Revision as of 11:20, 25 January 2008

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

Active alerts

Talk:Phil Hall (US writer) and user DoubleCross

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

This is just beyond nonplussing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neil Raden

I have been tolerating persistent personal attacks from this user for a long time now.

Some brief context: Neil Raden is the husband of T. S. Wiley, creator of the Wiley Protocol. I run a website that is critical of the Wiley Protocol and a number of the people behind it. Needless to say, we do not have a friendly relationship, and indeed Neil Raden has previously been blocked for making legal threats against me as well as Misplaced Pages.

Both of us are obviously COI but we have for many months agreed to limit ourselves to the talk pages. You don't have to search them or Neil Raden's history very hard to find disparaging comments about me. I've been putting up with it and letting many of them go unanswered. But...

On December 23, Neil Raden left a “Happy Holidays” note on my talk page wishing that I be maimed (via an old Irish curse).

On January 5, he left more personal attacks and accusations on my talk page which, in this case, I regard as not only categorically false but defamatory (specifically the accusation of interference with a study).

I deleted these comments but he reposted them on his talk page, adding further personal attacks.

Enough is enough.

I want two things: 1) I want these personal attacks to cease, and 2) I want his latest comments on his talk page removed. But I'm not comfortable removing them myself, at least not without outside advice.

Thank you. Debv (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on the user's talk page, but this seems to me pretty egregious. I might suggest filing an request for comment on the user's behavior. Editing solely to affect articles with a COI and making lots of angry personal attacks and being hostile generally - this is a serious problem. That being said, the best thing to do with someone like that (if they aren't affecting the article's content) is to ignore them. I would suggest taking some time avoiding contact with this person. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort and advice. I doubt this will resolve it, but it's a first step at least. Thanks. Debv (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have had an extensive discussion with this user that lead to a flat-out denial of wrong-doing, justification of any alleged wrong-doing based on off-Misplaced Pages goings-on, and accusations hurled at me, all because User:WLU and I asked her him to keep her his behavior in check. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Him. Debv (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. It's been a long day. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm grateful.

I'd been advised repeatedly not to respond to these incidents, to just report them. I was dubious, but, in no small part thanks to you, I'm glad that I finally did follow that advice. It's renewed my confidence in the system here. Debv (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:East718

A copy of the relevant discussion and diffs may be found here: User talk:Zenwhat#Re: Austrian School

I put in a request that Austrian economics be semi-protected because of persistent, short-term and long-term vandalism. It was rejected by User:East718, on the grounds that there was "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify such an action." I requested that he re-consider his decision, after noting an anonymous IP and single-purpose account that vandalized just hours after my request was rejected. When I asked him for clarity on this, it upset me to see him say that semi-protection is only granted for "persistent violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, not content disputes," because that's not true. A quick look at Misplaced Pages:Protection policy shows "Temporary semi-protection may be used for: Pages subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption." WP:FRINGE is a violation of WP:NPOV. I noted this, politely asked for clarity on the matter, cited another user who again vandalized the article and attacked me personally, and noted my frustration over the matter.

He then acknowledged it was an "egregious" (to use his own words) violation of WP:FRINGE and a "disruption." He then said "If the problem is long-term," that I find another editor because he was "too busy" to read the edit history of the article and address my concerns. But this claim was in the request for protection he rejected to begin with. He did not apparently review the edit history before rejecting it, has an incorrect definition of vandalism, and when I pointed this out, he ignored me.

So, I did the only thing I could: Brought it here. When I told him of my intention to go to RFC, he characterized it as a "threat" (assuming bad faith) that made him "stop caring" about the matter. Ironically, a few minutes after notifying him of my intent to RFC, I received a warning template from User:Skomorokh (though my talk page specifically requests users not do that) for edit-warring on the article that I originally intended to avoid edit-warring over by going to WP:RFPP before making more than three reverts. Zenwhat (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the distinction here is between semi- and full-protection. When he reviewed your request for semi-protection, he looked for a situation justifying semi-protection (i.e. blatant vandalism or short-term disruption by anonymous I.P.s. He then suggested that you find another admin to review it if the problem was long-term, which would seem to imply full protection (since, as he said, "Semi prot is warranted only for vandalism or biographies which are on the receiving end of persistent violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV").

I don't think he has committed any Wikiquette violation. Whether is decision not to protect was the right one is another question, and one that is outside the scope of this board. I would recommend that you let drop your dispute with User:East718 and then do one of the following:

• request full protection on the basis of a content dispute, in the hopes that the anons' inability to edit the article will force them onto the talk page, or
• re-request partial protection, emphasizing that the anons are being disruptive and are unwilling to bring things to the talk page, so you have no content dispute-related means of solving it.

I suspect that the first one has a higher chance of success, for what it's worth. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have mis-characterized much of what East718 (talk · contribs) has said, and I fully support his denial of your protection request. No good faith edit is vandalism, no matter what policy it violates. Additionally, East718 did not acknowledge it as an egregious violation of WP:FRINGE, but stated that even egregious violations of policy are not vandalism. Semi-protection is not to be used to give somebody the upper hand in a content dispute, and a dispute over content is precisely what is going on here. Hell, East718 even said he'd certify the request for comment on himself if nobody else would. - auburnpilot talk 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the place for you. Let's break this down a little:

• The edit-warring warning should be ignored if you are reverting vandalism or blatant hit-and-run NPOV/BLP violations. However, if this can (in any way, even slightly) be construed as a legitimate content dispute (even if you're right), you should watch the 3RR (and the spirit of 3RR). For all you know, the page will be locked in the wrong version.
• Protection: request protection again, and make clear that this is long term Fringe/NPOV problems by IPs who refuse to discuss changes.
• Feeling "ignored"? He told you he was busy, you have to respect that. Administrators are people too, and he admitted that he could not take a deeper look at he problem (which you did not request as a part of the complaint he declined - I would not fault him for not looking without being told where to look). He told you you could seek help from another administrator, and you can do this - you don't have to go to the official protection request page, if you find an admin willing to take a look.
• RfC - don't threaten people with an RfC for not responding to you as quickly as you'd like. Even if you meant it in earnest, an RfC is not something you brandish at people like that. It's inappropriate behavior, and an RfC is totally uncalled for.
• Civility and personal attacks? That's what the WQA is for and I don't see any real problem here, in terms of that stuff.

I'd say you should simply go to another admin, like he suggested. He told you he can't help you right now, and it's not up to you to decide that he should take, or should have taken, more time to look into it. If you go to an admin and explain that you need them to look into the page history to assess long-term FRINGE/POV problems, they will do so if they can, and protect as they see fit. Protection is not a cure-all and isn't warranted in all cases - you've gotta show that protection is required, and if there's doubt, an admin might defer to other kinds of conflict resolution. I would also heed what AuburnPilot says above, and maybe restore your assumption of East718's good faith and move on, because you can resolve this matter without any further issues with East178. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying "even egregious violations of policy" as a rebuttal logically implies an acknowledgment that the violation was egregious. He couldn've just as easily said, "That wasn't an egregious violation of policy." Assume good faith doesn't apply in the case of blatant vandalism (aka "egregious disruption"). His remarks clearly contradict the policy described on WP:PROTECTION, word-for-word. My intent in seeking semi-protection was not to get the "upperhand" in the debate because I hadn't even edit-war'd over the article yet or engaged in any contentious disputes over it. I just happened to come by, say, "Well, this raises red flags," and I knew the only way I'd avoid an edit-war from anonymous users not discussing their edits was through a request for semi-protect. Turns out I was write since I've had several different users all try to put the WP:FRINGE stuff back in and was then warned over 3RR by one of them.

There are plenty of users with accounts more than four days old who would not be covered under semi-protection and that's what I applied for. The intent was to avoid vandalism by anonymous users who won't discuss their edits.

Please also note that User:Skomorokh who rudely gave me the 3RR template put the same "egregious" edits back in, backed up with Austrian economics sources -- again, fringe sources to support WP:FRINGE. Please also, before assuming bad faith in my case, note my concern that an attempt to address this by adding caveats like "allegedly" and "according to the Austrians" in the lead would constitute a violation of WP:NPOV in favor of unduly criticizing Austrian economics in the lead. Zenwhat (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If he was the original admin that rejected my request for semi-protection, it seems to me that he has some degree of responsibility to justify his actions through discussion. Rejecting my request, making statements which seem to contradict policy, and after only a few brief messages, telling me he's "too busy" and "go see another admin" seems inappropriate. What is another admin going to say? They'll say that East was the one who rejected the semi-protection, so I should take it up with him. It seems like fishing for admins if I have to find one who will either follow policy or at least discuss their actions. Zenwhat (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with other contributors to this discussion East718 has done nothing that he should be reproached for. He dealt with your request in a polite and businesslike manner (and IMHO made the correct decision). You then demanded that he should devote a great deal of extra time to the issue, and reported him here when he declined to do so. You are the one that is out of order here. He has been courteous, above and beyond the call of duty, whilst you have been rude and demanding. I would you suggest that you withdraw this report without further delay, and think yourself fortunate that East718 hasn't chosen to report you here for your rudeness, or elsewhere for wasting everybody's time with vexatious wikiqette complaints Mayalld (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no involvement in whatever dispute exists and have no wish to; I'll also let all my posts speak for themselves. I do however advise that everybody chill out, maybe smoke some trees, do whatever else floats your boat and revisit this with cooler heads. east.718 at 20:01, January 10, 2008

randy blacksmoor

moved from talk page

a user named randy blackamoor is behaving uncivially on wikipedia by mocking other suers, assuming bad faith, and trying to harass people who respectthe value of homeoatpthic medicine. someone mentieond that he had ben blocke dbefore and iw as hoping that someone here coudl try and convinces him to stop being uncivil so that hec an avoid another a block. thank you for our time. Smith Jones (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Randy Blackamoor, with an "a", not "s" in the surname. Pete St.John (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks i wouldnt want to gets his name swrong . i corrected it just now. Smith Jones (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his behaviour is problematic, and I've left a note on his talk page . We'll see if he responds. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

oh yes, me too, I should have said that. He's become uncivil, but patience may prevail. Pete St.John (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For easier access: Smith Jones (talk · contribs) and Randy Blackamoor (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral party, edits similar to this made by Randy Blackamoor (talk · contribs) are simply not acceptable. Warnings can be given by any user, however, blocks are given by administrators only. A warning on its own doesn't stand if it doesn't have merit, but the following edits deserve further inspection on the basis of personal attacks and/or incivility: . I don't really care if is legit or not and have no opinion either way, but comments like those will only detract from the editing experience for others and reflects poorly on your editing style. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

SmithJones, again

User SmithJones has accused me of putting "spam" on the Homeopathy article. This is a baseless accusation which violates both WP:NPA and WP:GF. I hope it is dealt with accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Homeopathy#Warning_to_rational_people_on_this_page

. if you DO have the dievence, please submit it here or at my talk page or at the talk:homeopathy page so that i can correct my mistake, if i made on. Smith Jones (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "none of them invovled the kind of personal attacks and spam that user; blackamoor is currently suspected of"

I have not put any "spam" on Talk:Homeopathy or any other page. No one has "suspected" or accused me of doing so, because it has not happened. These violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA should be dealt with appropriately.Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we all just agree that User:Randy Blackamoor isn't a spammer? That seems like the shortest route to harmony in this case. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

i am very sorry for my mistakes that iand i will remove tem from my comment to avoid causing you any more harm of emotiaonal destress. Smith Jones (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:71.125.25.134

Recently, 71.125.25.134 (talk · contribs · count) has been acting disruptively in a dispute regarding the article Legends of the Hidden Temple. It all began. I expressed concern that the "Shirt Stores" links section should be removed as it violated Misplaced Pages policy. So I made an entry on the talk page. I waited for two weeks, and since there was no reply, I decided to be bold and remove the shirt stores links .

Then, two days later, the IP user reverted my deletion . I responded by leaving a message on his talk page and reverting his addition, but additionally adding a comment to not readd the links without discussion. After that another user, Jarjar13 (talk · contribs · count), readded the shirt stores links claiming prior discussion had resulted in consensus , I amended my talkpage reply and removed the links once again two days later when there was no reply . (Note:Jarjar13 is not involved in this WQA, since he has acted civilly).

Since then, the IP editor has added the links a second time , and I reverted that edit again, with a stern message in the edit summary not to continue this edit warring . A day later, he once again added the links again . It seems that this IP editor is not willing to talk about this anywhere; he is simply edit warring without having a discussion on the dispute. I've done all I can with the talk pages; I don't know what else to do next. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are blatant spam. You shouldn't even have to discuss it. Take it to the intervention against vandalism board if this single IP user keeps adding them in. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up - I have warned the user in question, and I have added Legends of the Hidden Temple to my watchlist. If I see this user add spam links again, I will report them for spamming, and they will likely be blocked (and if necessary, their websites will be blacklisted). --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor posting threats and insults

User:Cculber007, aside from misinterpreting policy due to apparent language differences, has posted a threat to edit war, and venomous name-calling, at here: "Coward dolt ... I will continue fighting against you as you are deaf discrimianting dolt. ... Get lost." --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cculber007 (talk · contribs), Tenebrae (talk · contribs) -- for future reference. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it is regarding the following edits: . I gave notice of the incivility, but I don't see anything too major. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with uncivil user on Talk:Unidentified_flying_object

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cculber007 (talk · contribs)

This has been brought up earlier but it is escalating amongst other users. Cculber007 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times and has been blocked previously for incivility. Here is a list of DIFFs, also catalogued on my talk page:

• : Belief that any warnings appropriated by users is nonsensical and would appreciate warnings/notices from administrators only, going against WP:VANDAL.
• Wholly inappropriate edit summary, per WP:AGF.
• Creative reuse of a header.
• Ditto.
• (the second message)
• E-mail from Cculber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:20 PM: "That is not vandalism, that is my complaint. I think I contact Misplaced Pages about your bad faith. I am not accepting that you think I vandalised your pages but you vandalised my pages. I get news for you, You are not right person for Misplaced Pages. Remove vandalism words and changing to correct. if not, I will call you as vandalism on my pages."
• E-mail from Culber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:26 PM: ""You start to make a fire, you do not want to finish this fire but you want to bring more fires." It means you do not want to solve the problem, you want to start flame war against me instead of others. I think you has something against me as a deaf person. This is last time, changing your comments in your pages from vandalism to complaints. If they are spams and vandalism then Misplaced Pages is deaf discrimination. Do a right things and solve them will give you a chance of Mediation Committee."

Just making a list. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User has blocks that extend back two years: . He was given "one more chance" for legal threats. Perhaps I should report this to ANI or AIV? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Prior reports at WQA (above) have generated the following AGF-vios: . Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole

Editor Locke Cole is personally attacking me and another editor on Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats as being sock puppets. The case is made more difficult by a faulty result of "likely" from a checkuser case Locke Cole initiated against me after I reverted inappropriate edits he made to HD DVD. I have asked him to stop attacking me in this way at least twice and placed a formal warning on his talk page. As of now, he is continuing to make this false claim against me and another editor rather than addressing the substance of my comments. As I composed this, he placed this on my talk page denying his conduct. Proctor spock (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Suspected sock puppets/Ray andrew as well as Requests for checkuser/Case/Ray andrew. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stating the results of a checkuser is not a personal attack. There is nothing wrong with Locke Cole's behavior, unless you have more evidence to report besides this sort of thing. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, from the Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats page, there are a number of places where he accuses me and Ray andrew of being sock puppets. While he can say truthfully what the result of a checkuser case is ("Likely"), he cannot use that result to support a further conclusion of sockpuppetry. That is, a "Likely" outcome in a checkuser case is not logically equivalent to sock puppetry. So, it is his opinion that sock puppetry is taking place and the accusation he makes of it is both slanderous and incivil. We have both asked him to stop with the personal attacks and he has not. Proctor spock (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, in one of your content disputes you are 100% wrong (see: the policy on self-published sources which outlines exactly why a Warner Bros. press release is not a reliable source when compared to secondary sources - if secondary sources assess Warner Bros. as essentially Blu-Ray exclusive, then that's what they are, even if the press release technically states that they won't officially 100% make the switch until whenever). It also appears that you and an a very small number (possibly just you and one other editor who might be you also) are making these sorts of (incorrect in that case) changes to the article, sometimes with a much larger opposition. A "likely" on a checkuser is not just a "maybe" or "like, whatever." The fact is, you can't use your numerical weight anymore. The two of you editing to, say, end-run around 3RR (hypothetical example) or to carry twice as much weight in a straw-poll or other consensus-measuring discussion (not so hypothetical) - these are no longer viable for you and this other user (assuming it isn't also you). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Racial slurs and consistent profanity.

An anonymous user ( 77.42.129.119 (talk) ) has been using both racial slurs and consistent profanity in edit summaries. The most recent occurrences are here, here, here, and here. Such behavior is way out of line and should not be tolerated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

77.42.129.119 (talk · contribs). Taking care of it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gave final notice, since other editors have warned the IP of various infractions. On next offence, refer to WP:AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs for assertions about behavior?

We deal with editors who's behavior ranges from outstanding to borderline anti-social, this means that it's sometimes necessary to call out bad behavior. Certainly the truth as best as we can remember, whether good or bad, should be told. However given that people make mistakes, is it considered "bad" Wikiquette to cite examples of what we mean when describing bad behavior?

For example here Jehochman says I have a long history of trolling and goading. Were our roles reversed and I was making a similar comment, I'd actually cite diff(s) so he understood exactly what I meant. (Bearing in mind that I'm not asking to actually discuss what he said about my behavior, only if it would have been better/worse from a Wikiquette standpoint to cite examples.) Anynobody 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you explain, is this an etiquette complaint? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is forum shopping. My comment was made at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard and was based on the findings of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS as well as the comments Anynobody (talk · contribs) had made at the relevant AE thread. I suggest that the matter be dealt with where it started, rather than igniting disputes across Misplaced Pages in multiple fora. Jehochman 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, now I see. This is either forum shopping, or something that belongs on the talk page of this alerts board (if it were an honest "so is this incivility?" question). Regardless, in an ongoing arbitration enforcement discussion, past behavior is obviously relevant. If this is a complaint, it is frivolous, and if it is a question, then the answer is "no." There is clearly nothing wrong with discussing the behavior of other editors at an arbitration enforcement discussion, citing examples or not. And Anynobody, this is completely inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to delay an actual reply on the Wikiquette board, but I was blocked for discussing an editors past on the arbcom enforcement board. This isn't a complaint, I tried to make that clear by explaining that I wasn't even sure if there is a precedent for this kind of thing and trying to explain to ] that it mentions but is not about him. (Giving hypothetical situations can add confusion because it may not adequately describe the actual situation in question. As I said, I would have cited examples and it sounds like doing so would not be bed Wikiquette. (I do regret this but please understand it can be quite frustrating to be accused of such things without something to back it up.) Anynobody 03:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect I wish I had paid closer attention to where I was posting as indeed this would've been better posted on the talk page. Anynobody 03:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

This user makes it difficult for me to edit productively on Misplaced Pages. He has long had an issue with me, and generally makes baseless accusations that I'm somehow trying to push creationist POVs into articles related to Evolution. I've tried for a long time to simply avoid him, but that doesn't seem possible.

Most recently, he reverted some of my edits to the Evolution lead that were related to a long discussion with several editors on Talk:Evolution. Note his inflammatory edit comment. I undid his reversion (once only), referring him civilly to the talk page discussion, and complained politely on his talk page. He promptly removed my message on his talk page (with some name-calling in the edit comment), re-reverted my Evolution edits, posted (ironically) a 3RR warning on my talk page, and left a rude comment on Talk:Evolution (something about me and another supposed Creationist masturbating each other). This is at least abusive, and could probably be classified as disruptive editing.

For a look at his history of harassing me, and another example of his abuse of Misplaced Pages's systems, see the frivolous user RFC he filed against me, and note its deconstruction by the well-known administrator User:SandyGeorgia.

I really need help dealing with User:Orangemarlin in order for me to continue spending my time trying to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Please let me know whether or not this is the right forum for trying to resolve things. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this complain is a retribution for said RfC, which was endorsed by several well-known administrators. I do not believe that SandyGeorgia is an admin. Gnixon is well-know for utilizing these administrative areas to battle his content disputes rather than gain consensus. There was no consensus to a long-standing FA. Gnixon should be blocked from editing for this type of attacks on my person.OrangeMarlin 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was apparently wrong about her being an admin. Whoever looks into this should please be sure to follow the links instead of relying on my and OM's vastly different descriptions. Gnixon (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack again, by implying no good faith that my "vastly different description" is somehow wrong. I am always being attacked personally by Gnixon. I have tried numerous times to work with him, but finally after so many personal attacks by him, I had to file an RfC, which was endorsed by several respected editors. I'm not sure why Gnixon insists on these personal attacks, but I would hope he'd stop. OrangeMarlin 20:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider with a strong pro-science (and actually anti-religion) bias I am surprised to find myself on Gnixon's side after reading through some of the material. I think Gnixon's characterisation of this RfC (started by Orangemarlin) as "frivolous" is correct. SandyGeorgia's response is well worth reading, regardless of whether she is an admin or not. I think it is fair to say that many of the 74 diffs provided by Orangemarlin have "vastly different descriptions" from what they actually say, and therefore Gnixon has every right in the world to warn people not to rely on them unchecked. It is absurd to call this a "personal attack". It seems that Orangemarlin has lost all contact with reality in his assessment of Gnixon's behaviour and actions, to the point where he interprets even the notification about this discussion as an attack. I hope that Orangemarlin comes to his senses before this is escalated further and he has to be punished. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, at least at first glance, with Hans's assessment of Gnixon's behavior. He is pushing POV, and it's pretty clear because he's using (among other things) a well-known and strongly-discouraged tactic. Whenever a biologist comments on evolution, and says something that discredits creationism, Gnixon seems to want to qualify it with something like "Dr. Sally Scientist, professor of evolutionary biology and well-known/outspoken atheist said blah blah blah." Maybe it has to do with the fact that he dismisses some published, reputable academic sources because he considers some biologists to be "bone-heads" (a consideration that could be just as easily used to discredit his side of the debate). That's totally unacceptable and does exactly the opposite of what NPOV requires. Gnixon is complaining about OrangeMarlin re-reverting him. Which means Gnixon must have reverted a revert - another big no-no, flying in the face of consensus-building (and meriting a 3RR warning). And OrangeMarlin can remove whatever comments he wants from his talk page.

Now, is OrangeMarlin making rude comments, probably out of frustration? Yes. Editors do this alot. And that should be dealt with, in this case it may be serious. But I don't think SandyGeorgia's examination of the RfC/U was a resolution to this problem, and it does not let Gnixon off the hook - there is a content dispute, and regardless of how much of the administrative hoop-jumping these two have been doing to report each other and whatever, the underlying issue involves edits like this or this are blatant POV problems - other edits are more mild, but still do things like chalk up scientifically accepted theories to the author of the reference, instead of presenting them as supported by a consensus in the scientific community. Looking through the history of Physics for example shows giant strings of edits by Gnixon, and right in the middle of them he sneaks in deleting the entire history section. Why?? He is constantly reverting the revert, demanding that his changes be accepted (instead of the status quo version), and directing others to the talk page as if his version should stand until a consensus is established (instead of the existing status quo consensus-built version).

Now, over all, as far as the WQA is concerned, I think this is honestly just another forum they've found to complain about each others' behavior. I recommend mediation, if not arbitration, because the underlying content dispute doesn't seem to ever end and it's resulted in long chains of complaints, reports, etc. I don't know what will happen if/when it's kicked up the ladder though. OrangeMarlin's incivility is not appropriate, but it is no excuse for or endorsement of Gnixon's contributions, and it looks to me like that's what this whole thing is really about. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I didn't make it clear enough that I did not actually assess Gnixon's behaviour but only Orangemarlin's. In fact, what you describe is what I expected to see in Orangemarlin's RfC diffs. But there are 74 diffs, many of which are mislabelled, and most of which seem to be perfectly harmless. I didn't check them all. I am aware that I don't know the full story, and that it is probably hard to know the full story without working on some of the relevant pages for a while. I have experienced the kind of friction that arises when people with vastly different backgrounds work on the same article, especially when laypeople push their pov against experts. Something like this might be going on here, but then Orangemarlin has done a bad job of exposing it; it is not evident to me from what I have seen and I am not willing to get much more involved. I still think Orangemarlin deserves to be punished in the way I suggested (which shouldn't be too bad for a marlin), and I have no idea if Gnixon deserves anything, or if so, what. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respond very briefly. Much of my editing involves trimming things; I know that can be contentious; I try very hard to discuss and get along with everyone. I think of myself as being very pro-science, but I try very hard to keep any personal perspective out of my editing, and I prefer not to talk about my personal views, which would apparently surprise Orangemarlin. Of your references to my edits, I only see examples of trimming things down, except in the admittedly debatable argument for identifying Dawkins as both an expert biologist and an outspoken atheist when referencing his book "The God Delusion" in the context of the creation-evolution conflict. I don't remember editing with you, but you seem to be familiar with me. I welcome and appreciate your comments, and if criticism of my editing is necessary here, I'm open to hearing it. Gnixon (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention that I strongly believe there are boneheads in all fields of science, including one with which I'm quite familiar, as well as in all other professions. I assure you I didn't mean to call any particular scientists or groups of scientists boneheads, rather I was emphasizing that my prior statement in the diff was true of all scientists, as I think you'll agree if you'll please humor me by re-reading the comment. Gnixon (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A passive aggressive personal attack on me again. You need to be banned for your ongoing personal attacks. OrangeMarlin 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone tell me how that could possibly be construed as an attack against OM, of all people? I'm sorry this seems to be degenerating, and I'll try to limit my comments here from now on. Gnixon (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack on me. I'm starting to feel as though I need to file an alert against your continued rudeness against me. However, I try to refrain from using the system unless the problem becomes severe. OrangeMarlin 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be the place you'd file that complaint, except that neither of those two comments by Gnixon contain personal attacks. You need to refine your definition of personal attack. -- Cheeser1 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I second Hans' comment above. I am not uninvolved in this dispute and nor do I edit articles on intelligent design or creationism, which are areas in which I have no particular interest. I am not necessarily taking sides here because I am not familiar with Gnixon or his editing. But as a general principle, I would strongly urge any interested party here to thoroughly research Orangemarlin's contribs and editing style rather than accepting any assertions made by him at face value. Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be about civility than editing style? I don't support User:Orangemarlin's incivility, and in that sense, I agree with Hans and Badger, but my (limited) experience with his work is that it is pretty much supported by good references. Any editor's contentions need to be supported by reliable sources. In the case of science articles, that should be either peer reviewed scientific journals, or works closely based on them. I think singling out Orange Marlin like this implies that his assertions are not based on reliable sources, and unless you know something beyond your implications, you should come forward with specific issues regarding his edits. Otherwise, this comes across as bad-faith, implying that this editor is making unfounded assertions. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. Orangemarlin's article or "content" editing is always tolerable, usually accurate, and sometimes very good (from what I have seen, at least). He is a committed encyclopaedist. But his attitude to civility is disgusting and his treatment of other editors is frequently - very frequently - offensive and shows scant regard for their feelings, or for that matter for basic standards of decency. The "assertions" I refer to are along the lines of his assertion that Gnixon's post above constitutes incivility and a personal attack , but apparently edits like this do not.

Eh? If you can explain the logic of that then you are most certainly a cleverer person than I am.

You seem to think that I am commenting on Orangemarlin's article editing style - I am in fact referring to his edits on talk pages and in edit summaries. This is not about religion vs science. This is about Orangemarlin's basic incivility, extreme arrogance, and disregard for the principles that help make Misplaced Pages function- things like WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc etc etc. I am not a proponent of intelligent design nor a creationist (in so far as there's any difference between the two anyway). I am a scientist. But Orangemarlin has no right to treat other editors the way that he does and it should stop. Badgerpatrol (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah .... I see your point now. I am agreement with you. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit my faults Badgerpatrol. I am sorry we came to a head against each other at Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. It makes me sad that you have to take Gnixon's side in this matter, because I wouldn't want to force you to support any creationist editor, because you are a scientist. I hope that I can make it up to you somehow. OrangeMarlin 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec w/OM) In terms of OrangeMarlin's conduct, this is absolutely right - his edits may be "right" and his contributions may be good, but his conduct is absolutely not. However, he seems willing to discuss his behavior (see his talk page). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually not. As I've stated about 350 times, possibly more, I cannot accept that there is a standard of behavior that can be described as "civil" or "uncivil." Civility is used as a method of controlling free speech, and I will not be a party to it. I do not attack anyone personally, although I'm most willing to point out their poor editing. I completely will admit I do not assume good faith, but I need to be convinced that good faith should be given. However, my sexual metaphor was incorrect, and I shall endeavor to remove it. Please do not accept what I wrote on my talk page as giving into the personal attacks of Gnixon. I will stand up to his attacking. OrangeMarlin 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you have acknolwedged that your comment was inappropriate - that would be a standard of civility. Unfortunately, you don't get to decide whether or not there are standards of behavior - we have them, and you're required to follow them. Also, please refer to WP:FREE - Misplaced Pages makes no guarantee of free speech, but civility policy places absolutely no restrictions on what kind of relevant comments you can make, only how you can make them. Please review WP:CIVIL, you may find it helpful. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If OM can agree to deal with me civilly, stop labeling me a creationist (which I view as a baseless attempt to discredit me) and "POV-pusher", and respond to my edits in good faith, then I have no further need of help. However, I have tried repeatedly in the past to secure those courtesies, and have failed. Comments from outside observers are most welcome. (written before OM's post below, posted after) Gnixon (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But Gnixon, your edits are pushing a creationist POV. Those labels are well-earned. I am willing to accept that you are editing in good faith, but that doesn't mean your contributions aren't creating biased articles. Commenting on your contributions is not verboten - to say that your edits are pushing a POV is only inappropriate if it's baseless. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I understand your position, Cheeser1, but it's at the very least debatable whether I'm in fact pushing creationist POV. I've made it very clear that I don't think I am, and I've asserted that it has never been my intention to do so. Not being trained in acting or fictional writing, I would find it difficult to push creationist POV. However, I am trained in science and technical writing, and unbiased reporting of facts is important to me (although I pointedly don't ask you to rely on claims about who or what I am in real life). Judging from what you've written, we could apparently debate whether a rational observer would infer a slant from my edits. However, having made clear that I resent those characterizations and consider them baseless, one could at least do me the courtesy of saying one "thinks" that "my edits" are such and such, or "judges" them to be such and such, instead of stating it as an acknowledged fact. In OM's case, my interpretation is that he deliberately mischaracterizes me and repeats these assertions as fact so that people will believe I'm some sly creationist POV pusher without looking at the facts. I think that is extremely offensive and contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages. Gnixon (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are what you edit. I don't think denying it changes what people think of your edits, fair or not, because that's so often a tactic of vandals and admitted POV pushers. If your edits are vandalism, you're a vandal (note:hypothetical). If your edits are nonNPOV, then you're editing with a POV problem. If your edits are biased towards creationism, then you're a creationist as far as your contributions are concerned. If you want that to stop, you better start respecting the consensus building process. Your edit history is full of instances where you defy the community standards for consensus building, which is probably the main reason think you're pushing a POV instead of just making bad edits in good faith. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's kind of unfair to me. Is this the right place to discuss it at length? I don't want to distract this discussion from the original topic, but if you think this is an important enough element to warrant discussion here, I'm happy to discuss things. Gnixon (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, the thing I object to is OM going to great lengths to tell everyone what he thinks of my edits and what he believes my motivations are. I don't have a thin skin, but I think it's uncivil for him to deliberately attempt to bias others toward me. Calling me a creationist, a POV-pusher, and a creationist POV-pusher on articles like Evolution where people are sensitive to those types is a direct attack on my credibility, and it seems to be motivated by personal antipathy to me and a zealous need to guard science, not by the facts. This is obviously an issue of degree, as I don't dispute anyone's right to tell others what they think of my edits. However, I think his behavior amounts to a lot of vindictive name-calling. Gnixon (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vindictive name-calling? Another personal attack against me. What's that? Ten in this thing? I'm starting to feel aggrieved. OrangeMarlin 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the recent history of the Evolution article I must now say that I agree with Cheeser1 on this. What is going on there must be extremely trying for the experts. The entire situation reminds me of the relation one often sees between children and their parents. The children have a lot of energy for mischief, while the parents try to concentrate on serious work. Eventually the parents get aggressive, and that is wrong and looks completely unjustified to outside observers. But it is very understandable. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For my own part, it would be useful to see examples of edits considered to be POV-pushing. Like Hans, I also have had a (very) quick scan through Gnixon's edits to ] but unlike Hans, I didn't see much to immediately concern me. Note for clarity that I am not taking anybody's "side" and I am not claiming to be familiar with Gnixon's edits. I am only requesting evidence. Can we have some diffs to back up the claims? Badgerpatrol (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the failed RfC or some of the diffs I cited (which I pulled out of there). Yes, OrangeMarlin cites alot of stuff that isn't relevant, but he cites alot of stuff that is too. I gave enough examples above to give you some idea, I think. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

- I don't understand what's wrong with this comment. I know plenty of scientists, and some (the majority) are very clever and very accomplished people indeed. Equally, some of them are "boneheads", or could reasonably described as such (although it would be rather rude to do so). Scientists are not Gods, they're just people. Similarly, peer review is a good tool but not infallible - some dross does slip through, and the quality of journals ranges from the elite (Nature, Science, Royal Society) to the not so good (New Dworkin Journal of Mammology, or its non-fictional equivalent). My knowledge of creationism is more or less gleaned from reading the newspaper, but it was my understanding that it does indeed have quite strong support amongst the general public in America and in many other countries. That does not, of course, make it any more true - and neither does Gnixon say that in his comment.

There's an irony here that I'm disappointed everyone missed, although it's understandable without the context. I was actually writing in support of someone who criticized Intelligent Design proponents for not having publications. They said "all great scientists" have publications, but in fact, all legitimate scientists have publications. Thus if ID has no publications in peer-reviewed journals, it's not only that there are no "great" ID scientists, but that there can't be any legitimate ID scientists (not even of the boneheaded variety). Gnixon (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

- This is a major edit and he might have been well advised to discuss on the talk page first (especially on such a sensitive article). But I don't think its a particularly bad edit- the trimmed material was written in a familiar, almost first person style and the given reference is...hardly unimpeachable as a source.

I don't remember having any problem with the reference, but I thought it inappropriate for that paragraph about "theory" in science to go off on a long tangential lecture about forensics. Gnixon (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

- I kind of see your point here but this edit is certainly not unambiguous either. Assuming good faith, he's only adding manifest fact. Richard Dawkins is (arguably) far better known for his views on religion and other supernatural phenomena than he is as a biologist (or at least he is these days, anyway). I believe his chair at Oxford is in "Public Understanding of Science". (I don't know enough about Dennett to comment on what his exact position is.)

Again, I am not familiar enough with this situation to take anybody's "side" - but I would not in a million years suggest that these edits constitute "blatant" POV. Apart from the last one, which maybe is debatable (although obviously true) I could easily have made those edits myself. Gnixon may be a creationist and a POV pusher who is driving everyone to frustration, but those edits (and a random sampling of those from the RfC, although I have not by any means looked at them all) do not at all demonstrate it to me. Badgerpatrol (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that he's edit warring over this stuff, way out of bounds of WP:CONS. Even if you assume as much good faith as possible, once he starts edit warring, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. If somebody says "revert due to creationist bias" and Gnixon reverts it right back, I can't fathom how there could be a good-faith explanation beyond not understanding WP:CONS, WP:R, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And I can't fathom how there can be a good faith explanation of how it can be justified to call someone a creationist based on edits which do not betray any obvious creationist tendencies. Orangemarlin has shown some contrition tonight and conducted himself in a (comparitively) admirable way, and on that basis, I (genuinely) don't want to appear to be laying into him. But WP:CONS only works if everyone is willing to assume good faith and discuss issues in a calm and rational way to build or adjust consensus. "Calm and rational" does not describe my experience with Orangemarlin and some of his regular editing colleagues (none of whom have weighed in here so far btw, and I think the discussion is much the better for it). Gnixon shouldn't edit war (has he broken the 3rr?) but sadly I very much doubt if his edits or points for discussion would have got a fair hearing on talk. I know from bitter personal experience that it is extremely difficult to get OM and his associates to actually respond constructively to substantive argument in a balanced and constructive way. Badgerpatrol (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that edit warring is bad, and there have probably been times in the past when I've too vigorously defended edits in the article instead of on the talk page (but I suspect that's true of many or most editors). I'm always trying to do better; I've never been accused of violating 3RR; I've never been warned or had any action taken against me for anything. While undoing OM's recent revert may not have been the best response, I don't know any policy that it violated, especially given my interpretation that it was done completely in bad faith. For a well-trod article like Evolution, obviously the best response was just to leave a note on the talk page and let someone else undo what OM did. I'll do that in the future. Gnixon (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Undo what I did? You mean you're attacking me personally for making a good faith reversion? I'm tiring of these personal attacks. OrangeMarlin 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just take this recent one, which removes the following from the lede: "It encountered initial resistance from religious authorities who believed humans were divinely set apart from the animal kingdom" (among other things). The justification was: "changes to tighten last paragraph of lead. Dropped mention of Wallace w/o lying. Dropped mention of early resistance from religious corners as non-essential. Still a little wordy." This is inappropriate because this controversy was historically extremely important. And as we all know, in the US it is still not over, although the exact contested points are evolving. (It's even beginning to spread to the UK and Germany.) This is a minor point, but there is currently a revert war going on on it. Another example is this edit, which also resulted in a fight. This would be easier to defend. I am not saying it is inappropriate behaviour to make such edits. I am saying that the editors who are trying to defend reason against the simplistic religious POV must be feeling like the parents in my analogy. The children are continuously asking for lots of little things and making a drama if they don't get them. It seems to be easier to just concede a point without a fight; but then they get bolder and demand more and more. This kind of thing is very enervating, but also very hard to prove, because every single instance looks like it is not a big deal. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And, to make that clear, while I can understand how some parents resort to beating their children for this behaviour, it doesn't just look bad, it's also morally wrong. That's why I wanted to whack (or feed?) Orangemarlin. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans, I can see what you mean and why that might be the case - it is difficult to take edits out of context and judge them, and the sum of the parts may be greater than the individual edits themselves, which is why I'm being fairly careful with how I phrase things. Gnixon has not explicitly made crystal clear here what his actual position is (although I do appreciate that this is a debate about Oranagemarlin's incivility, not Gnixon's personal beliefs). In isolation, the edits you quote indeed are no big deal (the second one I might have made myself, and the first I can certainly see a justification for, and in general he seems to make his arguments in a constructive and reserved fashion), but if it is pre-supposed that Gnixon is a creationist POV-pusher (i.e. if initial good faith is put aside) then obviously they take on a different tone. I would however like to see the evidence that he actually is a creationist POV-pusher rather than just an a priori assumption. (Either way, it doesn't excuse name-calling and gross incivility). Badgerpatrol (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But Hans, while I agree with your assessment of the sensitive nature of Evolution and the parents/children analogy, I don't know that it applies here. The fight you refer to was started by OM's reversion of my edit, and the last time I checked the page, everyone was happy when someone else changed things back to exactly my version. Regarding those cuts which you thought were "inappropriate", those changes were made in consistency with wide consensus that the Evolution article should avoid prominently discussing the creation-evolution controversy---how could going against the creationists' "Teach the Controversy" strategy in this case be construed as a pro-creationist POV push?? I agree that these issues are subtle, which is why I hoped to keep this action focused on specific, overt acts of incivility. However, I understand if people think broader things should be discussed. Gnixon (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting long-time stable verbiage is hardly an attack on you. But your continued attacks on me are becoming troublesome.OrangeMarlin 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is much more detail than I ever wanted to go into. So just a brief reply before I go to bed. To stay in my analogy, if there is a consensus among the children that they all need icecream instantly then it doesn't necessarily mean that the parents should give it to them. They must not beat the children, and they shouldn't use foul language, but if they give in the children will demand a playstation next week. --Hans Adler (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but if there is a consensus among Misplaced Pages editors that the article must have ice cream, then by Misplaced Pages's basic principles, the article gets ice cream! (Totally off-topic, but I couldn't resist.) Thanks for weighing in, Hans, and sorry this thing ballooned. Gnixon (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found many of these comments helpful. I would really appreciate if even more people (preferably totally uninvolved) would weigh in. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I may not be totally uninvolved, as I have clashed with Orangemarlin on religio-political articles, but I would like to fully endorse Badgerpatrol's view of the situation.

Certainly OM frequents articles that attract controversial editing, and some of the people he deals with really are trolls or sockpuppets, but this does not excuse his behavior. He fans flames and creates enemies, when a more respectful approach might defuse conflicts and guide others towards productive editing. This is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, especially given the high-profile location of his activities, in that editors inclined to be reasonable are driven away and the rest are turned into warriors. He needs to realize this and change his ways.

He clearly is highly intelligent, and is (I have heard and do not doubt it) a productive encyclopedist. He is also (by his own testimony, which rings true) a successful businessman. Thus I cannot believe that he is incapable of realizing the problem here and becoming a better citizen. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) should apologize for the comment he made at Talk:Evolution. Ulitimately, let's not get distracted with red herrings. The only question that should be on the Table is whether or not this edit demands a caveat-free apology. TableManners 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer if OM's behavior toward me (and others) was discussed in general, but I'll understand if people want to restrict this to the recent incident (comprised of several edits), given that I haven't provided past diffs beyond the RfC. Gnixon (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My behavior? Another attack on me. That makes at least 12 on this alert itself. I think I'm going to have to disengage from your abusive behavior, or it might cause me undue harm on this project.OrangeMarlin 06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes your behavior. That's what the WQA is here to discuss. Just because Gnixon mentions your name does not make it a personal attack - it seems like anytime he says anything, you think it's a personal attack. I would strongly suggest that you "disengage" from this discussion - your conduct is starting to become a bit problematic. And no, that's not a personal attack. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cheeser here, it's becoming tiresome to hear OrangeMarline parrot the same line again and again. And I agree with BadgerPatrol's overall assessement of the situation. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll also agree with Chesser's observations, and based upon past interactions with OM and his comments here at WQA, he seems to fringe on being rather incivil. Not every user who comments, or opposes your viewpoints OM is attacking your credibility or stance, but if it does continue, then other actions will be required. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I came across this discussion by accident. Since I've had some interaction with OrangeMarlin, I'll comment briefly. I note Seicer's comment that, "if it does continue, then other actions will be required." Therefore, I note that this kind of thing has already been continuing for a long time, at least in the context of matters with which I have been involved. I'll give two brief examples, although more examples are available upon request. On October 19 of 2007, OrangeMarlin told another editor: "I can't wait to watching you fucked over." That resulted in a warning to OrangeMarlin. On December 26, OrangeMarlin accused another editor of being "anti-semitic" merely for having used the word "chutzpa." Again, a warning was given to OrangeMarlin. I'm concerned that Misplaced Pages does not have any efficient way to keep track of such warnings; in this case, we apparently have a situation where each person giving a warning is unaware of previous warnings.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah Ferrylodge. This must be a revenge comment because I put you up for review by ArbCom. Sorry, but it's bold faced attempt by you. You're on probation, not me. Oh, one more thing. The comment was anti-semitic. I get choose what offends me. Not you. Your people weren't executed by the millions by Nazis. My family was. I tend to take casual comments like that very poorly. Apparently, you choose to further that type of anti-Semitism, which I don't personally like. OrangeMarlin 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You attack my alleged motives, instead of addressing the diffs. Typical. I will now provide a small bit of the further evidence regarding your incivility, in response to your ongoing attack. You again now refer --- dishonestly --- to my religious heritage. Previously, you wrote"Ferrylodge, being a christian pov-pusher, would never have Chutzpah." I responded by saying, "As a Jew, I take great offense when I hear frivolous bogus charges of antisemitism, because it trivializes the real thing." OrangeMarlin, as one Jew to another, I hope that you will reconsider your preposterous style of editing, and I hope that some action is taken against you sooner rather than later to expedite that reconsideration.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Cheeser, let me be a lot more serious about this. Gnixon has done this several times to me and other editors. I'm not going to dig up the diffs, but if you want them, I'll take time from dealing with vandals who seem to be attacking articles today. I consider several of Gnixon's comments to be highly inflammatory. He has accused me of harassing him, he has accused me of a variety of things. Almost every one of his comments is a veiled attack. Gnixon is a abusive, disruptive editor. I don't countenance his personal attacks on me, no matter how slight. This whole conversation is a waste of time. I've made the changes to the comments I made in the Talk section, I've apologized to two or three editors (and not one of those wimpy apologies, but a straight out obvious one). Gnixon ought to apologize to all of us for wasting time on a frivolous activity, for besmirching my good name, and for POV-warrioring (even Badgerpatrol, who has only a marginal tolerance of me, called Gnixon that). So let's move on. If you want me to apologize to Gnixon, I will because I was wrong in my sexual metaphor (which I've stated before). But someone needs to tell Gnixon that he's gaming this system with these constant attacks on me. And that's what this is. It's cute that the other POV-warriors like Ferrylodge lump into the fray, but I'm used to him. OrangeMarlin 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:"even Badgerpatrol, who has only..." - Your interpretation of events, and especially my comments, is so hopelessly skewed that frankly I can only assume deliberate mendacity on your part. Show me a diff where I call Gnixon a POV-warrior. I have stated repeatedly throughout this conversation that in fact I have yet to see any convincing evidence that Gnixon is a POV-pusher and I've repeatedly requested that others provide it. Redact or retract your statement above in so far as it pertains to your utter (deliberate?) misreading of my statements on this matter. I for one certainly would like you to actually provide some diffs to back up your point of view- I would especially like to see Gnixon's "highly inflammatory" commments, which as I'm sure you understand, would potentially turn this entire thread on its head.

Produce them please.

Orangemarlin, I have to say that your behaviour is becoming increasingly bizarre - and that's certainly not a personal attack, it's a statement of genuine puzzlement. Badgerpatrol (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about one sexual metaphor. It's about a repeated pattern of incivility toward myself and others for which OM shows no remorse, and which he makes clear he has no intention of curtailing (consider all the comments about rejecting civility in principle). I have no confidence that this conversation has yet solved the problem. Gnixon (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, I think the problem is that you spend too much time thinking about what Gnixon says, and not nearly enough time thinking about what you say. Everything he says seems to be a personal attack (see above - he made two harmless comments and you took great offense). And you don't seem to be entirely clear on where you should draw the line when you're speaking (er, typing). I would suggest that you take some time off, review your own contributions (not others') and think seriously about how you say things (and to some extent, what you say). You are often in heated content disputes, incivility pops up all the time, but you seem to be exceptionally prone to making such comments. You should think things over seriously, because despite Gnixon's behavior, despite how right you might be in a content dispute, you are still just as much subject to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and you can wind up blocked for that - if you don't take the time to think about things, an admin might force you to, and I don't want to see that happen when you do seem to have good intentions, however egregious your behavior might become. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat tired of seeing this behaviour from Orangemarlin and am appalled by the masturbation comment (thankfully since removed). I have previously told OM of my intention to block him for breach of WP:CIV and WP:NPA should it continue and am close to doing so due to that comment. However, it would be sensible not to do so given the (hopefully) productive discussions going on here. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Violet, I appreciate your comment, and I too hope these discussions have been or will be productive. However, please consider the following:

Before your warning, Orangemarlin had already been warned about WP:CIV and WP:NPA by User:IrishGuy for calling me a "whiny little creationist". A third admin has warned him for edit-warring. Even now, Orangemarlin rejects WP:CIV as a matter of principle, much like he dismissed your warning as "a bunch of crap." This represents a consistent pattern over at least the last 9 months without any sign of change. Yet interest in this discussion seems to have died off.

What message is the community trying to send? Apparently, consistent hostility and incivility toward other editors is at most frowned upon. If explicitly rude name-calling finally pushes someone to complain, Orangemarlin needs only point the finger back at the complainant, obfuscate things with a fantastical reinterpretation of events, and wait a few hours for things to blow over. At worst, he'll be given warning number N+1, which will quickly be archived from his talk page and forgotten about, whence he's free to return to his old ways. I'm not screaming for blood here, but I wish someone would get through to him that WP:CIV in non-negotiable. Gnixon (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you want besides frowning upon? This is the WQA, we are not an administrative alert board, and if you're so convinced that nothing will ever change, why are you making a complaint to a place where the best we can do is give him "warning number N+1"? Also, you are grossly mischaracterizing the response to the complaint - please do not lash out at the people who are trying very hard to help you resolve the situation just because they didn't do exactly what you want, or because they happened to notice that you are not completely blameless in this matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a detailed knowledge of the WQA process; I'm not sure what options are available to it; I'm not sure what specific action needs to be taken. I suppose I'm just frustrated that nothing seems to have gotten through to Orangemarlin. I certainly don't mean to lash out at those who have posted comments here, since many of them seem quite helpful. If anywhere, my criticism is directed at the general response from the community; however, my point is not to criticize, but rather to argue that the "masturbation" comment should be considered as part of a larger problem. Gnixon (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Ironically, one of OM's favorite activities is to post warnings to other users. A glance at his last 500 edits shows some 25 such posts, often labeled "Final/Last Warning." Is Orangemarlin the best choice for WikiCop?) Gnixon (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Those warnings are a standard part of editing on Misplaced Pages. I dish out several of those a day, sometimes, because they are necessary in order to utilize the WP:AIV. Please do not decontextualize or mischaracterize what could easily be positive contributions by OrangeMarlin. This comment isn't even relevant to the issue at hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at a few of the warnings before my comment (to fulfill the onus of AGF), was partly what led me to question the whether Orangemarlin was appropriate for that important but sensitive role. However, I understand it's a little off-topic, so I won't pursue it further. Apologies, Gnixon (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The vast majority of these warnings seem to be for obvious cases of vandalism to pages that Orangemarlin is watching. I think this makes your rhetorical question weaker than it would be otherwise. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most were obvious cases of vandalism that deserved response, but my point need only rest on the observation that even vandals are entitled to WP:CIV, and perhaps a gentle touch is even more valuable in that arena than elsewhere. Anyway, as I mentioned above, that's only a side-point, and I'll let it go having said my peace. Gnixon (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cheeser1 that WQAIf no more action can be taken than warning OM, which has been repeatedly demonstrated not to make any difference to his behaviour, then WP:WQA is more or less a useless talking shop, unless it can lead to a more substantive way forward. I agree with Gnixon however that the situation with Orangemarlin is a weeping sore that has gone on too long. We should AGF that most of his disseminated warnings are for vandalism, but we have all seen that OM's definition of a personal attack against him is...bizarre, at best. I would very much like to see diffs of Gnixon's "highly inflammatory" comments that OM seems to have found so provocative. OM's repeated allegations of personal attacks against him are indeed often fantastical, from what I can see, and seem to almost lapse into autosuggestion. Repeating a lie a thousand times does not make it any more true, as OM's own dealings with creationists and ID proponents should presumably have made clear to him. This discussion has been constructive and I think could lead to real and lasting progress on the issue. If, as Cheeser1 seems to state, WQA is not the appropriate forum for a lasting solution, then comments on what is an appropriate forum would be welcome. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment itself is bizarre. Cheeser1 has been very active working on this complaint; spinning his reply to an exasperated Gnixon in the way you are doing is absurd. "We should AGF that most of his disseminated warnings are for vandalism" also looks like a bizarre attack to me. There is no need to AGF, we can just look at his logs. I already had a (very quick) look at OM's warnings and reported the result, in reply to Gnixon's remark. I will AGF and merely conclude that you are merely too lazy to do the same. But that's no reason to assume everybody else is equally lazy. This nonsense only distracts from the valid points you are making in your comment. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Repeating a lie a thousand times does not make it any more true" is not a very helpful formulation, to say the least. If OM were lying when he says he is being attacked he could just stop doing so for a while and recommence later. He is very obviously not lying but perceiving these attacks, whether rightly (something subliminal could be going on, after all, although there is no evidence for that so far) or not. That's the problem, and that's why a "talking shop" is exactly what we need. The AGF principle is there to help us avoid exactly the kind of (innocent I will say, assuming your good faith) mischaracterisation which you have just made, and which tends to aggravate conflicts.--Hans Adler (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect Hans, I find your above comment and accusations incivil. Please let's get back to the matter at hand. I find your tone inappropriate in a conversation that has to date been conducted in a largely civil and sensible tone. I have altered my above comment however in line with your objection.

Amongst Orangemarlin's recent warnings (and I interpret that in a broad sense, not just template warnings) we find this in response to this, this in response to (which maybe borders incivility, but is not a personal attack), in response to this, this (particularly disgusting and unfounded) accusation in response to this.

I have had more than a "very quick" look at Orangemarlin's edit history. I am by now quite familiar with it, although I can't claim to have looked through every one of his warnings or edits. There is much to be concerned about. With regard to warnings specifically- I say there is a need to assume good faith because there is a need to assume good faith- many of OM's warnings are for neutrality violations for example, which are a judgement call - and frankly, I no longer trust Orangemarlin's judgeement. It does seem (and the above conversation and diffs may provide some evidence) that OM uses warnings and accusations of personal attacks as a form of personal attack himself, something specifically prohibited under WP:NPA. I can see why Gnixon is indeed "exasperated" - it seems to me that he's been accused of things he quite possibly hasn't done (if he has done them, let's see the diffs) and repeatedly personally attacked. OM has been warned and warned and warned and he is not changing his behaviour one little bit. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

- I always endeavour to extend good faith to editors - until they demonstrate otherwise. WP:AGF (and, more importantly, common sense) clearly states that good faith is not infinite. With his repeated, totally unfounded, allegations of personal attacks and skewing of other editors' commentary, his ongoing (and 'severe) incivility and his gaming the system by accusing others of personal attacks and incivility whilst a) claiming that he doesn't care about civility anyway and b) repeatedly making manifestly incivil comments and personal attacks, OM has used up my good faith. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Badgerpatrol here. It's hard to find any justifiable reason for OM "perceiving" personal attacks here. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, some people believe in one or more gods. It's also very hard to find any justifiable reason for that, and yet it is obviously inappropriate and uncivil to accuse them of lying. And that's true even if they still insist after weeks, months or even years of fruitless discussions. Good faith is not supposed to be used up in such situations. The assumption of good faith is needed especially in such situations. The question here should be something like: "Why is OM feeling attacked and what can we do about it? How can we stop the disruption caused by this?" I think it's a very bad idea to discuss the loaded question: "How can we make OM stop lying about his being attacked?" --Hans Adler (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, I agree with your second and third example. I don't understand what's going on in the first, and while there is a lot in the fourth that is "disgusting" as you say, it's not in what OM says. (You linked to "The Evil Spartan"'s "chutzpah" comment; presumably you meant something else.) I am sorry for the accusation above that I have striked out now. Since Gnixon's original "last 500 edits" comment the topic has shifted a bit, and I wasn't aware of that. I would probably have seen that if I had followed my own advice of assuming good faith properly. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reassessing your comments, I appreciate it. I've now corrected my post above - two of the diffs were in the wrong order; in fact Orangemarlin's accusation of anti-semitism and references to the Holocaust were solely in response to Evil Spartan's use of the word "chutzpah" (a common word in everyday usage regardless of one's religious preferences and certainly not offensive in any way nor intended to be so). It's sadly ironic given OM's editing interests that you seem to equate OM's irrational behaviour (and I mean that descriptively, not as an attack) with irrational religious belief. The question at hand is not "How can we stop OM from feeling that he's being attacked?" rather it is "How can we stop OM from attacking other people?". The diffs I provide above are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his behaviour unfortunately. It is offensive, it poisons the atmosphere, and it generates a huge amount of totally unecessary light & heat.

I'm sorry to state it bluntly, but he has been reported to this board several times, he has been warned many times on his talk page, he was a party in a recent arbcom case (during which his actions were more or less ignored, for whatever reason). He has not altered his behaviour or even accepted that said behaviour is wrong.

As Yeats said: "The best lack all conviction, whilst the worst are full of passionate intensity". If you have had a good look at Orangemarlin's edits, you will see that good faith has been pushed far enough. His behaviour is anti-wiki and unacceptable. Let's actually do something about it. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Othmanskn

Apart from violating WP:NPOV, WP:REF and WP:RS, User:Othmanskn has calling at least two other users "idiots" (diff) for highlighting his/her disregarding for Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, thus, violating yet another policies WP:CIVIL. He also accuses other of vandalism because of the dispute. __earth 01:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a warning. S/he probably just needs to cool his/her jets. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin (2)

User continues to show aggression towards me. Responded to votestacking on Fibromyalgia and is spreading lies about me in highly incivil tone on his talk page after being warned for this behaviour by User:Revolving Bugbear. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah Guido Guido Guido. Bugbear's only warning was to not respond to canvassing, which I did not know it was. And you called me a liar and disruptive, which is a personal attack. And have you not been blocked more than once? I would suggest your constant stalking me is problematic. OrangeMarlin 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that user is intending to continue in the same manner indefinitely. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? Provide diffs, I see only one comment by OM on talk:fibro. You've got a history of frivolous complaints here at the WQA, and OrangeMarlin is pointing to your history of editing, which isn't very positive. If you have a votestacking complaint, it's not OM's fault, it's whoever canvassed for the votes, and that doesn't make you "right" in the content dispute. OM did nothing wrong here, unless you've got diffs that aren't reflected in the current discussion as it appears on talk:fibro and OM's talk. Please keep in mind that this is the WQA - we respond to complaints about civility, personal attacks, etc. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I hate these things. Editors which I have put in their place with either ArbComs, RfC's or whatever attack. That's why my responses in the previous one of these things was less than serious. I have not been blocked. I have not been ArbComm'ed (is that a word?). This is a waste of everyone's time. Also, I believe that there are a HUGE number of warnings against Guido for attacking me. He can be blocked I believe for attacking me any further. Yeah, I know, you're going to make me find the damn diffs.  :) OrangeMarlin 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, although they are already in plain sight:

• response to votestacking:
• false report of multiple blocks:

New diffs:

• false accusation of stalking:
• false report of 'huge number of warnings': Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Of those 4 diffs, the latter two are copies of OM's comments in this section. I see no way the first one could be perceived as uncivil. Only the second diff, where OM says Guido is an edit warrior that's been blocked several times. He gets no AGF from me..., could possibly be construed as uncivil (for choosing to apply a label and refusing to follow WP:AGF). One can see from the a topic not far above this one that I've complained about OM's lack of civility, and I don't know Guido, so it should be easy to judge the direction of any bias I might have. That said, I think this is at most only a minor instance of incivility. Of course, I'm basing this judgment only on the 4 diffs seen here. Gnixon (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Those four diffs are the evidence presented here - that's what you should be basing your judgment on (refer to the instructions on filing a complaint above). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Often, providing a proper response to a WQA does involve more research than just the diffs. The diffs are examples, but are usually not the end-all-be-all of the complaint, as the situation that sparked the WQA may have been going on for some time. If you look at a user's edit history using a diff as a starting point, you may find a longer history of civility or incivility than just what's been reported, and that'll provide you with a better idea of how to respond to the editor(s) in question. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment was too short. The diffs provided should highlight the entire incident in question, and that is what we're here to look at. If they only provide a partial account, then one should investigate further. However, this is the WQA, not an RfC/U - we aren't here to do a full review of everything a user ever did, and our researching the users' (all of them) histories should only serve to fully contextualize the current complaint (although that may, in some cases, involve a substantial amount of context - as is the case here, given that Guido has, in the past, filed unnecessary complaints, one of which was against OrangeMarlin). But, in terms of evaluating the complaint at hand prima facie, the diffs should first be evaluated in their own right. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that we're not doing RFC/U here, but I've seen many cases where a WQA helper going the extra mile to research the whole situation has been able to provide much better feedback to all parties than simply following the diffs provided. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never filed any unnecessary complaints. I suggest that you follow good advice and withdraw, since you are only making things worse. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"I have never filed frivolous complaints, and I demand that you withdraw because of the frivolous complaint I filed against you moments ago?" Surely you are joking. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: . In this ANI complaint, Guido requests that OrangeMarlin be blocked for using the hyperbole "execute" in place of "block" (or otherwise stop disruptive editing). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made no such request. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You alluded to a block or a warning by posting about it at ANI to gain immediate action and by stating, "A death threat is a death threat, hyperbole or not, and should be dealt with." No one agreed with your statement. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido: Your block log only shows that you were blocked once for a 3RR violation, but otherwise have not been blocked for any civility or policy violations. OrangeMarlin was incorrect in saying you'd been blocked multiple times, unless he knows something I don't and you have previously been blocked under a different account.

HOWEVER: I read over the RFC discussion in Talk:Fibromyalgia and the subsequent edits in the article itself, and I see evidence to support other editors' claims against you. I believe that OrangeMarlin was in his right to revert your edit as in the first diff above ("response to votestacking"), as he cited the RFC in his revert summary. That does not appear to be aggression or personal-attack behavior to me.

In the RFC, you were asked multiple times to explain your reasoning that the sources everyone else agreed upon didn't support the text in the article, and as they put it, you stonewalled. As a result, they were in their right to move forward as per WP:CONSENSUS, and your actions after that point appear to have been disruptive. You did bring up some good points, but when asked to back up your points with citations, I did not see you do so.

Keep in mind that continuing to make edits against consensus after consensus has been reached, without properly explaining your reasoning, is considered disruptive and causes most editors to stop assuming good faith. If you make an edit in the article and it's reverted, the best course of action is to take it to the Talk page, even if it has already been discussed before. But keep in mind that the onus is on YOU to sway consensus through logical discussion and good, reliable sources.

OrangeMarlin: Please refrain from making personal attacks and untrue comments about other users. Contrary to your statements in the diffs provided above, Guido has not been blocked multiple times and has not received a large number of warnings. Those that he has received have been for relatively minor things such as WP:3RR. I do agree that it may be to his advantage to try a different approach to his editing practices when it comes to content disputes, but that does not warrant the kinds of comments you've made against him, especially when they do not appear to be true. Such comments serve to discredit other users and usually only make the situation worse.

Additionally, other users have previously complained about your behavior here on WQA and elsewhere, and at least from what I've seen so far, your response to those editors has been less than helpful. In my view, it comes across as somewhat high-and-mighty (especially "editors I've had put in their place through ...", which is never helpful). You might consider toning that down a bit.

More if necessary later. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect about a consensus being reached on Fibromyalgia, and also to claim that I failed to provide sources. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page, where I have explained things multiple times. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure looked to me like a consensus had been reached. The people you mentioned as dissenting from consensus were quoted back to you with what they said, and none of those statements appeared to be disagreements to the overall consensus - just suggestions on how to change the text improve the presentation in the article. You appeared to be the only one asserting that the sources didn't back up the article text at all. And you kept referring to ICD-10, but I fail to see how that supports your assertions - that is just a list of codes, and without referring to something specific about that article, I doubt other people - even people who are well-versed on the subject - could be expected to know what part of it you're talking about. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is nonetheless therefore untrue to claim that I didn't provide a source, and I have explained in full why this source is important and what the difference is. You may have missed the earlier discussion.

Yes, they were quoted back, but these quotes related to the text put forward in the RFC, not to the text inserted by Djma12, and even then do not constitute consensus since two other votes were left out. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned, consensus does not equal a vote. Please go back and read the policy again to ensure you're completely familiar with it. What I saw was a repeated sequence of you stating that the sources were invalid, people asking you WHY they were invalid, and you pointing at a very vague answer with no further explanation. Other editors did not accept that response and continued on without you. Looking back at the earlier discussions, you were asked to support your viewpoint and you claimed that you didn't need to, despite the fact that the general consensus was that the content was well-established and cited. So your using the ICD as a source was deemed "not good enough" by the other editors, even when the RFC went through. (Continuing to point at that source and say "See? I did provide a source!" isn't going to help when the source, such as it is, has not been shown to support your claim.)

Honestly, I think Djma was right. There are far more editors supporting the text that you kept removing than there are supporting your side of the argument. Turning around and accusing those editors of being on the attack against you isn't helping your case. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Nothing in your description of events is even remotely accurate; you are building a house of cards with no foundation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only calling it as I see it. If you can point to specific instances of things you said and did that contradict what I'm saying, please do so. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Start here, where I refer to and explain the ICD10: Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido, I think you are confusing the principle of consensus with "if I am right and the others are wrong then I have a veto right". You haven't. Obviously this is a problem, but it cannot be avoided because so often the other side is also convinced of being right. Incidentally I don't even think think your arguments are valid. I know nothing about the disease(s) you were discussing, but a classification designed by a committee of WHO bureaucrats doesn't strike me as a good argument against scientific studies. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The purpose of the ICD and of WHO sponsorship is to promote international comparability in the collection, classification, processing, and presentation of mortality statistics." So it's not to make diagnoses more exact, it's not even to make the mortality statistics more exact, it's only to make them more comparable. You are trying to use it for something it was not designed to do. The others should have spent more time to explain this to you, but a lot of expert editors suffer from burnout, so the failure seems to be excusable.--Hans Adler (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is nonetheless a source that represents international consensus, for that is what the classification is based on. Further, there is also a WHO treaty, which implies that the WHO classification must be followed. Listing a somatic disease as a psychiatric disorder is a violation of that treaty.

However, all of this is just another layer to the house of cards, which was built on the assertion that I did not provide a source, period. When that assertion could not be maintained, it was asserted that I didn't explain the source. Now that I provided the edits of where I did explain it, it is asserted that my explanation should have been countered. I wonder what will be next. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans, Guido, this has nothing to do with the original complaint, or etiquette at all. Take the content dispute back to the talk page of the article in question, so that all concerned parties have an opportunity to take part in this discussion. I strongly advise all editors to respect consensus. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) If we are building a house of cards as you say, it must be a pretty good one, because I don't see it collapsing just yet. I read the entire discussion from which you took your most recent diffs, and that was what I was referring to above when I said that you did not adequately explain how the ICD contradicts the text in the article. The assertion from Djma and other editors was that the ICD did not directly contradict what was being said, nor did the other sources being provided, and that the scope of the ICD and WHO treaty did not apply to the contested text in the article. IMO, while you did argue against that point, you didn't explain what made the ICD stand out above the other sources.

Also, keep in mind that Misplaced Pages articles should always contain a balanced point of view. Fibromyalgia is a poorly understood condition, and research is still being done on it. As such, it's not something that anyone can firmly classify as one type of disease or another, since the leading scientists on the subject don't fully understand and cannot agree on its causes. It is fully appropriate for the article to mention the different points of view, with their own sources, in a way that gives equal weight to all the relevant points. You need to ensure that by deleting text and discrediting some sources, you're not putting undue weight on just one point of view. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Cheeser's comment above, moving the content discussion to Guido's talk page. (This is a discussion regarding his handling of the content discussion, not so much about the content itself.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant portion of this content discussion has been copied over to User talk:Guido den Broeder#Fibromyalgia content discussion from WQA, in case people want to continue discussing it. I feel it's more appropriate to take it there than the article talk itself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Where it transpired that User:KieferSkunk had looked at the wrong text, attributing Dr. Anymouse's version (which looks balanced) to Djma12. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cheeser1

Unfounded accusations of frivolous complaints, bad editing history and alterior motives. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser's comments were in the context of discussing your behaviour, and followed quite bit of discussion. In that light, his comments - as expressions of his opinion of your editing style and history - were not in violation of any Misplaced Pages policy, in my view. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't normally say things like this on Misplaced Pages, but WTF? You don't get the response you want at the WQA and you file a WQA alert about it? Stop gaming the system. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Guido's block log, Guido forumshops at the WQA Guido files frivolous complaint at the WQA and at the ANI. Last time Guido filed a complaint here, he called the WQA completely useless. I wonder why he's back. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. They were in context in regards to your poor behaviour, and it is comments such as that that do not help out your situation. You've been through the rings of WQA before, all on the receiving end I should add. You didn't get the response you desired, so it is highly inappropriate to re-file a request against others. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

After numerous edit conflicts:

• @Sarc: If he has issues with my behaviour, he should file a complaint and provide diffs. Not dismiss an alert about another user. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• @Chees(1): Typical. Again, you assume. No, I did not file this alert because you dismissed another alert. I filed it because of your accusations against me, which were totally uncalled for. If you think there is nothing wrong with OM's behaviour: fine, say so. But don't accuse me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• @Chees(2): I see that you also repeat your ridiculous accusation of forumshopping. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• @Seicer: same wrong assumption. Is it really necessary to mob-jump the victim to such an extent that I can't even get an answer in? And no, you are incorrect, too, I have not been on the receiving end of any WQA's. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand how the WQA works. If you file a complaint, your editing is just as much under review as anyone else's. You can't demand that we only examine one part of the bigger picture. And several respondents to the WQA report you filed marked it as obvious forumshopping. I was not the only one. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, I'd recommend you step away from this one, since it involves you directly. I'll take a look at the history and see if it warrants further attention. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any precedent for barring the user in question from commenting on his or her own WQA. However, since this complaint clearly has no substance to which I might respond, I consider my response to be complete and have nothing more to add. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Cheeser got it exactly right when he said "If you file a complaint, your editing is just as much under review as anyone else's. You can't demand that we only examine one part of the bigger picture." He was asked (by you) to look at a given situation, and it was his opinion that your own behaviour was part of what caused/exacerbated the situation. Saying so is entirely in keeping with how Wikiquette alerts work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He did not look at the bigger picture, but skipped the complaint entirely and looked only at (imagined and unrelated) behaviour by me. Also, I did not ask him. By filing an alert, I asked for an uninvolved opinion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily endorsing or criticizing Cheeser's handling of the particular alert (largely because I haven't read most of it). I'm just saying that, in the context of evaluating the behaviour of all involved users, his comments weren't a breach of any WP policy or guideline. I see User:KieferSkunk has jumped in to the above-alert, so I won't bother saying any more about it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Guido: I'm not necessarily endorsing Cheeser's response either - in this case, I suggested he step back since he's the one being accused of wrongdoing. IMO, it's better to have an uninvolved third party comment instead of you two getting into an argument here over who's right and who's wrong. But I do agree with Cheeser's statement that filing a WQA means that both the accused and the accuser come under scrutiny - if we only paid attention to the person that was being accused, this page would be completely full of frivolous requests, because anyone could accuse anyone else of anything under the sun with impunity. That's not how it works.

Cheeser's opinion, as I interpreted it, was that you were jumping the gun on the OrangeMarlin situation. There had already been a WQA against him earlier, the diffs you provided against OM did not appear to constitute a major breach of Wikiquette, and (as I also pointed out) you appeared to be working against consensus and putting yourself in a position where people would stop assuming that you're working in good faith. That seems to be the basis for Cheeser's saying you filed a frivolous alert, and frankly, I agree - your alert seemed to be much more about you not getting your way in the Fibromyalgia article and arguing with OM over that, than it did with any real abuse OM might have been engaged in. The comments he made toward you appear to have been provoked, so while they are still not in line with WP:CIVIL, IMO, you share some responsibility for them as well.

This is the part where I tell you all to take a step back and cool down for a little while, and come back to the table when you're ready to get back to the content dispute at hand. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the assertion that 'I did not get my way' is incorrect. Djma12's text was replaced with a much more balanced text by Dr. Anymouse. User:KieferSkunk erroneously attributed this version to Djma12; perhaps others have done the same. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:monosig

I believe that recent posts by Monosig warrants consideration of a Wikiquette alert message/warning.

Apart from apparently violating WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT) this user has violated wp:civil based on their recent posts as found in the discussion/talk page for Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow as well as on the talk page for User:Oakshade

The causes for action for a Wikiquette alert include the original vandalism, as well follow on talk page posts that contain personal attacks, impolite/uncivil tone and wording and (from my perspective) factually inaccurate statements and accusations.

I ask that the volunteers who review such concerns take appropriate corrective action - at this point my preference would simply be to remove the statments judged by others to be potentially to be offensive and/or those viewed as personal attacks.

--James.lebinski (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning. FYI, you don't need the == parts of a title when creating a "new section" if you type the title into the "subject/headline" box. Also, you don't need to copy/paste your complaint onto the user's talkpage - they should be addressing the complaint here, not there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,

I'm still trying to figure out how to do all the magic links etc. I removed the pasted text from the user's talk page. I don't see the second set of "=="'s - did you fix that for me?.

--James.lebinski (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed the header for you. Please let us konw if problems continue. For other respondents, I will note that Monosig has already been the subject of some administrative attention in this matter . --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

patience gone

user user:Escientist relentlessly impugns my character, rather than addressing the specific editorial and policy issues i've pointed out are the basis of my edits and reversions of his contributions. i've tried to AGF, i've tried being polite (and i believe i have yet to be impolite, though i may be terse due to the attacks), but the attacks continue to escalate. some examples:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Future_energy_development sections 31 and 32
• http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wtshymanski section 22
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Energy_development sections 34 and 35

and the following, though awfully long, gives the earliest examples of these attacks, which began almost immediately after user Escientist opened his account. apparently, if you revert unsourced commentary, you are being paid be exxon to revert him.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Escientist&oldid=181564865

Anastrophe (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left the appropriate warnings on the user's talk page. Please keep us updated, if these problems continue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to address a couple of points here. I'm personally rather offended by Escientist's behavior - it's one thing to be a subject expert, which is useful but can also be a tricky position to be in due to WP:COI. It's quite another to present original research and then be so high-and-mighty about one's knowledge. I found Escientist's comments toward you to be very belittling and attacking, in the form of "I know what I'm talking about and you obviously don't, or you've got a conflict of interest", and that sort of attitude is very unhelpful.

Anastrophe, I think you did a good job in the article talk page(s) in trying to reason with Escientist, but I also believe you may have gone a little overboard or too far out of your way to continue the discussions with him in the User Talk space. People like this thrive on the attention - when they believe they know everything and everyone who disagrees with them is some form of enemy, there's really almost no reasoning with them. Allowing yourself to get mad and continue arguing with him, civil as you've been about it, will only make things worse. At this point, I think you should agree to disagree with him, continue working toward consensus in the article namespace, and work with us here on breaches of civility policy and other user conduct policies. (It is not completely against the rules to talk negatively about other users, even if what the person says is untrue. Don't go too far out of your way to defend yourself - if you're unbiased and someone's accusing you of being biased, the truth will show in the quality of your edits.)

If Escientist does do something more egregious, such as call you out for COI in the article talk itself, you can feel free to report the incident at the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents or file a Request for Comment against him. Also check out other forms of dispute resolution.

If Escientist wishes to participate in this discussion, I'll be happy to provide guidance to him as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If these problems continue without improvement, this is definitely something that needs to be bumped up the ladder. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

i appreciate the comments. for my part, i think i'm going to take a mini-wikibreak, per the title i gave this section. as it stands, i have work to do that my wiki-addiction is interfering with, so it's for the best anyway. Anastrophe (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul Newsletter Controversy

If you check the talk pages Talk:Ron Paul and Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 as well as there respective article's edit histories, you'll notice that there is a bit of a slow burning edit war occurring over the inclusion of material from and rebuttals to the recent articles concerning controversial newsletters that bear Ron Paul's name. While I don't think that anyone has broke any specific policy, the situation is slowly turning into a battleground with editors on both sides fighting to include and remove material instead of working toward consensus. I don't know if a few new eyes might help the situation, but if the trend keeps up, I predict that this will end in WP:RFAr. Burzmali (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the WQA is really able to address edit-warring, especial that kind of stuff. If there's vandalism, see the WP:AIV. If it's just a few people making a mess of things, but they want to discuss it, try WP:RFC. If they don't want to discuss anything, try the WP:DR or WP:ANI. If there is severe edit warning, I'd first suggest WP:RFPP for the anons and then WP:ANI. It already seems like there's a fair deal of administrator attention on the article though. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:WebHamster

WebHamster (talk · contribs)

• -- personal attack/incivility

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

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

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

• -- blatant bad-faith assumption and personal attack

• -- user's refusal to assume good faith

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

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

• -- latest inappropriate comment, at RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jdchamp31

I appear to have annoyed the above user because I reverted a change he made that was contrary to previous consensus. Since then he seems to be engaged in an ever increasing war of harassment. This has included more than five bad faith warnings posted on my Talk: page. I've asked him to be civil, it's not stopping.

• A 3RR warning - I'd made two reverts
• A warning falsely claiming I refactored other's talk page comments - I have never refactored anyone's comments
• An apparently unprovoked allegation that a person sent over from the third opinion page was in collusion with me
• A warning falsely claiming I'd vandalized the Mobile Phone companies - I'd reverted the edit he made that morning (twice, with explanations and a request he discuss controversial edits), but nothing more
• A warning falsely claiming I'd attacked an editor. I've done my best to be civil
• A warning falsely claiming I'd blanked a page or made disruptive edits

This is continuing.

Can someone step in, please? --Squiggleslash (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a discussion (albeit onesided) with this user and it seems that he has stopped his personal attacks. His posting was becoming increasingly disruptive and I will continue to monitor over the next few days to make sure this is, indeed, over and done with. Trusilver (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Hoffman

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

User:Irishlass0128

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

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

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

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

User:JzG

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:AuburnPilot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Cheeser1 (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And again, to use the word escalate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dreadstar

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

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

Talk:WTBDWK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outdated and disparaging remark about a WP editor should be removed

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

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

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

user: Happyme22

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Inder315

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SlamDiego

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:ThuranX

I made a report on AN/I concerning this user some days ago and it was recommended I take my concerns to this page.

Although I don't normally make an issue of such matters, I feel obliged to do so in this case, because I don't see how I can possibly be expected to extend any sort of goodwill to a user who holds that I am a racist and a bigot. So I feel this issue needs to be resolved one way or another. Gatoclass (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:ThuranX to bring in his side of the story here so that we can reach some kind of a resolution. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to talk about. He lumped all editors opposed to his edits into one racially/culturally homogenous group, dismissed all concerns, and was called on it by many people. I entered as an uninvolved 3rd party from an AN/I thread, available in one of his two 'complaints' against me on AN/I, found that he was, in fact, being highly uncivil, and said so. This is his fifth or sixth attempt to get me in trouble, all others being dismissed or ignored outright. He is forum shopping for some sort of ridiculous apology. He's pursued this demand for 'redress of his grievance' against numerous editors, all of whom agreed his comments, not the person, were the sort of bigoted crap that shuts down debate. This being the fifth or sixth time, it's forum shopping, and I have no intention of apologizing to an editor who was in the wrong and found to be so by numerous other wikipedians. A review of all the relevant facts will bear this out. I can provide diffs if needed, but II think his contrib history will help you find everything quickly, if it's not in the original report, or the "reprise" complaint.(THe original thread that started this, with numerous editors finding his words troubling, is here ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What a mess! I have red through the talk pages, and AfD and the IA. I think this is being caused by a lot of miscommunication. My two bits:

1. I think Gatoclass did in fact write some things regarding the ethnic background of editors that very well could have come across as bigoted (please note: I am not calling Gatoclass bigoted). I am saying that I could see how questioning an editor's impartiality because of their ethnic background can be interpreted the wrong way.

2. I think that while ThuranX may have been working with all of the best intentions by getting involved when he did, I'm not sure that the particular choice of words (no matter how accurately descriptive that you thought they were) were constructive. I am of the opinion that you could have been as forceful and direct (something I appreciate) with different words.

Certainly, not every incident of calling someone a "bigot" or "racist" is a violation of civility. I would caution both editors in this case: before you write, think about whether what you write will end up having the intended affect, and think about how it will be interpreted by another editor.

I am sorry if this sounds wishy-washy. It is not meant to be. This is the best I could come up with after weeding through all of those page. I wish you both the best editing. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I was invited by one of my opponents to share my thoughts on why I thought people were voting against the AFD. To that, I simply made the obvious observation that the opinions of the editors involved might be swayed by their countries' former relationship with the Soviet Union - or, in the words of one of the users in question, the fifty years of suppression these countries suffered at the hands of the USSR. In those circumstances, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that such users may have difficulty maintaining objectivity toward the subject in question, which is all my statement was intended to convey. That was not even an assumption of bad faith on my part, because bad faith is an assumption that users are deliberately editing in a partisan manner, and I made no such accusation. So for you to characterize my comment as "racist" and "bigoted" is, quite simply, ludicrous.

Furthermore, I have not asked you for an apology, only for a retraction. By refusing to retract your statements, you are effectively maintaining that I am a racist and a bigot, and I don't see how I can be expected to work co-operatively with an editor who holds such an opinion of me. I am simply asking for you to extend me a little goodwill here, admit that my statement can be interpreted in more than one way, and thereby give me the benefit of the doubt. It is incumbent upon editors except in the most unambiguous cases to the contrary to WP:AGF, and that is all I have asked you to do. Gatoclass (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear: No. You said something bigoted, I said you said something bigoted, and even HERE other editors agree you wrote something "which could be considered" bigoted. That's being nice. You made a broad-stroke personal attack at all opposition, based on a wild guess at the origins of all opposition. A retraction is tantamount to an apology. You're not getting one from me. YOu never bothered to apologize to everyone you attacked, and at this point, I have great doubts you would, as it would be you admitting you did wrong, and even if you did, it would ONLY be the grudging sort you'd give in the hopes of seeing me apologize in kind. Not happening. I saw you for this kind of editor when I told you to get off my talk page, and I was right. You're more interested in establishing 'ill-will' with editors who oppose you so you can brush off their opposition as a grudge, than you are with just getting the actual facts into articles. I will not participate in your bruised ego redress seeking behaviors any more. Post this where-ever you like, I've got better ways to spend my time on Misplaced Pages. ThuranX (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A statement "which could be considered bigoted" - as preposterous as I believe that interpretation is - is a far cry from a statement that is unequivocally bigoted - which is what you are outright accusing me of. The point, as I've always maintained, is that there is an alternative, good faith interpretation of my (actually very innocuous) comment, which you refuse to consider, preferring to smear me instead as a "bigot" and (ludicrously) a "racist".

This is not about bruised ego. It's about maintaining constructive relationships here. I don't want to have a hostile relationship with any editor here if I can possibly help it, which is why I've asked you to reconsider your position. But I can hardly be expected to retain an amicable relationship with someone who continues to denounce me openly as a bigot. That's why, if you are not prepared to withdraw your offensive remarks, I will feel obliged to take the matter further - because I am reluctant to deal with ongoing hostility when there may be a more constructive alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hopiakuta

The above user made edits to John Coward and Talk:British Airways Flight 38 that were factually incorrect. I posted to the talk page here stating what I thought to be their point of view and stating what I knew to be fact in the case.

The user subsequently replied here but as this response was removed from the talk page by another user I didn't get to see it. However what I did see in the edit history was the user removing my response to their initial query with the edit summary "removing libel" here.

I then posted a question to the user's talk page here asking for clarification on what I said that was false or defamatory.

The response here is quite lengthy and I find it offensive. First my user name is pulled to pieces as "advertizing of someone who would write an accusation, then delete the response." I am then accused of forcing a response only on their talk page, conspiring against them, being libelous and slanderous against them, of accusing them of being brain damaged and "excessively European", of ignoring an earlier request, of commiting fraud, of being a hypocrite and a demand is made that I restore their comments immediately.

At this point I posted here my displeaure at these accusations and stating that I did not remove their comments as they appear to be suggesting.

Their response to this here was to again accuse me of libel, of making false accusations and of being a dictator. I have not responded. -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated, I'm afraid: see this, including the links in the "Past discussions" box on top. Tvoz |talk 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK what do I do to make sure the right people are made aware of this? PS I did leave a message on their talk page as requested in the header of this page so I've probably started another discussion accidentally. -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't know what should be done about the problems people encounter with this editor. It's a long-standing situation, and I think perhaps people higher up in the Misplaced Pages hierarchy - maybe including legal - should take a look at it. I don't know the circumstances of your specific complaint, but accusations of libel certainly could be construed as a legal threat which is not tolerated. I guess you could try copying this to WP:AN/I, and ask for some intervention. I was just pointing out that I think this is beyond being a "wikiquette" matter, and is rather a matter for senior administration to consider. Tvoz |talk 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. This is an unusual case and some guidance from an administrator or the ArbComm would be helpful at this point. I'd also suggest taking this to AN/I and asking for help. Good luck--DanielEng (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a page on AN/I dedicated to Don, it is here: Misplaced Pages:administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina . I do agree that a higher-up over at ArbComm needs to be brought into the loop. I like to fancy myself a patient person, but after dealing with this case for very near four months with absolutely no change from the user in question, I'm beginning to tire. I and others have shown him many places he can go to get help, given him much advice about how he work with his age-old computer, etc etc, with no sign from him that he's listening at all. All the best- l'aqùatique 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress; comments welcome

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution