inflame both their senses and the situation. Whilst the complainant's talk page posts appear to be quite detached and aloof, I sense that they are not made from such a position, and an element of tension is detectable. If you truly believe you need to bite to protect the integrity of the article as you see it, then perhaps the bite should not be so hard.

To close, I would urge both to step away for 48 hours, and return with the intention of fostering better relations throughout their contact during editing. Hope this helps in some way. Thanks. Ref (do) 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just as willing to let this go for 48 hours as I have been to let things go at the Ford FE engine article and have been willing to let things go at the Chrysler Hemi Engine article. In both instances, I am waiting for some constructive response from Scheinwerfermann. At the Chrysler Hemi article, another editor placed some kind of lock on the article with the intent that it would be removed when we came to an agreement about it. I presented the points that I thought needed to be corrected...I am still waiting for some response from Scheinwerfermann. All I get are large cut-and-paste's that are not on point, just flaming against me as near as I can tell.

Is this some part of some formal 'procedure' here at Misplaced Pages? Do I need to be combing through articles, talk pages and what-not gathering quotes, instances and history?

Again, I'll give things as much time as anyone thinks is needed. But so far, it hasn't resulted in any kind of resolution other than incorrect articles remaining up, with missing citations and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The lock, as you call it, is an administrators' semi-protect, which prevents those who have not created an account and logged into it from making any edits to the article whatsoever. When you view Chrysler Hemi engine, you probably see a 'view source' tab instead of edit or history tabs. Anonymous IPs (such as yours, 64.107.58.130) cannot make any contributions, good faith or otherwise. The admins' other option is to fully protect the page, in which case no-one but admins can make edits, and we all see the 'view source' tab instead of the activity buttons, logged into an account or not.

In this instance, I have one more suggestion to put to you. Formalis(z)e your editorship by creating an account for yourself. I am not putting this to you as a way round the semi-protected pages, but so that you can feel as though you've joined the Misplaced Pages community more fully. Because it is a community, containing all the things you would expect from a physical neighbo(u)rhood collective - great acts of kindness, tons of help, but also disagreements and negatives. The reason you're posting here today stems from the latter. It honestly is so much easier to resolve things when one is dealing with a name and not a number (literally, in this instance). I can tell from the way you put your messages and arguments together that you are a very intelligent individual. But your potential here is not being realis(z)ed properly, and I believe that creating an account would be a fine first step to integrating, resolving and then moving on to make some first-class edits to what I'm sure will become first-class articles. It needs a lot of give and take, though.

However, I'd like to get a response from user Scheinwerfermann before we go any further. After his/her input, the future course of things may become a little clearer. Thanks for your so far very civil posting in response to my attempt to help. Best wishes. Ref (do) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref, thanks for getting involved here. I've been observing your recommended time-out, have read your comments a few times, and will read them a few more times before responding substantively. This is just a short acknowledgement note; more to follow soon. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref, having read and mulled your comments at some length, here are my thoughts:

I appreciate your perspective on the tone of my talk page comments directed at 64.107.58.130, but I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you. There was absolutely no explicit or implicit malice intended in my use of the phrase "an editor such as this", for example; I could just as easily have said "this editor", for that's what I meant. Both 64.107.58.130 and I are in North America; I'm speaking North American, while you're across the pond, reading English. Unintended connotations have been read-in over much less, so it seems likely this is at least part of the basis for your perception of my tone. I'm confident my edit history overall speaks well for itself in terms of compliance and cooperation, particularly when dealing with new editors, but perhaps there are adjustments I can make to the way I present the information. It would be nice to have some additional perspectives on the matter beyond the generally favourable evaluations I've had from a few admins I've asked to look over my work.

Furthermore, you seem to perceive my careful efforts to keep my comments relevant to content, format, protocol and procedure as patronising and dismissive. This leads me to wonder what you'd rather see me do in my attempts to reach out to 64.107.58.130. I have no intention or desire to get in pissing contests or mudslinging matches with this editor, so even when 64.107.58.130 has called me a Nazi (amongst many other blatantly uncivil personal attacks) I have continued to steer the conversation back towards the content, format, and protocols at hand. I believe that to be a reasonable, proper, and compliant way of dealing with personal attacks; you seem to perceive it as a "bite", and I'd be keen to learn your thoughts on how such attacks might better be handled.

It's a pleasant surprise to see 64.107.58.130's civil, coöperative tone in this discussion, and I sincerely hope we'll see more improvement in that direction, but it's difficult for me to hold much hope for it, given his/her significant track record of vitriolic, abusive behaviour. The diffs and links I posted are not exhaustive, but they are extensive, so I wouldn't fault you for having not have read them all. As recently as yesterday, 64.107.58.130 was still objecting (on his talk page) to being asked to properly sign his/her comments on talk pages, thus continuing a longstanding pattern of not only refusing to sign his comments, but going in and deleting SineBot's autosignatures of his/her comments. This, together with repeated and strident wholesale rejection and derision of Misplaced Pages policy and those who adhere to it, make it difficult for me to see this 64.107.58.130's civil tone in this thread as sincere and genuine. I hope I am eventually proven wrong on that point.

64.107.58.130 objects to what he says is "my way or no way" behaviour on my part. As I have repeatedly (and patiently, and politely, and in a civil manner) tried to explain to 64.107.58.130, what he perceives as "my" requirements, "my" rules, "my" policies, etc. are nothing more or less than the standards and norms agreed upon by the Misplaced Pages community. Tagging uncited facts, adding applicable templates, removing unencyclopædic text (OR, personal essays, large text dumps from web forums, etc.) does not constitute messing up an article; rather, those actions are each a part of working towards that article's improvement within the structures and provisions of Misplaced Pages. Each time I have tried to present this and other salient points of order and structure in Misplaced Pages, they've gone unread and explicitly dismissed by 64.107.58.130. Until s/he understands that Misplaced Pages's policies, standards, and norms apply to us all, I imagine s/he'll continue to feel censored, "wikistalked", and otherwise mistreated — If not by me, then by the next editor who comes along to clean up an article to which 64.107.58.130 has contributed unencyclopædic content.

The question of good/bad faith is not always simple, and I fear this is one of those cases. It seems to me that an editor who is repeatedly asked to cooperate and follow WP policy, and shown where and how to do so, and who repeatedly not only doesn't do so but overtly expresses his disdain for those policies and his willful intent to carry on disregarding them, is editing in bad faith. Ignorance of the rules doesn't constitute bad faith, but willfully and defiantly maintained ignorance of the rules might be a different matter. I realise that 64.107.58.130 is certainly not alone in his views; any kind of enforcement of Misplaced Pages policies is probably always going to be unpopular amongst those who have a strong passion for the subjects that interest them and aren't interested in formal structures or strictures, but this is an encyclopædia, not an enthusiast website or a blog or a car magazine or a book. Anybody may contribute, but everybody must do his best to do so within the rules and behavioural standards of this community. Just as I am confident my own edit history speaks generally well for itself, I am also pretty sure 64.107.58.130's edit history speaks for itself, only it doesn't paint a very uplifting picture. Having had a few admins look things over and received several confirmations of that view, I'm hoping to avoid initiating official administrator intervention; it's no fun for any of the parties involved and would probably not go well for 64.107.58.130. I sincerely hope s/he'll make the choice to behave coöperatively rather than combatively.

Again, thanks for your perspective and whatever further thoughts you may care to offer. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments regarding "cross-pond" use of English (North American? Why do I understand your writing if you are not using English?). When I see a humo(u)rous remark, US or UK, I take it for what it is and laugh. Conversely, when I see a barbed or arrogant remark, US or UK, I do the same, except I don't laugh. Not that I am saying your remarks are anything of the kind, but I am trying to illustrate that 90% of what you perceive as a language difference is a fallacy. Where the difference can lie is in common intelligence, or the lack of it. Ignorance is bliss, but it's also the death knell for anyone wishing to edit successfully here. Luckily, all three of us involved in this discussion are of the former, and able to string three words together cohesively. I therefore cannot agree that 64.107.58.130 can be described as ignorant. I am afraid that, if I sense the "tone" of the words used might be dubious, then it's highly likely that another involved editor may well pick up on that too, whether they come from the United States or United Kingdom. And judging from 64.107.58.130's reactions to some of your postings, he/she is incensed or outraged by what meanings are perceived. Unfortunately, those emotions need to be handled better by the anon editor, or there is no future for them in Misplaced Pages. I hope I have previously given that impression consistently. And there is no doubt your edit history holds up well, but the matter of your respect or standing in the Wikicommunity is not at issue. We're not here in a Wikiquette dispute to decide which editor was right and which one was wrong. We are looking to find a way in which both can successfully edit in the future in the same areas of interest/expertise.

To use the words "but it's difficult for me to hold much hope for it, given his/her significant track record of vitriolic, abusive behaviour" is, again, unmistakeably dismissive and critical, whether true or not, and whether used here or "over the pond". To deny this is hugely insensitive to a person's feelings (we don't switch them off to edit this encyclopedia, we continue to be human emotional beings throughout, and some thought has to be given to this aspect).

I believe that the root of the problem for (not 'with') 64.107.58.130 is the feeling that nothing they contribute is deemed worthwhile, and that they may expect all their good faith edits to be treated in the same way. Which is why I reiterate that any possibly sourceable, neutral, balanced and relevant information they have added should not just be wiped off in a carte blanche action.

There is a real impression given that this IP editor may well have been initially tarred with the vandal brush, and I am able to see why, but not given enough fair chance subsequently to prove good faith, given the possible sense of injustice I have highlighted above. The matter of whether a person signs their contributions or not is between them and SineBot, usually. It can't really be held up as an indication of what type of editor they are.

I still believe that it will be possible for both of you to successfully edit the same articles, and I would be interested to hear back from 64.107.58.130 once more, although I suspect I have gone as far as I can in trying to set out a common ground from which both can develop. I would also invite other neutral editors to join the discussion with their thoughts on this. Thanks. Ref (do) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading-in considerably more than I put into my comment regarding English vs. American usage. Of course we're all using English; I was pointing out that the connotation of words and phrases can differ significantly between UK and North American usage. "Scheme", for example, can be a perfectly innocuous synonym for "programme" or "system" in the UK, but it has decidedly negative connotations of chicanery and underhandedness in North America. Likewise, I think the way you heard "an editor such as this" in your head is probably not the way I intended it. I'm sure we can agree that communication happens between or among parties involved, so I'm not laying blame or pointing the finger, merely pointing out a linguistic phenomenon that may be at work here.

I am curious what term other than "willfully ignorant" you would prefer I apply to an editor who does not learn the rules and has clearly stated s/he has no intention of doing so. I agree with your supposition that this editor may feel a sense of injustice at the lack of durability of his/her edits. If that's so, the remedy is quick and easy: when 64.107.58.130 makes his/her contributions in a manner consistent with the behavioural and procedural norms of the Misplaced Pages community, more of his/her edits will survive for longer and longer periods and his/her sense of exclusion will evaporate. That is the common ground upon which all editors can effectively coöperate towards the betterment of individual Misplaced Pages articles and the project as a whole.

I bear no especial animosity or ill will towards 64.107.58.130, beyond the annoyance s/he is causing by behaving disruptively and abusively on an ongoing basis. Thanks for your participation. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"…Both 64.107.58.130 and I are in North America; I'm speaking North American, while you're across the pond, reading English. Unintended connotations have been read-in over much less, so it seems likely this is at least part of the basis for your perception of my tone."

Funny, I’m from North America and that’s the impression I get too. "

"I'm confident my edit history overall speaks well for itself in terms of compliance and cooperation, particularly when dealing with new editors, but perhaps there are adjustments I can make to the way I present the information."

” Aw hell, you're just being vindictive. I've been closer to these cars than you'll ever be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semi-Gloss (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)”

“NEXT time, please insert a request for a citation before willy-nilly deleting something. You know, a FACT tag. THEN, you can discuss things further on this page. DO NOT just delete stuff. Zaq1qaz (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)”

"Furthermore, you seem to perceive my careful efforts to keep my comments relevant to content, format, protocol and procedure as patronising and dismissive. This leads me to wonder what you'd rather see me do in my attempts to reach out to 64.107.58.130. I have no intention or desire to get in pissing contests or mudslinging matches with this editor, so even when 64.107.58.130 has called me a Nazi (amongst many other blatantly uncivil personal attacks) I believe that to be a reasonable, proper, and compliant way of dealing with personal attacks; you seem to perceive it as a "bite", and I'd be keen to learn your thoughts on how such attacks might better be handled."

” In the mean time, feel free to remove the "NAZI" and otherwise abusive comments. --Duk 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)”

So why did the comments remain? Because Scheinwerfermann doesn't WANT to remove them. That's not what Scheinwerfermann WANTS to do. Why all the effort expended on making sure my I.P. address appeared? What is your I.P. address?

I’m picturing a train on a set of tracks that doesn’t understand how it might be a wise thing to maybe curve around some obstacle and not cling to a set of rails so assiduously. The Misplaced Pages “rules” you cut and paste and refer to soooo much are actually “guidelines”.

”An editor who consistently refuses to learn the rules is being disruptive just as willfully as an editor who knows the rules and chooses not to follow them.”…by Scheinwerfermann.

Let me tell you how I think this should be handled: I went through your contributions page; probably 75% of your activity is with Chrysler and its related subsidiaries articles. I can’t find a single instance where you have contributed anything to a Ford article. Suddenly, you perceive a personal attack and you retaliate with an abusive edit of an article you saw I had recently worked on. Then you go to the Hemi Engine article where you saw that I had put in extensive work and contributions and start the same bullying there. You don’t like anyone messing with ‘your’ Chrysler articles. Not the Hemi articles, not the Dodge Dart article, nothing you have 'blessed' can be allowed to be improved. Errors, inconsistencies, lack of references and citations; they don't matter once you have made a Wiki-cross over the article and locked it down.

I have continued to steer the conversation back towards the content, format, and protocols at hand. And yet, the whole Wiki-community is still blessed with a Chrysler Hemi article that contains incorrect information and few citations because you refuse to discuss the points I made so that the protection can come off of the article.

The way I see this being handled is I put in for some kind of tattletale report of Wikistalking, abusive editing, tendendentiousness or whatever this place calls schoolyard bullying.

” he seems to be what is known in Canada as a "shit disturber". It means exactly what it sounds like it means. -- Scheinwerfermann. 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)”

” OK, I can do some of what you ask, like unlock the article for unregistered users to edit, but not if people are just going to keep reverting each other. Can you and the other editors come to some agreement here on the talk page first? Maybe start a new section and pick something small you can all agree on? It might be difficult because of your previous name calling, but if you make the effort, maybe the other editors will too. --Duk 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)”

So this is where it stands. Scheinwerfermann refuses to come on point and discuss the facts that are in dispute. S/he refuses to do anything except complain about my use of an I.P. address instead of a user name. As I stated on my talk page, an I.P. address is more personal and a more reliable means of identification than a made-up user name and I don’t understand the issue here. And I especially don’t understand why it is preventing the correction of a agreed-upon erroneous article that is missing references, citations and additional information pertinent to the subject.

"64.107.58.130 objects to what he says is "my way or no way" behaviour on my part. As I have repeatedly (and patiently, and politely, and in a civil manner) tried to explain to 64.107.58.130, what he perceives as "my" requirements, "my" rules, "my" policies, etc. are nothing more or less than the standards and norms agreed upon by the Misplaced Pages community. Tagging uncited facts, adding applicable templates, removing unencyclopædic text (OR, personal essays, large text dumps from web forums, etc.) does not constitute messing up an article; rather, those actions are each a part of working towards that article's improvement within the structures and provisions of Misplaced Pages. Each time I have tried to present this and other salient points of order and structure in Misplaced Pages, they've gone unread and explicitly dismissed by 64.107.58.130. Until s/he understands that Misplaced Pages's policies, standards, and norms apply to us all, I imagine s/he'll continue to feel censored, "wikistalked", and otherwise mistreated — If not by me, then by the next editor who comes along to clean up an article to which 64.107.58.130 has contributed unencyclopædic content."

Please note that Scheinwerfermann refuses to discuss changing his viewpoint on the matter. It is my fault, and now apparently your fault. He has made, in this long-winded reply, no real compromise, nor shown a willingness to discuss the article that started this dispute. He does not own up to his abusive editing and stalking of me across two other articles. In short, it really is “his way or no way”.

I would also like to let Scheinwerfermann in on how some of us write. We don’t write an article, with nice citations and references all at once. We may have have some time and write a paragraph, clean up a few paragraphs, then take a break. Then we’ll come back, maybe add a relevant photo, maybe add a citation or two.

According to Scheinwerfermann’s view, it seems, we should have everything all nice and perfect and ready to type in during one session at the keyboard. If we don’t, everything gets reverted, all work gets undone, and who cares about “some” citations when all of them are needed in order to satisfy Scheinwerferman’s “rules”.

” I provided the citation requested, but you deleted the referenced source, and the citation, for the above two examples, as well as for numerous other requests for citations. You seem to be deliberately sabotaging my attempts to provide you with citations. Do you have a problem with a citation from a published book, with an ISBN number, that I cited down to the page number? You are a classic whiner. You can harp and criticize and find flaws, but what exactly are you adding to the project? I’m waiting to see. Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.221.60 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)”

I went through a bunch of talk pages and history last night. I don't know how to link to inner parts of pages, but I kept a log of where quotes came from. There is a CURRENT history of innocuous edits and softsoaping treatment in his first page and a half of edit history. You need to go back to before he first realized I might report him for a more relevant picture of his 'style' of editing and treatment of others.

So, all I take away from this is that Scheinwerfermann doesn't think anything's amiss. That he's right, everyone else is wrong, and everything should just stay the way it is. Is that everyone else's take on this roundy-round?

(Unindent) Well, you've totally lost me there. Disengaged quotations which I take to be unformulated diffs (and impossible for me to refer to easily), and which have severely backtracked this informal process. Quoting other people's gripes with Schweinwerfermann is nothing to do with this method of resolving differences.

I suggest you both now take this to a higher resolution process, because what is being brought out here is far beyond rectification through a Wikiquette alert. I did try. Thanks and good luck. Ref (do) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ReluctantPhilosopher

This user is dominating article Sonia Gandhi and is not allowing anyone else to edit/add/delete any information. I had made some recent changes which were reverted by him without any discussion. I had asked hat is disruptive about it? I had already given valid reasons for the same. And in fact, according to him, Political commentry and POVs do not have any place in wikipedia. So why is he worried? And his problem is not anything else, but someone is opposing him with facts.

He is maintaining this article like a fan site and monitoring it daily and immediately reverting any edits which he does not like (I am talking about valid edits). He has also threatened me a lot of times that I will be blocked when he does not hold any such rights.

Following is the explanation of my edits.

Added: She was eligbile to become Indian citizen in 1974 but she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. Removed: As the Prime Minister's wife she acted as his official hostess and also accompanied him on a number of state visits. (No such reference) Modified: In stead of 'she', I have modifed to 'her party'. If you know the civics, you should know that a party recommends a person not a person recommends.

Removed: There has been considerable media speculation about their futures in the Congress. If we go by your opinion, what is the base for this statement? It is indeed a political commentry.

Removed: The 'general view' was that the action could be seen as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation. What is this? Whose general view is this? Clear example of a POV. Has no place in wikipedia.

I request someone to help me adding.modifying valuable information to the article on most powerful lady politician in India. The article needs a lot of cleanup and should be saved from editors like ReluctantPhilosopher.

I would like to ask everyone whether it is ok that someone is dominating the article everyday and no one bothers to look at it?

08:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. If you two still have a legitimate content dispute, you should be able to discuss it using the dispute resolution process. You made this exact complaint a few weeks ago, which ended with arguments about who's a sockpuppeteer until it came out that you were the one using sockpuppets and then the discussion promptly died down. Do you think people have forgotten that? Stop coming here to hash out your content dispute. There are no etiquette violations here, at least none that exist outside of a bitter, pointless content dispute (in which you two seem endlessly entangled). The WQA is not the place for this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

confusing behavior from User talk:ApsbaMd2

Could someone please take a look at recent edits by User talk:ApsbaMd2 and see if they can figure out what's going on. This brand new account has started reverting edits as vandalism, but it seems to be almost random. My good faith edit, and those of User:Huaiwei and User talk:Gryffindor have been unfairly accused. IP User Special:Contributions/152.160.39.70 was accused of vandalism to a page that he did not even edit. It addition, this strange revert was also made. I don't know if it's a bot, or just a strange user. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird. Some, but certainly not all, of this user's revisions have legitimately been vandalism. I'll drop a line at the user's talk page and see what response I get. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a L3 notice for his continued vandalism, in applying false warning templates to various talk pages. It seems to now be a vandal-only account, although I still hold out hope. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rokus01 (concerning article Nordic race)

The conduct of User:Rokus01 in the talk:Nordic race needs to be brought to attention. The controversy is about the question whether the sentence: "For example, the later Nazi minister for Food, Richard Walther Darré, who had developed a concept of the German peasantry as Nordic race, used the term 'Aryan' to refer to the tribes of the Iranian plains." This statement is sourced to a biography of Richard Walther Darré by an accepted historian. Common sense as well as wp:NPOV would mandate the mentioning of Darré's theory on the Nordic Race in this article. Rokus01 objects this, but from his writings on the discussion page I personally cannot perceive if has has actually understood wp:reliable sources and wp:NPOV. His opinion is unsupported by the two other editors who participated in the discussion. More importantly, his conduct has left the limits of what is acceptable within the guidelines of wp:civil and wp:assume good faith. In the edit summary I have been asked to " Go to the nazi pages please" and been named a Troll and Extremist . In his last message on the talk page, Rokus01 accused me of conveying "Nazi POV" .

In the discussion so far I have avoided any political viewpoint, and I have the intention to continue this. I am only concerned about depicting Nazi ideology (and it's connection to theories about a "Nordic Race") correctly. That I have an interest in Nazi ideology OF COURSE does not allow the conclusion that I would be an adherent thereof, and I totally object these presumptions by Rokus01.Zara1709 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like Godwin's law applies on a much shorter timeframe when a discussion is already about Nazis. Most of what you describe is a content/source dispute. I'd recommend a third opinion, request for comment, or possibly posting on the reliable sources noticeboard. His conflating your agenda or intentions with Nazism is inappropriate and I have left a warning. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop and John Zizioulas article

Despite repeated requests to cease, User Cebactokpatop repeatedly bad faith, incivility and several times has mounts unwarranted personal attacks against me:

• 'I have not detected even the smallest desire on your side to learn that there are people out there who do not agree with either JZ or his followers. If you were expecting arguing from my side in typical internet forum fashion - one by one sentence, you are badly mistaken about the mind of the Traditional Orthodox. How low you can be is in the fact that you even modified my own text adding quotation around the first word in the title on this page - Unproven Claims by Seminarist. If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself. In the end, followers of JZ cannot be any better, as the spring they are drinking from, is tainted. ' (01:17, 18 February 2008)

• 'Just because he is the fan of the JZ, his personal orientation should not be emphasized on the Wiki's article. Seminarist needs to learn that other opinions are valid on Wiki, as well.' (20:28, 17 February 2008)

• ' This below is for your own benefit and speedy revival from the falsehood of Zizioulas, Afansiev, Shmeman, etc. "Even if false hierarchs, while being in heresy, will succeed in deceiving and enticing a certain number of ignorant ones and in gathering even a considerable number of followers, then they are outside the sacred walls of the Church just the same. But even if very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, they are in the Church, and the authority and the protection of the ecclesiastical institution resides in them. And if they should suffer for true piety, then this will undoubtedly contribute to their eternal glory and salvation of their souls." - St. Nicephorus the Confessor' (05:56, 17 February 2008)

• ' You are continuing with the vandal approach putting unverified claims "pro" while removing references to the voice of those who recognized in JZ - a faulty man with heterodox ideas.'(14:25, 16 February 2008)

• 'you are trying to push down the Traditional Orthodox View, by creating numerous sections' (21:32, 15 February 2008)

• 'Nope. You came as vandal and backed off only after my reaction.' (21:08, 15 February 2008)

• 'Your constant quoting attitude whenever referring to the term - traditional, explains who you are and where you come from.' (21:05, 15 February 2008)

• 'Your attempt to hide the fact that many people disagree with his work is obvious. What is very low is the way you are tying to do it.' (20:11, 15 February 2008)

• 'This person is trying to quiet down the voice of the traditional Orthodox people who do not see the work of JZ as Orthodox. That is precisely what we call vandalism, and that is why you deserved tag - vandal.' (20:06, 15 February 2008)

(The context of these remarks is a dispute in which I wish to have removed POV material from John Zizioulas article - see Talk:John Zizioulas.)

I do not believe such comments are acceptable on Misplaced Pages.

Seminarist (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

This is a situation where an editor (who is also an admin, for what it's worth) is exhibiting unprovoked rudeness and belligerence. The user is also expressing an attitude in clear defiance of WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS.

• My post

Mikkalai's response

• My post

Mikkalai's response

• My post

Mikkalai's first response

Mikkalai's second response

• My notice that I had opened the above discussion (I placed this template on each of the relevant article talk pages)

Mikkalai's response (he posted this same response to each instance of that template)

As far as I can surmise, Mikkalai took issue with my first post, in which I agreed with someone else's opinion (someone with whom he appears to have already been arguing) on a simple matter of style, and from that point on appears to have decided that nothing I say is worth any of his time. Everything I've suggested with regard to the articles in question and his conduct has been met with rudeness and an attitude that says, effectively, "Go away, you don't know what you're talking about, I own these pages and I'm making the decisions". I don't think that this is appropriate behavior for any editor, much less an admin. -- Hux (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above edits, User:Mikkalai is being unnesecarly rude to you, and is not appreciative of Misplaced Pages's policies. I will leave a warning with this user. (Note to anyone: This is my first case, so if I am doing anything incorrectly, just say.) Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help from others as User:Mikkalai is levaing me rude messages now. I will leave User:Mikkalai another warning. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai is deleting any and all warnings left by me. As I am now being attacked, I shall no longer be a mediator in this case. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai's responses to my warnings As you can see from the link, User:Mikkalai is attacking me more. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Case is now at an administrator's noticeboard. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I posted a response on Mikkalai's talk page regarding his Wikilawyering accusations, the nature of which suggested that he didn't fully understand what the term meant. -- Hux (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that now he's simply deleting all record of communication regarding this issue from his talk page. For example, Southern Illinois SKYWARN's warning about personal attacks and a violation of WP:OWN was reverted by Mikkalai one minute after it was posted. The same user's notice that he'd opened a case at the admin's noticeboard was reverted five minutes after it was posted. A few minutes after that the entire talk page was blanked and replaced with an attacking message that clearly refers to this alert and the ANI case. He also did the same thing with his user page. This latter action is kind of interesting because of what was blanked out: a story that appears to lay bare his general attitude of how Misplaced Pages should work.

Taken together, I think it's obvious that he has no intention of being part of this process (indeed, he appears to be actively trying to cover up its existence on his talk page, along with any other criticism) so I doubt this alert will solve the problem at hand. -- Hux (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk page. As much as this does or does not demonstrate a willingness to participate in the WQA or whatever, he is allowed to remove such messages. I will not comment as to how that reflects on the current dispute, but you should be aware of the fact that users are free to remove whatever unwelcome messages they want from their talk page (whether or not they should be unwelcome is another matter). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that users can never remove messages from their talk pages. (If you inferred that then that was my mistake.) However, I believe I'm right in saying that removing such content when it is relevant to an ongoing dispute in order to cover up one's actions, or otherwise influence the resolution of that dispute, is considered bad form. That's the reason why I made note of Mikkalai's user/talk page activity above. -- Hux (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Article about Abu Musa in the Trade & Environment Database of the American University, Massachusetts
2. ""Abu Musa and The Tumbs: The Dispute That Won't Go Away, Part Two," July 28, 2001". Retrieved 2008-01-06.
3. ""Iran, its territorial integrity in the Persian gulf region," 20 December 2007". Retrieved 2008-01-06.
4. ""Unwanted Guest: The Gulf Summit and Iran," 7 December 2007". Retrieved 2008-01-06.
5. Iranian Islands of Tunbs and Abu Musa. Abu Musa

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution