Revision as of 14:43, 6 May 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

Retaliatory blocking by TravisTX

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

This poster blocked my friend's account (fredd7271) after they had a disagreement. Basically, TravixTX warned him for vandalizing, fredd7271 responded on his talk page and TravisTX reacted by by blocking him. This seems counter to wikipedia's blocking policy and seems to be an abuse of admin powers. (User:lawreviewy) 02:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• This should be reported at at the administrators noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan

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

I have been recently accused by this user of being a non-constructive editor, a vandal, a "social reject", "punk"... you name it. I think reading the diff itself should cover it, at least as far as false accusations and personal attacks go. Normally, I would not come to complain here since I've already reported this user to other boards. However, I have done some basic research about this user, and here is some of what I have learned.

I apologize in advance for the next couple of paragraphs being poorly formatted, as I have copied and pasted it from a text file I made. Below are some examples of KeltieMartinFan (talk · contribs)'s contributions (note that most of them have empty edit summaries).

• poor grammar (including a multiple disambiguous "she" instead of her name), highlight: "came to MSNBC in 2003 where she spent four years there"

• poor grammar

• poor grammar

• non-constructive, reduced grammar quality + removed co-host name for no apparent reason

• sub par grammar, highlight: "Hot only did he worked at the anchor desk, but he also reported..."

• removal of info, no justification

• unsourced and poorly worded speculation

• kind of a useless "word lego"

• another useless "word lego" - no constructiveness in the latter two by a long shot

Notice that all the diffs above are from the latest page in this user's contribution history. I am positive that had I gone deeper, I would fill this page, which is not exactly what would have helped the case :-)

Now we have come to the really interesting part. According to this diff, KeltieMartinFan claims that "t is never in nature to be uncivil here on wikipedia"... please take a look at the following (again, my apologies for the crude formatting):

• blast of personal attacks
• restoring unwanted attack on another user's talk page THREE TIMES in spite of those being repeatedly deleted by the owner of the talk page

• another referral to user as "obnoxious"

• multiple attacks on (apparently) the same anonymous editor

• deleting someone else's contribution from someone else's talk page, in other words - vandalism

I have found all these in the first couple of pages in this user's contribution history. If the case will require me to "dig deeper" I will.

P.S. Considering the heavy insults I had to put up with last time I tried to place a civil warning on that user's page, I am not going to do it this time, even though this is technically against regulations. Due to the special situation that has been created here, I am asking that an admin do that. Thank you very much in advance. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Send Keltie my way and I'll kick his ass for you. Just joking. No, but seriously this dude has behavior issues and an admin needs to look into this asap. Caden 07:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment this situation is also under discussion at AN/I. Tonywalton  08:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read everything before jumping to conclusions. The situation that is under discussion at ANI is that user's specific personal attack on me. The discussion here concerns his or her own misconduct during edits. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: You placed a warning on the user's page. Unless they have continued the behavior, what else do you need? The fact that this issue is at WP:ANI - a forum that looks at the actions of both complainant AND the "offending editor", plus has admins with the authority to issue blocks does indeed mean that this entry could be considered forum-shopping. Why in the world are the first few diff's linking to grammar, etc that has nothing to do with civility? This only serves to water down any arguement afterwards as it approaches WP:TLDNR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to "NOTE": Please do not act biased. I have raised the issue of that editor's non-constructive edit patterns and continued personal attacks towards other editors. I have removed the tag you have added as well, as I would like admins to review this situation thoroughly. Please don't do it anymore, it is mostly unfair towards me. The first half of the diffs serves to show that while that user vividly accuses me of being non-constructive, his or her own edit history is somewhat ironic to this situation. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not run to accuse the only person who is trying to advance your position in a rational manner as being "biased", TYVM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Biased" does not mean that someone disagrees with the outcome you desire. It means "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation". I don't see any of that here. Throwing around such terms really damages the credibility of your position. Chillum 00:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro and editors generally

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

This issue concerns the behaviour of User: Scuro - (talk ▪ contribs) and the editors generally at Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder.

I have recently become aware of this user and the ongoing dispute at the aforementioned article when responding to an edit war report. After considering the ample warnings regrading reverting, I blocked this user for 24h. The block is now up and again there is general bickering between users on talk pages. From the article's talk page there seems to be a history spanning 3 months of this issue with tags being added to the article. The content of those discussions seem to suggest a general consensus that issues have been addressed, though this is not the view of Scuro.

I hoped for some comments on appropriate actions needed to attempt to resolve this issue or at minimum stop the disruption to Misplaced Pages, especially after this recent comment by Scuro to user Abd (who appeared to be trying to sort things out). Nja 12:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• User:Abd helped resolve things between Scuro and I last time they got out of control. He also attempted to help with Ss06470 I think but without any luck. Scuro has asked he to not edit ADHD pages or to help.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• User:WhatamIdoing also tried to help. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Scuro has asked me not to edit his Talk page, I think he may have done so in the past, if so, I forgot about it. I have not examined the content dispute in question. I highly recommend avoiding unnecessary contentious discussion with this editor, just act as needed with adequate explanation for other editors, so that your actions can be seen as justified or reasonable. If he makes disputatious discussion on Talk, ignore it. With consensus, the discussion can be collapsed to keep the Talk page cleaner, or sometimes early-archived, but avoid this if possible, there is no sense creating dispute over the Talk page. Deleting it as vandalism, no, do not do that, it is not only very rude, it can get you blocked. "Disruption" doesn't happen much from a single editor, it takes place in the interaction between more than one. If Scuro makes continual assertions of the same edit, that can be handled with minimal disruption through normal dispute resolution procedures. Read the manual and follow it. When direct discussion fails to resolve a dispute, involve another editor, and preferably one who is likely to be seen as neutral, which isn't me in this case, even though I truly would advocate for the consideration of his POV. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. This WQA is part of the dispute resolution process, and is the natural next step as discussion and consensus forming on the talk pages has seemed to hit a wall. As immediately noted in my opening paragraph I'm an admin who just got wind of this ongoing situation (3 months+) three days ago. The hope now is for specific comment and guidance from the community on how to proceed, especially due to the recent incivility displayed. Nja 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me first say that I have never seen the consensus approach taken, over many months on the ADHD talk pages. I've seen editors post that consensus is reached, but no attempt at compromise is ever made, no quarter is given, and points are disputed to the most minute details, while I am called names and accused of multiple offenses. I am not allowed to edit on any of the ADHD pages either. Virtually every edit that I have made in this time frame have been reverted. Yesterday my posts on the talk page were also reverted. One entry was a "how to" plea to seek consensus. There are huge ownership issues on these pages, as documented by an administrator who was a joint applicant of a behaviour RFC. But please don't take my word for it, go to the RFC and the controversies talk page yourself.

I did take a two month break from Misplaced Pages. When I returned nothing had changed on the page. I have gone through four separate wiki processes to attempt to solve this issue and still ownership is a huge issue. Nothing was resolved as the contributor backed out of mediation twice. The only edit that I have made has been to put a POV tag on what I consider to be an article with several issues. The POV tag states, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)". At no time did anyone try to resolve anything. What did happen is that the tag was removed about 6 times. In all cases it was removed unilaterially, sometimes justification was given AFTER the revert. In such an environment of lawlessness, the break any rule if it is good for wikipedia comes to mind. For more details read my response to the ban on my talk page. I'm glad this situation is getting more attention.

Abd has always been a very negative contributor, who also had ownership issues on these pages. There are quotes where he states that I need to be controlled. I have probably asked him not to communicate with me at least a half dozen times. I am surprise that he remembers little. I ask that he not communicate to me personally so that conversations don't spiral downwards. He has a way of goading you that I find very irritating. Ss who Abd also refers to, was threatened by an administrator to be banned from wikipedia if he didn't stop his highly offensive personal attacks against me.

So here I stand, not able to edit on pages for many months, attacked personally all the while. I do hope that an administrator really looks into this because this is a travesty. --scuro (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Note this WQA is generally about your actions, though I do appreciate the link to the RFC about a different editor, who has recently admitted past mistakes and now wishes to handle things correctly (see here). Secondly I've just came into this three days ago and I definitely believe there's issues to sort out, and unfortunately some of them are your civility issues (thus this WQA). Nja 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above from Nja247) I don't think that anyone who looks at the relevant article, Attention deficit disorder is likely to conclude I've got ownership issues with it, I can't remember the last time I edited it. I have ADHD, which does give me some opinions, for sure, but not to the extent that I'd be biased, I follow WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, with some special attention to making sure that minority POVs are fairly covered. Which, then, means that I supported a fringe editor whom Scuro opposed, even though I didn't share the opinions of that editor. In another matter, with SS06470, I supported an expert in the field, a published psychiatrist in private practice, who has a somewhat iconoclastic view of the field (probably quite close to mainstream, in fact, but not so much reflected in drug-based research, which is where the money is!), based on clinical experience as well as theory, and Scuro's behavior with this fellow was atrocious. And the psychiatrist responded to Scuro with frank opinion, experts commonly do that. In no way would I turn over control of articles to experts, we do need neutral decision-making processes here, but, on the other hand, experts should be respected and their opinions carefully considered when we are so fortunate as to have one participate. I don't want to see Scuro blocked, because he can provide needed balance, but he can definitely be too aggressive in promoting his POV. I have no opinion as to whether he has done this in the present case, and I attempted to calm things by agreeing with Scuro on a behavioral issue. You can see the response; Scuro, to be able to continue here, must learn to detach from his personal reactions to people and work with them, all of them, as fellow contributors to the project. If he needs assistance, he can find it, as long as his positions are reasonable. I'd help, in fact, but he's not likely to ask me!

As to him asking me not to communicate with him, I remembered it, but only after being reminded, and I haven't bothered to look back to confirm it, because details would matter if push came to shove, which it won't. The communication over this, cited above and seen here as well, gives a pretty good picture of what's going on with Scuro, so I don't need to explain more. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, the RfC mentioned above, which didn't attract enough participation to be conclusive about anything, nevertheless had a stated purpose: That jmh649 earnestly commit to the wiki guidelines of etiquette, especially the tenants of good faith and consensus building. Have you ever directly acknowledged this commitment? If not, why not right here, right now? Acknowledging it is not an admission of error, and, indeed, you don't have to accept the "tenants." Just the tenets. Assume Good Faith is about how we act in relation to others, it isn't about what we think. If you are convinced that an editor is totally biased, in the pay of the drug companies, or out to destroy article neutrality over some personal agenda, pretend that the editor is not, until and unless it's your responsibility to disclose convincing evidence to the contrary! "Assume" means "act under the assumption of." "Consensus" means that we can be most confident that we have found true NPOV in text when all editors agree it is fair. While we may not be able to reach that ideal, we should always continue to seek it. How about it? --Abd (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added the above - it appears germaine, AND does appear to show an editor who has accepted a past error and is moving forward, which is beneficial in many ways. A brief response may go a long way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuro will not use or produce reliable sources for his dispute nor discuss citations of the article. He was turning the talk pages into an internet chat forum debate as well as agressive editing. I believe that abd was incorrect in saying that I was wrong to revert scuros talk page comments because abd is looking at one revert in isolation. Abd is not looking at the huge volume of talk page content which really is unproductive and disruptive. Scuro is not using reliable sources or discussing content of existing citations so really there is no dispute to resolve, which is what I mean by turning talk pages into internet chat forums. He greeted me with hostile abuse of warning templates. As I have said before scuro is welcome to edit articles and talk pages using reliable sources like everyone else. I do not believe he has a special right to turn talk pages into internet chat forums and debating clubs unless he is using reliable sources for the debate. There is a specific warning template for using talk pages as a forum after reverting which I used. The template exists for a reason and I think that I was justified in using it and I feel that I would be justified in using it again if the disruption continues. Scuro is an established editor so I see no excuse or reason for why he is not using reliable sources to try and bring neutrality as he sees it to the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read this Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. My use of warning template of using talk page as a forum was correct when you examine the pointless discussion after pointless discussion which has been going on and on. All he needs to do is produce citations instead of just pointless debates going nowhere. I don't want to spend my time debating with scuro unless it is about reliable sources. I could join an internet chat site for that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Update, consensus seems to be that reverting talk page edits is not best way to go but I still think warning templates are warranted if unproductive postings continue on the talk pages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

James did state that he would commit to the consensus process during his RFC, as defined by the wiki page on that topic. ] For a while there it looked really promising during the RFC.

ABD did have ownership issues and pinned me into a box as tight as James has. I could produce the evidence if anyone really cares. When I go back and look at the history it's been well over a year that I have virtually not been allowed to edit the ADHD page. First there was ABD and now Doc James. Abd's viewpoint of past events have a notable subjective bias, from my recollections.

As to my my current "behaviour" on the talk page. From many many months of experience, I have learned to keep my focus incredibly narrow. Even with this narrow focus, it's amazing how little of the talk is on content. I simply found one citation which at first glanced looked biased and I challenged this citation. My instincts have proven good. Another contributor has called the link a "denier" citation. I don't have a problem with such citations but believe they shouldn't be used to support factual information. No one on the page recognizes that I have a point and I'm not willing to be drawn into a firestorm of citation - counter citation debates until the end of eternity. It is my right to challenge a citation and stick with one issue to completion. It is my right to post a POV tag if I can demonstrate that biased material exists on the page and page ownership makes sure it stays there. Not one contributor on that page has attempted compromise or sought consent, since my return from a self imposed 2 month absence.--scuro (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you give the citation you speak of, or the statement that's now in the article which is POV that you have an alternative view for that is supported? I'd like to look over this in detail please. If it's too much for a post here an email will suffice. Thanks. Nja 01:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nja: Thanks for taking this on, and please don't give up too quickly. There's an atmosphere on these (adhd and adhd controversies) talk pages, a chip-on-the-shoulder which seems to be contagious. The motto seems to be "Do not assume good faith." The problems you're aiming to solve should and must be solvable; that will require both wisdom and time. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the "suffer the restless children" citation ] It supports this sentence which would require extensive scholarly research to determine with any certainty, "Only 20% of children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have hyperactive behavior in the physician's office". Other contributors posted other citations which they state supports the sentence. My point is that an object fact shouldn't be supported by a citation with bias. The citation should be removed from this context. It could be used in other parts of the article that are subjective. From what I have read the sentence isn't accurate either, but I knew better then to go there until there was consensus about the "suffer" citation. I've had a number of painful experiences of discussions that go off on several tangents, never to fully focus back on the initial issue. So talk never got past the point of me stating the citation should be removed because it wasn't appropriate for the fact it was supporting.--scuro (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Suffer the Restless Children: ADHD, Psychostimulants, and the Politics of Pediatric Mental Health" citation is not at all biased. It's a lecture given by one of the authors of Medicating Children: ADHD and Pediatric Mental Health, a book which received glowing reviews. So "citation with bias" is no reason to disallow that citation at all.

That said, as far as I have seen, the lecture does not support that 20% sentence. That ref was, in fact, in the article before the sentence "Most children who end up with a diagnosis of ADHD have normal behavior in the physicians office." was added in front of it on 17 Nov. 2008. At that point the 'suffer' ref stood alone; the Sleator and Barkley refs were added later, as was the percentage.

So, Scuro, I can support disallowing that ref for that fact (the 20% statement). But not for the reason(s) you've been arguing.

The 20% claim is found in the Sleator (1981) ref, which is cited in the above mentioned book, there as "a minority", not as precisely 20%.

Nja, for more discussion see adhd controversies, talk, search the page for Mayes. - Hordaland (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a conversation where facts are being shared. I have learned that the citation was never meant to support the sentence it currently supports. Two other citations were added at a later date to support the 20% contention. But what is better then this conversation is an attempt by Hordaland at compromise, which is the basis of seeking consensus. Hordaland, states he can support the removal of the "suffer" citation but not for the reasons I've stated. At this point I have options, i) I can concede the point and the citation could possibly be removed, ii) I could contest the point if it was important, ie if I still believed that ADHD children display clinically significant behaviour within the doctors office and I thought the fact in the sentence to be wrong. If I go for option two the ball is in my court and I have to put up or shut up. If I go for option one, other contributors would have to contest the point for it's inclusion or we could move on to the next issue. When Hordaland makes a concession as he just did, I am much more willing to compromise. If I do not compromise in this instance, then I may very well compromise in the near future. If a contributor never seeks consensus and never concedes a point, it's a whole different story. It's been my experience on this article, for well over a year now, that I have dealt with several contributors who fall into category two. Here is an illustration of giving no quarter.]--scuro (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Interrupt What I see here now is admissions by editors in general, and a lot of discussion that would be best served back on the article talkpage. Some monitoring of the ADHD pages may be a good idea, but I would suggest at this point that there are no violations of WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA to be dealt with, so this WQA filing can be closed as resolved. I advise all editors to stay cool, especially when editing "challenging" topics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but please give advice of what I should do about page ownership? This is now my 5th wiki process and it's could very well still be virtually impossible for me to edit the page without any edit being reverted. It's been over a year since I have been able to edit normally on this article. How can I make this stop in an expedient manner if occurs again, at any point?--scuro (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages works on WP:Consensus, and relies heavily on the WP:BRD cycle. On controversial articles it may take a lot more work to achieve consensus than on simple articles - that's the nature of the beast. If you are being "bullied" out of participation, then additional action can be taken. Feel free to contact me if you're in doubt or having issues, and I'll try and come in as a neutral party. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, Nja and BWilkins, if the 2 articles and talk pages are to be normalized, I believe it will require guidance over time. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

... which makes it a content issue, which is beyond the scope of this forum (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-opened, proposal

Sorry to re-open this, however there seems to be a rush here lately at WQA to mark matters resolved. The user still has civility issues and has failed to comply with my request first made here (and made twice thereafter) to supply details of what he disputes with sources. If this isn't forthcoming, then it may be right to assume no intention to work towards consensus, but rather to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Below are some recent examples I think are noteworthy:

• Here he made a big deal over someone properly inserting a direct response into the middle of a paragraph (to address the question at immediately at hand).
• This statement clearly shows that he needs to step away from the situation or possibly be removed from the topic al together.
• Further he continues to play a victim here. The fact of the matter is he did violate 3RR and secondly I opened the WQA and no one lobbied for it. Overall, he doesn't seem to realise that this has been a long dispute for everyone involved.

Generally these examples show that tensions are still running high, and a temporary agreement to step away from the topic may be in order. Though, I'd settle for it to be marked as resolved if:

1) he complies with my completely valid request for details and sources. Note that here and here did not address my query as I'd like specifics on what's disputed (ie line by line) with sources; and

2) he acknowledges that the others involved are likely just as frustrated and it's slightly antagonising for him to claim to be innocent and the only victim. Nja 09:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you are re-opening a content dispute inside the wrong forum, and I am concerned with your personal use of the out-of-context diff's. The user was 110% fully and completely correct to gently poke someone who inserted their OWN comments in the middle of someone else's talkpage post - this refactoring cannot occur, as those comments then appear to belong to the original person - personally, I would have given them a templated warning for that one. Their later frustration at how someone "ran to the cops, only to be found wrong" is understandable. Stop filing unfounded reports left right and centre, and please go back to consensus-building and article-writing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't see to whom your last sentence is directed, BW. It's not Nja's article; s/he is only involved in this/these article(s) because of the user conduct issue which involves endless wordy policy discussions (disruption) and little or nothing concrete about article content. - Hordaland (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"endless wordy policy discussions" have nothing to do with violations of either WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, and are therefore not WQA material. If you need a third opinion or WP:RFC to assist, then please do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. There can, clearly, be differences of opinion about wp:civil. The page in a nutshall says:

* Participate in a respectful and considerate way.

* Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. - Hordaland (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The user conduct is at the heart of the content dispute, per WP:CIVIL. I would hope the recent examples provided show this to be the case. My proposal is clear and I'd like for the user in question to decide whether they're willing to accept it so we can move on. Further I find it hard to believe an experienced editor would have warned someone with a template, especially a regular, for doing what was shown in my example. This process, which is part of dispute resolution process generally, continues to be sidetracked from addressing the issue at hand. If I, as an uninvolved 3rd party up until last week cannot get support from the community to get agreement from the user that enough is enough and admit he's not the only person affected by this behaviour, and further to provide details of what he disputes with references, then there's a very real problem here. Nja 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"endless wordy policy discussions" have nothing to do with violations of either WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, and are therefore not WQA material. If you need a third opinion or WP:RFC to assist, then please do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Walk a mile in my shoes Nja247. Try being blocked off a page from virtually editing anything for well over a year and be personally attacked all the while. Then go through 5 processes to resolve this issue....is this number 6?

I have to ask, if you had experienced what I have experienced, would you do a line by line correction of a very flawed article? Most people would start small as I have done. They would seek consensus on one small point like a citation which I am attempting to do. If there were other contributors who were communicating, you might go onto the intro, state what is wrong with it, as was requested on the talk page. Now if I point out that the intro is completely one sided, and that a controversy always has a minority opinion, that would appear to be a enormous gapping hole for an intro. Do I need a citation to state the obvious?

I have to ask Nja247, why are stepping into the middle of this and disrupting the very first shoots of consensus building? I understand that you want citations. But, not every step of the editing process requires a citation. If other contributors dispute that there is no minority opinion in this controversy, I'll find citations. If editors continue to state that the "suffer" denier citation is a great citation to support scientific research, I'll seek citations. What I am trying to tell you is that editing is a process, and after getting burned many times, I'm still editing defensively. It's been many months since I actually put content on that page. There is a time for everything. Citations will come, especially if true consensus building actually looks like it might be followed for the first time in well over a year.--scuro (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Again you are avoiding my direct request to supply information and acting as if you're the only person affected by this long running dispute. Further I'd appreciate if you could provide links to these five processes you speak of, as it'd be very helpful for other editors to consider. As for my request, if you truly wish to move forward then I would think you'd be happy to comply. And yes, wikipedia needs reliable sources to function, so please provide them. As for my 'disruption', I do hope you could provide examples of it. The only thing I've done was request information from you so I can help. That's how I view my role as an admin. I could have ignored it, like a lot of other admins have, but I am trying hard to help, but as someone who only become involved last week I too feel as though you're stonewalling and as noted above in the examples it really seems as if you are perpetuating the continued disruption. In addition, the fact that you admit to be editing defensively and are of the view that you don't need to state what you actually dispute and provide citations completely justifies the view that you're conduct is disruptive, and therefore maybe a topic ban is in order. Alternatively, consider my proposal; ie state what's wrong with sources, and seriously take into account you're not the only person affected. Nja 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me go back then.

• Nja, you provided this diff where he added "I would kindly ask you not to do that again" into his original post regarding an editor refactoring comments. Again, if you'd like me to go back and template that editor, I can ... this seems to be a polite way to explain the situation, so I see no incivility whatsoever.
• You then provided this diff expressing that they should be topic-banned for this. So, an editor explains consensus, and discusses how due to a lack of following consensus he was forced into an edit-war, and then someone filed a WQA, and that deserves a topic ban?? Seriously?
• You then provide this diff and contrary to WP:AGF and what is close to being a violation of WP:NPA in your own right, try and claim that this shows the person "claiming to be a victim"?? Where's the incivility in what he said?

Trying to use any of the above to show behaviours in the editor are as far of a stretch as can possibly be done. You can't corner an editor, slap 3rr and WQA filings and not expect a little bit of frustration - and frustration is all that is being shown: no attacks, no swearing, no bullying. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Per BMW. This sort of abuse of this dispute resolution mechanism is unacceptable, and the claims of disruption personal attacks and "claiming to be victim" amount to incivility in itself - the claims are unjustified. Further reopening of this thread by Nja247 should result in a block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar

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

Let me start out by saying that I think this user is doing a fantastic job with cleaning up the bilateral relations articles mess. My quibble with this user is not with the substance of their edits, but rather with the way that they've gone about doing things.

User:LibStar has recently nominated a large number of articles for deletion. These articles were created by a single, now-banned user, who specialised in creating stub articles on the bilateral relations of countries that didn't have a whole lot to do with each other. Some of these articles have since been expanded, but most have very limited scope for expansion and are being slowly worked through via the PROD and AFD mechanisms.

My concern is with the language and tone of LibStar's nominations. For instance, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Iceland relations, he declared that the article reflected:

"another completely laughable combination (one of the worst I've seen) from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies and google news search turns up nothing except that both countries share economic problems . and if you're going to say keep with the standard text of wait for centralised discussion, seriously ask yourself is Iceland-Argentina notable?"

This is not an isolated incident, for example, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations we have:

"another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. last agreement in 1963!"

It is not difficult to find further examples if you look through this user's recent posts to AFD. Now, I'll be the first to admit that occasionally I've made smart-alecky comments at AFDs where I thought the result was a foregone conclusion, comments that probably toed the line of civility, if not walked straight over them. However, there seems to be a pattern to LibStar's nominations where all of them have this rude and condescending tone to them. The problem is made worse by the fact that many of these 'completely laughable' articles are attracting either keep !votes or actually being kept; these comments could be seen as an attempt by the user to belittle and intimidate anyone who thinks that these articles are worth keeping on.

Not wanting to make a big fuss, I dropped a note on the user's talk page asking them to tone down their comments. In response, the editor replied on my talk page, attempting to justify the comments by essentially saying "everyone else does it!" and that it was okay to be rude if the victim of the rudeness was absent and banned (which, as I said previously, does not explain away the "chilling effect" that such comments can have on people freely offering their opinions). The user then attempted to imply that the article creator had Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, despite later admitting that they had no proof for this allegation. This is the point where it went from polite disagreement to crossing the line - implying that someone (even a banned user) without the power to respond has a mental illness is not only cowardly and unnecessary, it's also potentially defamatory. Needless to say, I suspect that LibStar has no intention of reining in his comments in order to create a more professional and friendly editing environment.

Now, if anyone thinks I'm being overly precious about this, I'm happy to back off. However, I note that I'm not the first one to take exception to the tone of this user's comments, User:Bearian here and User:Jake Wartenberg here have both had something to say within the past 24 hours on the topic of LibStar's civility.

As I'm at the point where I think that continued one-on-one discussion with LibStar is unlikely to produce any further progress, I therefore bring it here for further comment by the community. Note that I again emphasise that I have no problem with the substance of this user's edits or the work that he's doing (they're doing a fantastic job identifying the articles which need to go), it is merely the way that he's going about doing it that I find objectionable. Lankiveil 14:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

• Response I never made the accusation of mental illness, nor is the issue of providing evidence the behaviour was consistent with one aspect of illness but without meeting this person I am not to judge further and even if I did provide evidence what does that prove?, the issue with the banned editor is that their behaviour was disruptive and broke wikipedia rules. was banned twice for "excessive stub creation" and again for sockpuppetry during their ban. might I add I used the word laughable to describe X and Y country relations not the creator. one editor said in an AfD that I should nominate some of these country articles for WP:FREAKY which is a collection of humourous articles. you might have noticed I've even put up one article for deletion since Lankiveil contacted me without mention of words laughable or obsessive. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Malaysia relations. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How about focus on edits and not editors in PROD's/AfD's from now on. Maybe the originating editor was indeed "obsessive", but there's never a need to say it - especially when they cannot reply due to blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already started to as per my last sentence above. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - even if he were still around, Groubani could not have replied - he didn't know English. That said, while I totally agree with your characterizations, LibStar, there are of course people who will take offence at anything, so just drop "obsessive" and "laughable" and let the case speak for itself. - Biruitorul 15:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Editor LibStar seems fine to me from our limited dealings and anyway seems to have stopped using the questionable adjectives. I agree obsessive is not a civil word to use and very possibly not accurate either. Editor Groubani may well have been a visionary who appreciates what a treasure trove a complete set of Bilateral relations articles would be. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I'm Peter Pan with a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you. - Biruitorul 20:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Pink-thunderbolt

I do not feel that User:Pink-thunderbolt has been acting in good faith and I don't feel they have been civil in discussion regarding a WP:BLP issue on Jon & Kate Plus 8. The user has also been reported on the edit warring noticeboard for issues regarding this here.

After reverting my revert of unsourced, controversial information about a living person, I reverted them again and left this warning on their talk page. The user then added this message in response and then replaced everything with this message. Every time Pink is warned, they replace it with this message and, at some point, added this to the end of it: "And now, hopefully, they understand why whitewashing a page of possibly negative, but accurate, information is a bad thing to do." (Despite refusing to engage in the civil discussion that was occurring on the talk page in which we found reliable sources and were trying to figure out if it should be included in the article and how).

On the page in question, Pink has used edit summaries claiming we are trying to "whitewash" the page. On the talk page, Pink has left these messages: , , , , and . None of these are particularly welcoming to discussion (more of an "I'm right, you're wrong, this is how it's going to be") and some of them are downright rude. Thanks for any help or advice. --13 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have now alerted both Pink and User:Scjessey (who has also been involved) about this report. --13 17:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Firstly, please notify the person being reported in the future. I have gone ahead and done so for you. As to the civility issue, there is certainly some overt rudeness occurring. I would advise Pink-thunderbolt that being right does mean it's ok to be rude. Like it or lump it, this is the way Misplaced Pages works, things must be discussed, and information must be sourced to be included in an article. Disagreement is fine, it happens all the time, but there is no need to use language like "poorly referenced my dick" or resort to name calling like "fruitcake". Since you brought up dicks, you should probably read WP:DICK. To be clear, I'm not suggesting you give in or stop editing this article, just that you should be more civil in your remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I was literally notifying the user at the exact same time you were. I would have done it sooner, but my fiance just had to show me this cool new thing on his new Mac. XD --13 17:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I would also add that while many of the remarks you linked on Pinks talk page are a bit rude, most of what I'm seeing on the article talk page does not cross the line of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I mostly added the stuff about the talk page because I felt it was in line with the other messages they were leaving and that they show the user is not really assuming good faith very well. --13 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the other user involved in the disagreement is not arguing in good faith, namely, he states that he is deleting information because it was not sourced when everyone else, including 13, agrees that there are multiple sources referenced, further, he had no proposal as to where this valid, accurate, verifiable and relevant information would go. He has argued with a large number of other individuals who have attempted to make the same or substantially similar additions to the article, and used inconsistent grounds for said arguments. So 13, for you, I do assume good faith, for Scjessey, I did assume good faith, but my assumption was undercut by his behavior. He also threatened my editing by saying that it could be considered defamatory, which I did not feel was at all appropriate.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• This page is not for re-hashing the content dispute, but rather for discussing breaches of Misplaced Pages policy on civility and personal attacks. If there is contentious editing taking place on the page and the talk page, there are several remedies. Consider initiating an request for comment, posting a notice on the biography notice board, and maybe asking at WP:RPP that the page be protected until consensus is reached on what should and should not be in the article, and please refrain from calling other users "fruitcakes" and making other unhelpful and rude remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing in Oom Yung Doe page

Some time back I noted that it was not logically possible for a statement in the Oom Yung Doe article to be supported by the court document that was cited in support of it. The editor in question, CJim63, then the citation so it simply cited the entire court case instead of any particular document. I complained that this makes no sense, since a court case isn't a specific document someone can request (although particular documents from court cases obviously make good sense to cite in some situations). I took this to WP:RS/N and the editors there seemed to agree with me. In any case, both CJim63 and another editor, Jmcw, have since refused to fix these citations to point to any particular documents, and they've a couple of my edits removing these non-sources.

I don't see any particular reason to doubt the accuracy of this information, but this sourcing seems obviously unacceptable to me. I can't fix the sources myself, because I don't have these documents in front of me and don't want my name to go into the edit history as the person describing what's in them. CJim63 claims to have the documents, but has so far refused to update the article, limiting his explanation of what sources are being used and how to discussion on the talk page. In the course of that discussion he's made some statements about the source material that seem bizarre or contradictory to me. For example, he claimed that the fourth amended complaint against John C. Kim accused the School of Oom Yung Doe of violating the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, and twice referred to the consent decree as a "consent form". That makes me doubly reluctant to update the sources cited within the article myself.

This is not the first time I've had a question about CJim63's use of sources; some time back, we discussed a statement () that bore a citation to an article that it seems may not even exist. CJim63 said that the statement had sprung from a conversation on the talk page and would not discuss the citation at all, and after some wrangling my edit removing the citation was accepted.

I don't intend to toss around accusations of falsifying sources lightly, but to me it's getting hard to draw any other conclusion from the above events. In any case, it seems reasonable to me that at the very least, specific statements in the article should be sourced to specific documents so that those citations can be verified, and that the people who claim to be in possession of the documents should be the ones to do so. Can I get some backing for my conclusion that these sources need to be fixed or removed?

Thanks. Subverdor (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would value the opinion of anyone who has the time to read through the talk page of this article. I long to hear some nice words about "assume good faith" and "collaboration". jmcw (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution