Revision as of 10:45, 14 January 2009

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

Active alerts

Discussion in Minoan Eruption

There is an editor User:Orangemarlin who is making unnecessarily confrontational comments in ]. This person seems to adopt this tone a lot but he seems to me to be crossing the line here.--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you're the disruptive editor, I find this amusing. You're trying to force editors away from consensus. And you conveniently and rudely forgot to drop a note on my user talk. But anyways this is a ridiculous POV pushing that's truly disruptive. We should move on. OrangeMarlin 21:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I'm working out how to use this. "Disruptive editor"? I have not edited the article at all as you well know because you have been scanning my edit history. I am meerly an observer who has taken part in a discussion on a WP policy where you turn abusive and say you will only "get off my case" if I leave the discussion. I suspect an investigation of your edits will show that most of your editing time is involved in unpleasant correspondence of this sort.--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Step 1 of dispute resolution is to discuss directly with the other user on their Talkpage. I've scanned OrangeMarlin's page and see a discussion on this specific topic, but with no input from AssegaiAli. Now that discussion appears to have started, go back and continue it. OM has had past discussions about tone, but I will warn that much of it has occurred after being attacked/goaded first. I'm not saying that's the case this time, just suggesting that one should keep it in mind...♪BMWΔ 10:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AssegaiAli did contribute to the discussion of the issue on Talk:Minoan_eruption#BC.2FAD_convention. The discussion seems to have ended being split between the article and user talk pages. Gerardw (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing Talk:Minoan_eruption#BC.2FAD_convention, I'm seeing escalating rhetoric from both parties, but User:Orangemarlin does appear to be pushing the envelope. Gerardw (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now also reviewed Talk:Minoan_eruption#BC.2FAD_convention. AssegaiAli has been civil and patient. I agree that Orangemarlin is being unnecessarily rude and disruptive. He was also involved with an inappropriate report on a username today, and has used inappropriate tone/language with other editors too. I recommend Orangemarlin takes some time to reconsider his language, tone, and general behaviour, and to tone it all down. --HighKing (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What he heck does filing a uaa have to do with this WQA? Many people I expect feel that the specific username is, indeed, inappropriate. OrangeMarlin has appeared here and ANI a number of times, and yes, perhaps that shows a pattern. If you have a complaint against a specific editor, deal with it on their talkpage first, but make sure you're not building mountains out of proverbial molehills. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

@BMW, there is certainly no need to respond so aggressively and with a confrontational tone. This WQA is about OrangeMarlin making unnecessarily confrontational comments and it is often wise an appropriate to look at the short term edit history of the editors involved. From a quick perusal, there are many examples that show that OrangeMarlin uses inappropriate language and tone, and appears unable to keep it in check. The UUA was current, and it was pointed out that there was a potential misuse of the UUA process since OrangeMarlin was apparently in dispute with the other editor. All of this is pertinent to get a fuller picture of OrangeMarlins behaviour in relation to this incident. It appears that this incident, this WQA, is not an isolated incident. I was unable to find evidence that OrangeMarlin had been "goaded" first, and you insinuation was unhelpful. For that reason, I made a recommendation above which I believe is reasonable. --HighKing (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee HighKing, come down off thy HighHorse for a moment and please AGF a little. My points (when read clearly) were: 1) that many would not disagree with the username Die4Dixie being an inappropriate username, and that 2) as such, a UAA filing is not necessarily a misconduct or proof of personality, and 3) that since OM has been both here and and ANI more than once, further actions would warrant RfC and not this forum. My additional point was that the complainant did NOT try and deal directly with perceived incivility directly with the "offending" user first: that is always the first step in the Misplaced Pages community. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this stuck or resolved? There have been no additional comments for a number of days. --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stale. We haven't reached a mutual agreement (not resolved), we're not sending the parties elsewhere (stuck), it's not nwqa. The complainant hasn't followed up. Gerardw (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I will recuse myself from further discussion with this alert as it appears that there is a dispute between myself and Orangemarlin elsewhere. --HighKing (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing tendentious editing and POV dispute

I do not consider this resolved. See below. Spotfixer (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope this is the right forum, but there seems to be a running POV dispute and tendentious editing behavior between two editors, User:Spotfixer and User:Schrandit. It ranges across many articles but recent examples include Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., Conscience clause (medical), George Harrison (Irish Republican), and Anti-Mexican sentiment. Also see their talk pages at User_talk:Schrandit and Spotfixer's pre-blanking Talk page. I don't really know what to call this behavior, but it's disrupting multiple articles and seems to be both topical and personal. Is it possible for a more experienced editor to help them chill? Regards, Chuckiesdad 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's not a matter of etiquette, so this is not the right place to discuss it. What's the right place? Well, you could come to my talk page and ask me about it, without the boilerplate threat. Spotfixer (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Schrandit is back to his usual pattern of insults. Spotfixer (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

He insulted you? Really? Where? Making claims against others without citing diffs can be considered a personal attack. Cite your claims, or remove them.— Dædαlus_{Respond on my talk please} 08:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following. Spotfixer's post included the diff ("corrected"). Calling someone a real jerk does qualify as incivil. Gerardw (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all pretty awful and a huge waste of time. I've tried to work out a compromise but that didn't work out (to be fair to spotfixer it is possible that the terms of my compromise were unreasonable, I can't really serve as an objective judge of that). In any case, I would welcome moderation, from anywhere. - Schrandit (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikiquette alerts, not Wikicontent alerts. The issue here is purely your behavior.

If this were the first time you insulted me, I'd just let it slide, but it's a rather persistent pattern. I'd like you to stop. Now. It's really that simple. Are you going to stop? Spotfixer (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and my favorite of all, 7. Right after you, dear. - Schrandit (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Schrandit has been warned for calling an editor a "jerk". Spotfixer is entitled to remove some items from his talkpage, except where officially advised not to (especially regarding blocks). Also, the information should not be removed, it should be archived. Referring to editors as "wannabes" is borderline uncivil. Spotfixer has additional mention elsewhere. All involved editors should be considered warned. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Meanwhile, back at the article where Schrandit was recently and relevantly uncivil, he's edit-warring by reverting without explanation. This is part of his already-documented rule violations in the form of adding bogus cite requests, such as his infamous demand that a cite be cited.

The Schrandit problem needs to be fixed and your hesitancy to block him for incivility and edit-warring is only encouraging him. In fact, he ran around and reverted many of my edits while I was blocked, so he's taking your actions as an endorsement of his WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE violations. He's been taught to ignore all warnings and just keep warring.

Do you have any plans for actions that will put out the fire you've fanned? Spotfixer (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and he jumps right back into the incivility. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're going to need to be a lot less vague. Spotfixer (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"The fire you've fanned" is just a little against WP:AGF there. Maybe it's a good chance to work on your own diplomacy skills...(talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When something isn't clear to you, it's best to ask, not make assumptions. In the quote above, I'm referring to you in the plural, which is to say, all administrators who are involved in this and have failed to block a repeat offender. it is neither inaccurate nor uncivil to state that they fanned the flame of Schrandit's misbehavior by essentially coddling him and taking sides.

For some reason, this alert is marked as closed, but it can't be since Schrandit hasn't apologized for his incivility, much less agreed to stop, and he's compounded with patently false accusations and legal threats. I am not satisfied. Spotfixer (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And none of us are satisfied with your behavior. You continue to throw around accusations without providing evidence. You say he insulted you? Really? Where? Provide us with diffs, or take it back.— Dædαlus 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I provided a diff. You aren't paying attention and you shouldn't speak for anyone but yourself. Spotfixer (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the your first comment: None of the contributors here are administrators, (except for User:Smashville, whose only contribution was to point out that I should not have posted the warning for a past event that had already been handled.) There's a description of what this forum can and cannot accomplish up at the top of the page. Regarding your reply to Daedalus, accusations that you aren't paying attention are definitely uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're not an admin, then that comment does not apply to you. As for incivility, there's nothing uncivil about saying someone's not paying attention when they accuse you of filing a false report when it fact they just haven't bothered looking. Frankly, their accusation is far more uncivil in and of itself than my measured reaction to it, since it violates AGF. Note that I never suggested they acted in bad faith by intentionally ignoring the diff, just that they didn't pay attention. I was being POLITE; I assumed good faith and avoided insults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotfixer (talk • contribs)

I am paying attention, are you? You have accused the other editor in question several times of insulting you, but not once have you provided evidence. The single diff that you did provide does not back up what you say in regards to him insulting you, and therefore I stand by my statement. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence of Schrandit insulting you.— Dædαlus 00:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But then again, people don't like to take my words at face value, so let me just make sure you understand me: You said insulting. That particular word implies that this event had occured more than once. I only see one occurance where he was incivil, but that's it. If you're going to say that he was continuously insulting you, show us other examples, please.— Dædαlus 00:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't expect anyone to provide anyone an apology at this point in time (except for dragging this thread on longer than it needs to). Both sides have been uncivil. Warnings were given. Case is f'ing-closed. Further "demands" for an apology is disruptive to this project overall. Don't think it's fair? Tough, we're no longer 5 years old, which is the last time life was "fair". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 01:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not demanding an apology, I'm saying that if Spot is going to say he was insulted multiple times, I want to see the diffs. So far I've seen one instance where someone called him a jerk, that's all.— Dædαlus 02:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never "demanded a citation for a citation", that is slanderous. Please, everyone, check me on my aforementioned edit, I'm very confident it is within Misplaced Pages guidelines, I apologize if I am mistaken - Schrandit (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Slanderous may not be a wise choice of words, as per WP:NLT. You'll note I was bold, and made an edit to the phrase that seemed to have everyone's undies in knots... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That edit seems fine to me. - Schrandit (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, since the conflict is over the citation demands. Spotfixer (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The you've proven that this is no longer a civility issue, but content. CLOSED. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think I've proven that it's some of each. I still don't consider this issue resolved, but since you keep removing my slashthrough tags, it seems pointless to edit war with you.

Let's see if he reoffends. Since I've tried Wikiquette, the next step would be ANI. Spotfixer (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin civility issue

User:Dbachmann, in responding to a talk page section regarding a recently closed featured article review in which the article in question was demoted(Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy/archive1), described the the decision as idiotic. Seeing as I am the user that initiated the procedure, it is impossible not to take this as a WP:personal attack. Can a third party please leave him a friendly reminder the wikipedia policies regarding civility also apply to him? Thanks. ʄ!•¿talk? 10:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A personal attack is an attack directed against a person. Calling a decision reached by a group of people "idiotic" is not a personal attack. It's unfortunate you were offended, but while "idiotic" isn't exactly elevated discourse, it's also a relatively mild way of letting the depth of his feelings be known. By the way, you left no diff for the comment in question. For those who wish to see it, it's . If someone has offended you, it's usually more productive to have a discussion with him on his talk page rather than by complaining elsewhere as a first step. For my two cents, a discussion which objects to non-English sources for an encyclopedia article is begging to be called something insulting. We don't have to dumb things down here to that degree. - Nunh-huh 11:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Nunh-huh.

You've been asked before to notify the involved user when posting to WQA. Please do so. Gerardw (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

They have been notified, on the articles talk page. And Nunh-huh, your "2 cents" flys in the face of a specific wikipedia policy(WP:NONENG). And as for forgetting to leave a diff, this process is convoluted enough to forgive that. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that NONENG says quite what you think it does. - Nunh-huh 13:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it says what you think it does. "The availability of an English-language source of equal quality" is not the complaining editors' problem, it's the editor who wants the article promoted or kept at the same status' problem. Besides, only two English references, one of which being Encyclopaedia Britannica just isn't good enough, whatever way you look at it. However this discussion really has nothing to do with an already closed FA review, other than the fact that there would have been the appropriate place to air any concerns about it rather than throwing a fit after it had ended. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in NONENG do I find the phrase, or the idea, that "articles with foreign language references cannot be featured articles". The complaint made about the article was, I believe, "use of foreign langauage references". Perhaps you can suggest changes to NONENG that makes such a complaint unlikely in the future, for it is surely no criterion by which an encyclopedia article's quality should be judged. Or perhaps it's just a matter of phrasing your objections more exactly. By the way, mischaracterizing an editor's simple statement of opinion as "throwing a fit" is a lot closer to a personal attack than the thing you came here to complain about, so you may want to think about redacting it. - Nunh-huh 16:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted, calling a decision idiotic is not inherently uncivil. Tagging NWQA. Gerardw (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, where up is down and black is white. Unbelievable. ʄ!•¿talk? 16:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering you didn't even notify the editor of the discussion...and no, burying a notification as a response to a standalone comment in a nonactive discussion from 3 days ago on a talkpage he has edited once in the last 2 years is not "notifying"...you can't have a personal attack if a person isn't being attacked...--Smashville 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can sum this up in one word: Hivemind. LOL.
Btw User:Nunh-huh, "phrasing your objections more exactly"? Funny how you are guilty of the very thing you (falsely) accuse me of. Feigning ignorance as to what I'm saying is trolling 101. My objections were made explicit. You are hung up on one aspect of what I was saying for whatever reason(perceived prejudice against foreign languages/love of switzerland/whatever) and ignoring everything else.
In conclusion this process was, if I may appropriate the words of someone else for an actual valid circumstance, idiotic.
By all means unleash the hypocrisy in your clamoring to block me for saying this. ʄ!•¿talk? 18:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. In any case, please note that this discussion has previously been closed (above): "Not civility issue, please continue discussion on article talk page." The likelihood is that I won't be joining in that discussion. If you have further comments you'd like to direct to me, my talk page is available. - Nunh-huh 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling an edit "idiotic" is uncivil, and is a personal attack. If you don't believe that, try saying that to your boss about his/her work, and see what happens. That sort of insulting comment is very common from Dbachmann, and if anyone doubts it I can give some diff from my own disagreements with him. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, you should have mentioned that if that nice Dbachmann does not respond to requests for civility; the issue can be taken to AN/I, where it will be seen by many more people than here, and some of those who see it might have their own experiences with his incivility. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, the scope of this complaint is the comment made by dbachman here. The comment was not directed at an editor and is therefore not in breach of any policies. This issue has correctly been closed. --HighKing (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it has been closed. But I consider my comment on the incivility of Dbachmann to be on the mark. He knew who the comment was directed at, but he is very good at making it sound as though his comments are just a general comments sent into space. Let me repeat, once more what I wrote above because I consider it important: "Calling an edit "idiotic" is uncivil, and is a personal attack. If you don't believe that, try saying that to your boss about his/her work, and see what happens." This is simple, but important to understand. A problem with WP is the high concentration of computer geeks with good intelligence, but little in the way of social skills. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your opinion on the matter is in the minority, as the consensus appears to be that such an utterance is not a personal attack but rather an expression of disgust at what he saw as a frustrating situation. We are not at work, we are editing in an online encyclopedia. there is no worker-boss relationship between any of us here. Apples and oranges. Please cease the equestrian equine flagellation and move on. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That might actually be equine flagellation, seeing as "equestrian" involves actually riding ;-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oof. That's what happens when attempting rhetorical cleverness before the 2nd cup of morning coffee. ;) Tarc (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tarc. I see that you are still following me around. If you read what I said more closely, you will see that I was talking about civility, not the employment prospects of WP users. If you have not noticed, the subject of this noticeboard is wikiquette, so (unlike your edit) my edit was on topic. Calling the work of another editor idiotic is uncivil. If you want to argue against my view of that, the two of us could take this together to Jimbo's talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how we can be any more clear about this: Calling an edit 'idiotic' is not a personal attack. A minor incivil offense? Maybe. But that's pushing it. Nothing here is actionable, and your badgering is getting quite old here. Take this and move on, please. seicer | talk | contribs 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Malc, no offense, but you aren't quite interesting enough to wiki-stalk. I have this page on my watch list (that "automatically watch a page you edit" option), and came to this most recent one to see what "Admin civility issue" was all about, as those are usually pretty juicy. My post was on-topic, in that it was refuting your point of view. That's what we do here. This suggestion to take this to Jimbo's talk page, of all places, is somewhat baffling and rather ridiculous, IMO. (Note; that isn't the same as calling you ridiculous. Pls don't file a WQA on me, too). That's the last I have to say on a closed thread. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, is your answer yes, or no, to continuing the discussion on Jimbo's talk page? NB: I am interested in discussing the incivility of calling any edit "idiotic", not one particular instance of an insulting choice of words. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you will now be forum shopping until you receive the answer you want? That's not how dispute resolution works. seicer | talk | contribs 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a general comment on the subject of civility when the complaint was already closed. I think it might be interesting to get an executive opinion on that, but that does not involve the particular complaint made here. (However, if you think I am violating WP rules, you have every right to take your accusation to AN/I.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps the place to discuss the general question of the incivility of calling any edit "idiotic" would be Misplaced Pages talk:Civility. Gerardw (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only person that finds it hilarious that everyone concerned has basically admitted that it was wrong of him to use the word idiotic, knows exactly what/who it was referring to, but still excuses it? I can actually hear the unspoken words of "it's OK, he can get away with it because he's an admin". User:Malcolm Schosha's real world boss analogy is right on the money, because it's situations like this that are the reason why everyone that matters thinks wikipedia is a joke. ʄ!•¿talk? 06:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors indicating it was not wrong to use word: Nunh-huh , Gerardw, Smashville, HighKing, Tarc, Bwilkins (I think, it's kind of implicit), seicer

Editors indicating it was wrong: Malcolm. Gerardw (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this calls for any admin action. It was a mildly uncivil thing to say. By the bye, the Misplaced Pages-friendly word for idiotic is unsupported. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

One can also say the edit is incorrect, wrong, mistaken, problematic, erroneous, untrue, inaccurate, or false. Also I find: amiss, askew, astray, at fault, awry, bad, counterfactual, defective, erratic, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, in error, inexact, miscalculated, misconstrued, misfigured, not precise, not right, off-target, on the wrong track, out of line, spurious, ungrounded, unsatisfactory, unsound, and unsubstantial. Considering the may possible ways of dissenting from another user's edit, resorting to insults, like "idiotic", indicates the intent is not to improve WP, but to stick it to the other user. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Gerardw, haven't got time give every specific example but it's all right there laid out for anyone with eyes to see; the amount of double talk, apologising for the editor in question("a discussion which objects to non-English sources for an encyclopedia article is begging to be called something insulting." — User:Nunh-huh), and straw man arguments(I never asked for any "action" to be taken, just a friendly warning regarding civility) is crazy.

Anyway those are my final words on the subject.

The bottom line: admins are not beyond reproach. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of straw men, no one ever said admins were beyond approach. You brought a civility concern here, and the consensus seems to be that it was not that big of a deal. It was judged on the content of what dbachmann said, not on that fact that he is an admin. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Christian Skeptic

Start here. Spotfixer (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Let me or another admin know if it happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Spotfixer (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ten-string guitar article

User:Viktor van Niekerk is using uncivil posts to exercise ownership over the Ten-string guitar article. Several potential editors have given up, but the article needs lots of work, on content, structure, and POV issues. An attempt to discuss it on his talk page he simply reverted, with the edit summary your opinion on this matter is irrelevant; you are not an authority. I do not propose my "opinions", but the facts that are all verifiable. I am justified in excluding false information. See Talk:Ten-string guitar#Civility, personal attack, and content issues. Andrewa (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looked. I agree with you. OK, Viktor van Niekerk is an expert, and I know less than zilch about the specifics of the topic. But other editors shouldn't have to deal with that constant level of supercilious bombast with its bold-text and CAPITALS (and of course being an expert doesn't make someone immune to partisan and mystical views on musical topics). I'd ask at WP:ANI if someone would give him a solid civility warning. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a serious WP:COI in that he's a serious music scholar and performer with a serious focus and cause, and I'm afraid he's making Misplaced Pages one of the vehicles of that campaign.

Have a look at the article. It needs lots of work. Several people have made starts including me, and just got reverted, and nobody else wants to take him on - understandably.

I did look at WP:ANI and it reads in part To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts. So I came here.

I think that sadly the next step might be RfC, but I'd need other editors to be involved for that... more than one, preferably. Andrewa (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrewa ... have you advised the other editor directly about this WQA, as required? I would like to see a response in this forum from them before taking additional action. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops... yes, just now. Good point... he knows it has been raised here as that was noted on the article talk page, where he has responded. But I should have also raised it directly on his talk page of course. Done now. Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a more detailed look, I think the RFC sounds a good idea. There are strong COI aspects (the article largely expounds identical views to those on his MySpace page) and the clear appearance of WP:SOAP, of being here to Right a Wrong:

My objective is to present the historical, scientific and musical facts that have been (and continue to be) obscured by misinformation. My objective is to present reliable information to musicians, guitarists and composers, for them to judge for themselves the musical and scientific logic of Yepes/Ramirez' invention, its advantages and applications.

Add to that an uncivil and browbeating approach that has the effect of deterring other editors (I sure as hell wouldn't want to engage with editing that topic). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I now probably have a minimal case for a user conduct RfC, as a second editor has now posted an attempt to resolve the issue on Viktor's user talk page as required (thank you). I think it would be good to have at least one more, and to give Viktor some time to respond, and even to have some more detailed efforts to resolve this on his user talk page before going to RfC. And as I said before, this is not for the fainthearted. He simply reverted my attempt there, with a rather dismissive edit summary.

But IMO it's a classic WP:SOAP and WP:OWN, and it would be good to do something about it. May not be the easiest...

The desired outcome IMO is for Viktor to take on board some of the Wiki ideals. Is this too much to hope for? He's obviously idealistic and has lots to offer. And his cause has something going for it. But that's ironical... Viktor's behaviour is just IMO discrediting the Yepes tuning by association, which is quite unfair to it, and the opposite of what he'd want, obviously. A balanced and independent article here would be a lot more help to Viktor's cause than another battleground, or even a mirror of his site content. Our readers do read the talk pages too! Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm... It's not looking hopeful, Viktor has now removed from his talk page the two requests (one from me, one from Bwilkins) to reply here. He's also sent me a couple of emails on the subject recently, the most recent received just a few minutes ago. Some of the points he makes in these emails are new and interesting, I wish he'd post them to the article talk page (but others have already been made there, some of them several times). Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, if non-experts did not take up vendetta's against me (as Andrewa has done here) and if they did not insist on including non-notable and faulty information in this article, there would be no battleground whatsoever, but simply verifiable facts. My desire has always been to present only factual, verifiable information. I have however faced endless opposition from not only vandals using sock-puppets to attack Narciso Yepes and the concept of his guitar, but also from well-meaning but misinformed readers. If you know the literature on this topic, you will know that misinformation is ubiquitous, and it is from this that most people draw their conclusions, lacking access to reliable sources. I however draw my information from primary sources by Yepes and from well-established laws of physics. I beg to differ with Andrewa, but (while sometimes rough - this is a daily and taxing struggle against misinformation) my actions have been exactly the opposite of a classic SOAP case (a vehicle for propaganda and advertisement). What I have excluded is precisely the propaganda and advertising of musically non-notable concepts that certain players have a vested interest in promoting even to the point of lying about their (and Yepes's) guitar's acoustic properties. To allow such content here would, ironically, lead to exactly what Andrewa is accusing me of: propaganda and advertising. This is not what I am doing. I am promoting knowledge about the standard form of an instrument as conceived by its inventor. I am drawing on primary texts by that inventor as well as the science of acoustics. Acoustics is not propaganda, but reality governed by the laws of physics.

What is really behind this is Andrewa's personal grudge against me, a vendetta that originates with his desire to rewrite organological terminology by taking an exception as a rule. I suspect that he has a vested interest in the matter, not to lose face as a self-proclaimed musicologist, after I pointed out that he was incorrect in referring to instruments with courses as "10-string guitars". A course, being a pair of strings, functions as one string. It is a well established musicological convention that we refer to instruments with at least one paired set of strings as coursed. The baroque guitar is thus a 5-course guitar, not a 10-string guitar, as it has five pairs of strings, each pair functioning as a single unit. "12-string guitar" is an exception to this and not the rule and the term comes from manufacturers and not from musicological scholars. So this is nothing more than a personal vendetta against me over Andrew Alder losing face on this issue. He clearly knows the ins and outs of wikipedia much better than I do. I am, after all, as he accuses me, a professional musician and scholar, not a professional wikipedia administrator. So he may well win in this case, but truth will prevail. Truth? Verifiable facts from the primary texts (I don't even mention my personal association with individuals who have first-hand experience of these histories), as well as facts derived from the science of acoustics, not "mystical views on musical topics". I'm sorry, but for an informed scholar with a grasp on acoustics as well as musicology, these are proven facts that have a physical, empirical reality, not "mystical views". It is just that this is a very complex and very dense topic which is predominantly misunderstood. What wikipedia needs is a credible, scholarly article on this topic. While the present article can be improved stylistically and more references added, it should not be brought down to the level of propaganda and advertising. That is exactly what I wish to avoid.

I recommend Andrewa create a new page termed "10-stringed guitars" under which he may differentiate the various types of 10-stringed guitars according to their number of courses. So baroque guitar would be included under 5-course guitar, while the Yepes instrument would be under 10-course guitar. I also recommend that 19th century 10-stringed harp-guitars like those by Lacote and Scherzer be moved to the harp guitar page. Then we can remove the comparison between these and the Yepes instrument under the ten-string guitar article. Alternatively, I can remove it anyway, but re-write the main article to state clearly the defining acoustic characteristics of Yepes's invention and why/how only this tuning has these characteristics (a fact of physics). Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. But these are largely content issues, and this is not the place to raise or reply to them. The only issue here is your behaviour.

In this context it is valid for you to protest that in fact it is I attacking you, rather than the other way around, but I hope and believe that the evidence does not support this. Andrewa (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The content issues interact with the behaviour. Viktor, your approach comes across as an assertion that you know The Truth, that nobody else does, and that your mission here is expound it and snowplough everyone who disagrees off the road. That is not an acceptable approach toward either the topic or collaborative editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Content discussion: A guitar-type instrument with 10 strings, whether coursed or not, is by very definition a 10-string guitar. The 10-string, non-coursed version is an iteration of a generic 10-string guitar with 10 separately-tuned strings. The article for 10-string guitar should include sections on both types of instruments within the same article.

Civility discussion: the WP:OWN here is brutal. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Forcing off others who try to reach consensus is wholly contrary to WP:CIVIL. As knowledgeable about the subject as Viktor is, that does not preclude others from making intelligent, constructive edits, and indeed I start wondering about acting contrary to WP:EXPERT. I will unfortunately be placing a warning on Viktor's page for actions highly contrary to the community-editing concept. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Is it WP:OR to point out a guitar with 5 pairs of strings has 5*2 = 10 strings?Gerardw (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Viktor's claim to be an authority in all areas of musicology is questionable. His confident claims about naming of guitars just do not fit the evidence, see below. The most charitable view is that he's venturing outside his areas of expertise in commenting on instruments rarely used in classical music (perhaps never in the case of the B.C.Rich guitar). Andrewa (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility discussion: I think I must point out that the accusations above that I am pursuing a personal vendetta, that I bear a personal grudge and that I am motivated by a fear of losing face violate WP:FAITH.

Content discussion: As I have pointed out elsewhere, Viktor is mistaken in stating that the name twelve-string guitar is an exception. In fact, while coursed instruments used in classical music do tend to follow the naming pattern Viktor proposes, coursed instruments used in rock, country and western and folk music generally follow the naming pattern of the twelve-string guitar. Consider the eight-string bass, the twelve-string bass, the eight-string mandocaster and of course the ten-string electric guitar by B.C.Rich that Viktor wants excluded from the ten-string guitar article. The course terminology is used too, we're not unaware of the formal musicological distinctions and use them where they are needed, but the -string terminology is the standard.

And while I certainly don't want to question the depth of Victor's knowledge in his field, it seems to me that this much-vaunted expertise lacks breadth if he is unaware of these other instruments... which is of course a trap that catches many academics, and is possibly a factor in some of the content disputes that have plagued the ten-string guitar article.

Content discussion: Viktor's suggestion that I create a new article violates Misplaced Pages:naming conventions and possibly also Misplaced Pages:content fork, as well as failing to address the fundamental issue, which is how to improve the existing article. Andrewa (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: further examination finds the edits of 129.94.133.166 (talk · contribs), which are evidently the same user, with a similar history of incivility, plus major POV activity in Romance (song). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The academic convention of musicologists is to refer to instruments with at least one pair of strings as being coursed. A 13-course baroque lute is never referred to as a 24-string lute. A baroque guitar with 5 courses is not by any respectable academic referred to as a 10-string guitar. The distinction is a necessary one. Finally, the contrary convention used by musicians who do not have a formal (classical) background in music and musicology is rooted in misinformation and ignorance of the already long established prior academic/musicological convention. The contrary "convention" stems from the catalogues of instrument manufacturers and not from any serious musicologists. Andrewa accuses me of not knowing certain marginal instruments. Is he a mind-reader? This smacks of personal vendetta and an attack on my musical expertise. The irony is that I know these instruments and more (you seem to be ignorant of the charango, Andrew, another 5-coursed relative of the guitar, not to mention 5-coursed vihuelas), but Andrew evidently knows nothing about the actual instrument with 10 individual strings. I know of the B.C. Rich so-called "10-string guitar", and excluded it because I know it and know the convention by which any serious musicologists (not electric guitar manufacturers) name such instruments with pairs of strings (courses). Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the contrary convention used by musicians who do not have a formal (classical) background in music and musicology is rooted in misinformation and ignorance of the already long established prior academic/musicological convention.

That part at least comes well under WP:NPOV: that "all significant views" have to be mentioned. If there's a differing usage outside formal musicology that has a numerically/culturally significant following, then neutrality requires it to be mentioned whatever it's rooted in.

Neutrality, of course, equally allows it to be said that formal musicologists don't use this terminology. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue not being right about guitars. It's about being a good Wikipedian. I suggest reviewing Misplaced Pages:EXPERT#Warnings_to_expert_editors. Disclaimer: it is an essay, not a guideline Most of us want Misplaced Pages to be better, but there's a good way and a not-so-good way to do that. Learn to Share Gerardw (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the logic and evidence of my post stands, and it doesn't call Viktor's expertise in his field into question, but it does strongly suggest that he's speaking outside of his field. He has made this relevant by insisting that we must listen to him because of his expertise. I'm very sorry to have to question the breadth and relevance of this expertise, but the evidence is becoming plain.

And this latest post does not answer it, in fact most of what he says is neither new nor relevant. Nobody, for example, is suggesting that we rename the 13-course lute.

Dropping the names of irrelevant instruments isn't a good look either. The charango is not normally regarded as a guitar at all, although it does look like a little one from the front, but turn it over and it's a different story. There are various instruments called vihuela but none of them are normally regarded as guitars (one is often considered an ancestor of the guitar).

And I'm afraid I resent the reference to musicians who do not have a formal (classical) background. It says a lot. Andrewa (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages (riddled with errors) is misinforming people and is blamed for falling grades among children

See this article: ]

I concur and will contribute nothing further to this disinformative farce parading as an encyclopaedia that is called wikipedia. It is nothing more than a joke, run for/by incompetent non-experts with too much time on their hands and nothing better to do than stroke each other's egos while fostering mediocrity and ignorance under the specious banner of "consensus" and "democracy".

Yes, I am uncivil towards those for whom this is intented, but they deserve it for raising inaccuracy and misinformation to a virtue. I will not suffer fools any further.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:NoseNuggets

Used uncivil language here in response to edit dispute. Also, "templated a regular".Tomdobb (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears you (Tomdobb) did revert his edit without explanation or any discussion on the talk page. And WP:DTTR is an essay not a policy or a guideline. There's another essay Do template the regulars. That said, NoseNuggets language was less than ideal, and accusing you of vandalism for a good faith edit, especially regarding WP:BLP, is uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but templating a regular is not uncivil. Sure there is an often-cited essay about it, but it is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it has no more weight than the essay Gerardw cited that says to template regulars. Was his use of the template potentially uncivil? Yes, I would say it was since you were obviously engaged in an edit dispute, not vandalism, so templating you for vandalism is certainly not assuming good faith or being civil. He also was uncivil in the talk page comment you provided diffs for. I am a little concerned that neither of you took the dispute to the talk page to discuss but instead began to edit war, and in NoseNuggets case resort to incivility. I would agree that NoseNuggets did cross the line a lot further than you did, and will place a comment on his talk page.Theseeker4 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the template essay. I will say that my revert was without explanation because I already cited my reasoning in a previous edit. I'll try to be more clear in the future. Tomdobb (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User: Cannibaloki

Reverted an edit I made to a page that I felt was a perfectly understandable and intelligent one - formatting it to look more like similar pages I have worked on (this was the List of Megadeth band members page) and his reversion was justified as "RV ignorance". I was understandably offended by being called ignorant and explained this on his talk page, but the key part of my response to him was an exact explanation of why I had made my edit in the first place. I hoped we could, you know, discuss it? He ignored me for several days, while still listing himself at the top of his page as "around" and making a large number of edits to Misplaced Pages, so I left a simple message asking if he was ignoring me (this being after 8 days). The response I got included phrases "Why do you think the edition that you did to this list is most correct that my?" and "You simply destroyed all the work that I had, to improve the quality of this list" - both hypocritical and quite obviously ignoring my explanation. Again, I tried to explain in more detail and with a visual aid. He responded with a smiley face. After a few days waiting, I said I was going to request a third opinion - which I did - though this generated no response from Cannibaloki.

I had noticed on his userpage that he helped make Trivium discography a Featured Article. I'd never seen a discography that was an FA, nor did I see how a band with so few releases as Trivium could earn it - and saw poorly written English, spelling/grammar errors, overly-long sentences and also an error on how band singles the band had released. Initially I edited the page so the information on singles conformed with the band's template along with a large number of legit edits. This entire edit was reverted as "cleanup" by Cannibaloki. I did some research, found out the singles listed as singles on their individual pages, and in the band's template at the bottom of the page, were not actually singles - I had believed they were since I had read they were online and they had music videos but evidently my sources were inadequate at that time. So I put my other edits back together, and still updated the information on singles - I had uncovered some singles Cannibaloki had not mentioned on this page even if many of the others had not been singles. I felt these edits were so obvious that no user would question them - I got an A in A-level English and AA in my double GCSE so even if I'm not the best writer in the world I recognised and improved on the clunkily written text and fitted it into a more concise explanation - so I did not include an edit summary. After the user reverted them as "Removing few unnecessary changes." I made a more accommodating version - no details were skimmed out but I restructured the phrasing all the same to improve it without removing any information put in place by Cannibaloki. I also edited it in steps, putting an edit summary each time that gave a clear explanation of actions. He reverted them with the justification that they were "Nonsense" edits.

Frankly, I don't think he's taking me the slightest bit seriously or holding me with much respect, despite admitting on his user page that his English isn't brilliant. I also think to call my edits "ignorant" and "nonsense" and to respond to a serious discussion point with a smiley face - effectively blanking me and shutting down conversation - was rather rude. However, it also leaves me at a loss as to what to do; normally even if I have trouble with an argument, I can have that argument. I can't even argue with this guy. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Shorter reports with "diffs" of the specific behavior will probably be more effective.

Yes, the edit summaries of Nonsense are rude, and I'm not quite sure what to make of the smiley faces. However, basically what you have is an edit war -- there's just 2 of you going back and forth, but slowly enough to neither of you are violating WP:3rr. Rather the posting your content comments on his talk page, I suggest you post them on the appropriate Article Talk page and enlist the support of other editors to achieve consensus. For example, there's nothing on Talk:Trivium discography since 21 December. As long as there's just two of you editing, it's going to be difficult (i.e. next to impossible) to come to closure. Gerardw (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, try to provide "diffs" next time.

I agree with Gerardw that the most appropriate place to discuss content issues is at the Article Talk page. The responses to your patient and civil queries to date border on incivility, but probably don't quite step over the line - the "ignorance" edit summary is frowned upon though, and borders on a breach of WP:AGF. My advice is to take content issues up on the article Talk page and get a conversation going. If he ignores you there, at least other editors may step in and continue the discussion and perhaps even support you. I also encourage you to continue to WP:AGF despite the lack of discussion - in all probability both of you are trying to achieve the same end result - a better article. I detect no POV pushing, so it should really boil down to providing references to support the facts. It will be interesting to hear Cannibaloki's view on this incident...

I really like the "timeline" graphic too BTW... --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution