Revision as of 15:46, 2 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

TruthIIPower

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

Could someone with far more patience than I have a polite word with TruthIIPower over things like this?--Tznkai (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I desperately need someone to tell me why I should be nicer to POV-pushers who edit war. Please. TruthIIPower (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You should probably avoid such comments and accusations. Accusations of improper behaviour without evidence is considered a personal attack. Stick to the discussion other than that small point i see no real issue here. --neon white talk 09:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its a big deal per say, I just think TruthIIPower never got the crash course in wikipedia discourse... or perhaps he go the wrong one.--Tznkai (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, it is a she that we are dealing with. - Schrandit (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus is currently in dialogue with TruthIIPower (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite glad I avoided this one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

TruthIIPower part 2

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

TruthIIPower is edit warring on the pages abortion, Religion and abortion and the Catholic League. She has made at least 1 personal attack and, in my opinion, seems to be something of a bigot as seen in this edit summary especially in this one. Could someone please have a conversation with her and try to redirect her to more productive ends? - Schrandit (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a bigot just because I favor neutrality is uncivil, and referring to me as female after I mentioned I was male is just silly. Maybe you need to look at your own behavior, not mine. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, please actually click on the alleged incivility and see for yourself that it is only alleged. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing here is some very mild incivility in some edit summaries related to a content dispute. These are very sensitive issues and emotions tend to run rather high around these topics. That is why any substantive changes to such article need to be discussed on the talk page of the articles in question. If the two of you can't come to an agreement, you should ask for a third opinion or initiate a request for comment in order to get more input and form a consensus. TruthIIPower, you should probably drop the WP:SARCASM, it isn't very conducive to productive debate in a written format. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been active on the talk pages. In fact, the "strong" remarks were towards an anonymous user who has been making biased changes, leaving no edit comments and refusing to participate in discussion (or even answer messages on their talk page). TruthIIPower (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mr CatholicBot" is a personal attack. Several of TruthIIPower's edits are written in an angry/condescending tone that is not conducive to cooperative editing. This should be toned down. Also the flow on the talk page is also showing a pattern of refusal to accept consensus that is going to call for counteraction if continued. Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• As I've already said, TruthIIPower, drop the sarcasm, and if you guys can't find consensus easily on the talk page, solicit outside input through WP:3O or WP:RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• TruthIIPower, I agree with you completely that the use of "mother" and "unborn child," in the context in which you have been deleting them, are POV and factually incorrect. I just think you hurt the case by edit warring - if people start to see you as a vandal, they won't listen with an open mind when you try to make your case. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, unfortunately that means that we don't always get our way, and that "truth" (whatever that means) doesn't always win out. I also think that you haven't done anything that earned being called a bigot, and I agree that calling you a girl if they know you're a guy is just silly - it's so junior high. To everyone - what can I do to help? I mostly edit Misplaced Pages just to revert vandalism, so I'm not sure what to do to help out in a content/NPOV dispute. I've tended to just disengage and stop watching pages where I disagree with too many of the edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User: Roux

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

I have always, in the past, found User: Roux to be a fine, level-headed editor. However, (s)he seems to have got a bee in his/her bonnet about my perfectly standard piping of a category (s)he made. Things seem to have gotten out of hand between myself and him/her on his/her user talk page - I have tried (under duress) to remain calm and point out why I did what I did, and also pointed out the correct forum to discuss such issues - (s)he in response has made it clear (s)he regards this as "condescension" and "rank hypocrisy", and says that (s)he is willing to treat similar edits from me in the future as vandalism. I don't want this to become an edit war, nor do I want to get offside with someone who I regard as a good Wikipedian in every respect other than this one. I would be grateful if someone would look at this and try to at least talk some sense into him/her (or me, if needs be). Up until now I've always though Roux would be good admin material, but this has somewhat changed my opinion. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Update - User: Roux has now begun to simply revert any edits I make on his/her talk page. At this point, I'm not going to have anything more to do with him/her than I have to - it's too much like hard work (I've already been away from Misplaced Pages once this year on medical grounds because it became too stressful - I don't want this to make me sick again). Some input from other editors would be worthwhile, though. Grutness...wha? 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You were told to leave me alone. Do so.//roux   02:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're finding wikipedia so stressful that it makes you sick then it's time to walk away. Your health is much more important than anything that happens here. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did - I came back only once my health improved, and now only get involved in generally non-contentious areas of editing. Unfortunately one area which seemed straightforward and non-contentious appears in this case to have got Roux's back up. I'm at a loss to see why, but thought it was worth bringing up here for the reason that Roux is a good enough editor that - as I implied - sooner or later s/he is going to be nominated for adminship. I wouldn't be happy to have that happen while s/he still fails to understand such fundamental and straightforward things as consensus and standard practice. Someone who reverts attempts at dialogue and suggests that further attempts at dialogue will be regarded as vandalism needs to change their attitude towards community discussion. Grutness...wha? 05:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just to clarify, he already was nominated for adminship. Do you mean nominated again? Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't know about that - I see from the number and quality of the oppose votes that I'm not the first to have run foul of Roux's lack of understanding of how to conduct a discussion. Indeed, some of the links on those comments (e.g., this one) look remarkably familiar. It seems (s)he has not learned. Grutness...wha? 06:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not even going to touch the details of the content dispute you two are having except to say it is a lot of arguing about a fairly minor point. The fact is you were both somewhat dismissive of each other. When two editors come into conflict, the right move is not to simply go around and around in a never-ending debate, you should seek consensus by asking for outside opinion, even if you "know" you are right. Roux, like any other user, has every right to delete messages from his/her own talk page. When it became clear Roux no longer wished to discuss the matter, you engaged in edit warring over the removal of your messages, and that is not acceptable. My suggestion is that you let this go for now, it's not worth making this big of a deal over it, and clearly Roux does not wish to discuss it at this time. If this matter persists, consider initiating a request for comment in order to find consensus as opposed to arguing and edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair comments - though with due respect, the comment "the right move for outside opinion" is a little bit strange, given that that is exactly why I brought it here. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grutness, you may have indeed had a valid point. However, at this point you were asked to leave User:Roux's talkpage. You did attempt to resolve the issue directly with the user. It failed. Further attempts to discuss with the user directly had been declared unwelcome, and you should never have reverted their changes to their own talkpage - that's a very aggressive act. The increased animosity in your discussions on roux's talkpage should have been a hint to cut and move the discussion elsewhere...in this specific case, either the talkpage of an article where the template was in use, or template talkpage itself in order to obtain new consensus. The request for you to use RFC had nothing to do with incivility, it had to do with "proper use of piping", as that cannot be dealt with in this forum. Overall, roux's incivility began and increased as you chose to continue what he considered an unwelcome debate. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Grutness may not want the trouble of initating an RfC on user:Roux, whom I personally find the most annoying of all WP editors I have run across. However, such an RfC might be a means of reining in user:Roux. The pattern of his passive-aggressive behavior in responding to reasonable comment from reasonable editors in tones of highly aggravated "injured innocence" and quickly escalating a dispute into operatic drama is something that I have experienced personally and seen user:Roux engage in with other editors as well. In my opinion, it is not conducive to a productive editing environment.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't suggesting that an RFC on Roux was in order, but on the content dispute that started this disagrement. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• The reversion was my mistake, done in the heat of the moment, and I regret it. However, I was under the impression that another editor's comments on a talk page should not simply be removed - even if those comments are on a user talk page.That was certainly what I was told when i first became a Wikipedian, and I haven't seen anything to refute that anywhere. Please also note that I twice tried to get Roux to move his/her comments objecting to the piping to the appropriate forum for such discussions - s/he did so on neither occasion. RfC is a complex process and one which I find does little as far as user behaviour is concerned. Given that it requires two people to have run foul of an editor - and at the time as far as I knew I was the only editor having trouble with User:Roux - it would not have been appropriate when I brought this here. Also, why does one editor finding a debate unwelcome mean it should be terminated? I found the debate unwelcome from the beginning - but felt that it needed to be had. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that user:Roux escalated the issue into hostility at a pace that is hard to fathom; however, if an editor is asked to refrain from further engagement on an editors talk page, then that request should be respected, little matter how aggrieved one may feel about it since stubbornly reverting an editors talk page is itself a breach of civility. Eusebeus (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Per Eusebeus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree as above, once an editor has told you they don't want to talk about it, nothing more positive can come out of trying to discuss it at that moment. Dayewalker (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we get rid of the stub categories entirely, given the proliferation of article assessments. Any takers? --NE2 13:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest, Grutness, that if Misplaced Pages is causing you so much stress that your health is suffering, maybe you need to find a much less taxing hobby. Either that, or stop taking it so seriously. Nobody wants to see a productive editor leave the project, but it's simply not important enough to worry yourself sick over. —Travis 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out, that's exactly what I did do (and it wasn't only Misplaced Pages that was causing me stress - there were other issues which I don't want to go into here). When I returned I reduced my editing from several thousand edits per month to a few hundred, and stuck predominantly to article edits rather than administrative tasks (see the reduction in Wikispace pages between December and now here). My edits are now almost all to what I regard as non-contentious issues. I was amazed that Roux would find this a contentious issue at all (it seemed pretty straight-forward and non-controversial as far as I was concerned), but apparently s/he did. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Stifle disingenuous template at User talk:Lucian Sunday

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

At 17:01, 28 April 2009 I made this edit. Earlier that afternoon, I had initiated a discussion on Talk:Rakt. I made no further edits but contributed to the talk page. An RFC was initiated with one of the aims specified as To avoid getting further into reverting cycles. I contributed, again without editing the article further. User:Stifle was Canvassed by another editor. Despite the existence of the RFC, his first action was not to comment but to Revert. The reason for my subsequent Revert, while poorly presented, is perfectly understandable. I am a regular contributor to wikipedia and the above was my first edit in over 24 hours. I was 3RR Templated by User:Stifle who then made his second revert that day (who is edit warring?). Considering I both started the talk thread and have commented at the RFC, the 3RR is unnecessarly provocative. I believe (1) the comments between User:Dougweller and Stifle here and (2) Stifle ignored his own advice with This edit indicate the templating was disingenuous. It was calculated to insult or provoke and his actions are worthy of reproach. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a case where a decision has gone against you, and now you are trying everything you can think of in the hope of getting it reversed. This is disruptive. It won't work, and if you push it much farther, it will get you blocked. Time to drop it and move on to something more productive. (Note: I am totally uninvolved.) Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article in question was an evident attempt (by TharkunColl (talk · contribs) to bypass an AfD close as Delete. The RfC was initiated by someone else who may not have known about the AfD. Stifle had been involved in the AfD and was the first editor's name I ran across who was active at the time I was posting - given the AfD it isn't surprising he reverted. Here's the diff where the complaining editor wrote "if you want to comment on editors set up a specific RFC where you can disappear up your own self important arse. " . This was before the incident that Lucian Sunday is complaining about. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Quantpole initiated the RFC Here is his contribution to the AFD. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From evidence above this reports looks like a case of a WP:KETTLE violation. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to answer for here. If the consensus of users suggests otherwise, I will take further action. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucian: as a general rule, being templated is not a violation of WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL - it is indeed, a standardized warning that something is potentially up. As such, there is no violation of those two core policies.

Now, for the portions that are unrelated to this forum: First, you need also re-read WP:CANVASS - I ask a trusted editor (or two) for advice or a second set of eyes all the time, and that's not canvassing, however trying to sway an AfD or similar !vote by violating WP:CANVASS is bad. Therefore, asking advice was not bad.

Second, it does appear that a table was re-added to an article multiple times by one specific user - this qualifies as edit-warring. 'Round here, we go by WP:CONSENSUS, and the very key concept is be Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle: you were bold, it was reverted, you DISCUSS it before adding it ever again.

If you have issues with what I've said above, or if I have misread the article histories, please correct me with diff's please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for BWilkins for your considered comments. My contribution history shows that I did not breach the maxim DISCUSS it before adding it ever again. The 3RR template remains unjustified & Stifles use of it remains worthy of reproach. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• If adding a neutrally-worded template to your talk page is insulting and deserving of reproach, surely this: is worthy of much more. That is a egregious personal attack and blatant incivility. Again, you should consider WP:KETTLE before posting here in the future. As for your assertion that you never added back anything without discussing it first, this comment by you directly contradicts that statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blatant incivility on my part should tackled appropriately. My point remains unchanged. Stifle Templated an experienced editor with You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war both when this was not the case and before commencing an edit war himself. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view, Stifle and I were simply trying to enforce the AfD decision at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FC de Rakt (2nd nomination). Rakt was created in defiance of the delete decision-- when created it was simply the deleted article plus 3 lines on the village. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt your views re the AfD are genuine. My view that the new article is not inextricabley linked to the AFD has been expressed on the talk page. An RFC was issued by an AFD participant - not as a result of edit warring by me. Stifles use of the 3RR template was, at the very least unnecessary. Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- Lucian, please come down from there lest you find yourself with an involuntary Wikibreak. The football scores have no place in the village's article. Furthermore, the only incivility I see was issued by you, so I strongly advise you to drop the matter. Regards —Travis 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR template remains unjustified. The above mixture of valid points and baiting do not alter the fact that Stifle has templated a regular editor inappropriately Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe templating a regular editor was ill-advised, but it's not uncivil. You may have found it annoying or rude, but do please lighten up a bit, okay? If you still insist that this is a WQA matter, please be so kind as to point out the specific policy or policies that Stifle violated. Thanks —Travis 21:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• No one hates being templated more than me; I have a link to WP:DTTR on my talk page. However, it is laugh-out-loud ridiculous to suggest it constitutes a personal attack or civility breach, unless done repeatedly to provoke, which is not the case here. Moreover, in light of the diff posted above, which DOES constitute an unacceptable engagement with other editors on the part of User:Lucian Sunday, this "complaint" seems even more absurd. To be blunt, to file such a frivolous WQA, when the complainant has himself been directly uncivil takes a lot of balls. And not in a good way. Eusebeus (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:H8erade

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

I'm concerned about the edits of User:H8erade. Since December, he seems to have had quite a few deletions. One, Artfag, seems particularly offensive. His recent edit to Rights look like vandalism, but I can't quite tell. I don't want to recomend any course of action, but would someone take a look at his talk page? Piratejosh85 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a civility issue. WQA is for dealing with civility. The edit that he/she made to Rights is not vandalism, as far as I can see, but then again, I'm not 100% sure. I think this needs additional input on whether this shall be closed or not. —Mythdon t/c 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) What, specifically, are you alleging is vandalism to Rights? In the previous 500 edits to the page, he only edited once, and that was an undo of a questionable edit by an IP. Also, have you seen the actual content of Artfag? Agreed, the title sounds bad and the article was not suitable material for an encyclopedia, but the contents were innocuous - mostly paraphrasing of material from urbandictionary.com. In any case, this is not a WQA matter. —Travis 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably suggest WP:AN or WP:ANI for such incidents. —Mythdon t/c 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

However, as far as I can tell, there isn't an incident to report. The edit to Rights was not vandalism and the Artfag article was deleted back in mid-December. —Travis 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Then should we wait for an uninvolved editor to close this alert? —Mythdon t/c 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

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

Sorry this is probably the wrong place...every page refers me to another location to report this. I have notices from the same person on both my talk page and user page that I'm a "sockpuppet." When I click on the "refer to" page I get a page that doesn't exist. The guy that placed these messages is an admin that I've had problems with before. Now it happened by accident on some high school pages that I've been working on that my IP address and not my username were logged for edits. And now I'm sure I'll be banned soon for it. So what can I do to finally end all this nonsense? Should I just use an ip address from now on? I never had any problems until I got a user name. Also, if someone else wants to bring this to that admins attention I would appreciate it. I'm not going anyway near his page because I'll undoubtedly get in further trouble. Beantwo (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Because there is no case page and no evidence has been presented, I have removed the tags from your user and talk pages. uh, oh, after looking a little further, the case was moved to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/134.50.92.122. You should make any further comments on this case there. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution