Revision as of 13:15, 27 October 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

Arthur Rubin

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

Arthur Rubin wrote in Talk:Graph isomorphism: "I should add that, before, during, and after the Soviet era, Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability. See lysenkoism for "during", but it's not just the Soviets. Andrew Odlyzko asked me to verify some obscure Russian papers in combinatorics while I was working at JPL, and I found most of them to be incorrect.— Arthur Rubin"

Is it Rasism? Is it Discrimination of another sort? --Tim32 (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize, I am having difficulty grasping the nature of this dispute. From looking at the talk page: it appears that Tim32 has put forth a proposal which local consensus (active editors on that article) is against. I note that Arthur Rubin did remark that "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability"; this is not a personal attack. Tim32: I would recommend to not use bolded statements in your comments; these are frequetly interpreted as agressive.

Also, from the talk page, I would advise that this seems to be a content dispute. In that case, I advise either a Third Opinion or Request for comment. However, from my reading of the situation: local consensus seems to be against your additions. If there is more to the situation than I am seeing, please advise. Kindest regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am living in Russia, and many of my papers have been printed in Russian sci. journals. Arthur Rubin insults the journals and these my papers as well, he insults Russian science and all Russian scientists. The fact is that time to time any error may be reproduced in any paper in any journal, it may be Russian journal or American journal or international journal. It is independant of the place where the journal had been printed. Otherwise we may think that Russian science goes from bad to worse. Is it Rasism?--Tim32 (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim32, I don't think anyone would have to show a lot of references that would actually prove that there have been some "challenges" with the quality of some Russian, but most specifically Soviet era scientific journals. The comment could easily be made regarding WW2-era German maps (that tended to show Poland as "German land, currently occupied by others"). By saying that "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability", this is a historically-proven statement, but also allows that some have been fine and some have not. No racism whatsoever, and certainly does not insult all Russian science. Misplaced Pages relies on valid references ... just as some newspapers are not used as references, some journals may have a history of being "wrong" whether they are Russian, American, Chinese or whatever. I would, however, be very careful with citing your OWN papers in ANY journal - that still can qualify as original research whether it's been printed in a reputable journal or not. There is significant conflict of interest in using your own papers. BMW(drive) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is prejudice against Soviet journals, it's for sociopolitical-historical reasons, not due to racism. That's how it looks to me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bwilkins wrote: "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability", this is a historically-proven statement". Who and when proved it, for mathematical, phisical or chemical journals?! Arthur Rubin noted lysenkoism, but may be somebody here knows about Yuri Gagarin, for example. Was "the first human in space" possible for low level of sci? and for low level of sci. journals?--Tim32 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of racism made above is a repeat of an accusation made on the Graph isomorphisms page. Isn't this a breach of our civility and no personal attacks policies? Verbal chat 19:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bwilkins wrote: "be very careful with citing your OWN papers in ANY journal". I write in Wiki only items that I studied. As a rule I printed something about these items (totaly I printed about 100 articles in Russian, American and interanational journals).--Tim32 (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Arthur Rubin dislikes this. Is it envy? --Tim32 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What it is, I think, is time for Tim32 to stop insinuating that other editors are acting on bad faith motivations. Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks tells us to comment on content, not on the contributor, and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith says that we should assume other editors are here to improve Misplaced Pages, and there's been no evidence to the contrary. My advice to Tim32 is to concentrate on the content issues, and if necessary to take disputes about reliable sources to the appropriate noticeboard (i.e. WP:RSN). SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile nobody answers my question: "Was "the first human in space" possible for low level of sci? and for low level of sci. journals?" Bwilkins wrote: "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability", this is a historically-proven statement", but he did not answer: "Who and when proved it?" SHEFFIELDSTEEL wrote: "Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks tells us to comment on content, not on the contributor" But Míkka wrote in GI talk page: "Who the heck is this Trofimov? What's his international scientific recognition?", "The fact that it is repeated in some obscure articles by persons with little credentials in graph theory bears little weight" etc. It looks like Double standard: one standard for Russian journals- another standard for American journals, one standard for Russian editors - another standard for American editors, etc.!--Tim32 (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (M.Trofimov)

No one answered your question about Soviet cosmonauts because it was obviously rhetorical. As I said, to discuss whether specific Soviet and/or Russian journals should be considered reliable sources, go to the reliable sources noticeboard. Meanwhile, this noticeboard is for discussing the conduct of editors who breach our etiquette guidelines. I don't think that Mikkalai's remark ("Who is this Trofimov?") is a personal attack. He's questioning the standing of a source, not attacking an editor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not rhetorical question: Arthur Rubin and Bwilkins sudjested absurd statement (about all Russian sci. journals) supported by you, so you also have to answer this question to prove this statement. I do not understand why somebody on another page should explain your motivation. The fact is that Mikkalai's remark was about me (you can see context and can find another similar remarks in GI talk page), and so your sophisticated idea is not reasonable. Meanwhile, I revised my statement in GI article, the word "difficult" was excluded, because Arthur Rubin disliked this word in this statement. But Arthur Rubin deleted this revised statement without any comment in talk page. This means that he does not want to find any consensus!--Tim32 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This forum discusses civility. We have responded to your original concern that perhaps racism was involved: this was not a case of racism, it is a case of validity of references. As I have noted, there are many references in all languages/from all areas of the world that are valid and invalid. You have been directed to WP:RS to further pursue the issue of whether the sources are reliable or not. We are unable to deal with reversions/deletions and other content changes in this forum. -t-BMW-c- 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability, this is a historically-proven statement", so you needed this statement to discuss civility. I only ask you to prove these your words. Otherwise, you used false argument in this discussion of civility!--Tim32 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back 2 steps, and hopefully you'll understand. You accused an editor of racism because they claimed a "mixed degree of reliability of Soviet-era journals". THAT was the gist of your civility complaint. Civility is directed at a specific person. You were not personally attacked by a description of the quality of journals that may have been around before you were even born. Your accusations of racism are baseless. Civility is therefore not an issue. Your argument is, as discussed, to do with RELIABILITY OF SOURCES. I have stated that ALL COUNTRIES have issues with reliability of sources. Do not take my words out of context in a way of trying to prove your own point. If you want additional updates about civility, you can get answers from someone else, as I'm out of this one, effective now. -t-BMW-c- 16:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "because they claimed a "mixed degree of reliability of Soviet-era journals"" -- it is not correct -- Arthur Rubin wrote in Talk:Graph isomorphism: "I should add that, before, during, and after the Soviet era, Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability." -- Again, not only "Soviet-era", but "before, during, and after the Soviet era"! So, please, try again to go back 2 steps.--Tim32 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. BTW I was born in 1957.--Tim32 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which era is being referred to. BMW's point is still valid. The editor wasn't being racist but discussing reliability of sources. Racism isn't saying, "before, during, and after the Soviet era, Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability." Racism is saying, "these journals are unreliable because they were written by Russians". I hope that clarifies the issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Good remark! Thanks! Obviously Russian journals are journals written by Russians. Arthur Rubin wrote that the journal (Russian Chemical Bulletin) is unreliable because it is Russian journal, i.e. because it was written by Russians. According to your remark it is racism. I do hope that clarifies the issue. Thanks again!--Tim32 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not what I meant. I meant that the difference between the two statements is the difference between reasonable discussion and racist remarks. Other editors may see this differently, and I'd welcome any outside opinions at this point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that SheffieldSteel and BMW have made very polite, helpful, and accurate comments. I agree completely with their positions. Saying that Soviet era scientific journals should be treated with more skepticism than French ones (for example) is not racist and could very well be based on historical fact. Personally, I don't know. Shouldn't the issue here just be about putting the journal in question on the board for reliable sources ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard ) and opening this up to discussion? I don't see any reason for action against either editors in this case, but merely remind them to work constructively toward a conclusion (and not defensively towards winning an argument) which is a reminder useful for everyone, including myself.LedRush (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, compare "Soviet era scientific journals should be treated with more skepticism" (LedRush) with "before, during, and after the Soviet era, Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability." (Arthur Rubin ) -- These are very different statemnts: all Russian journals are unreliable vs. some Soviet journals may be unreliable! Perhaps, SheffieldSteel did not meant that, but he wrote that I cited. I see, that now Arthur Rubin's advocates try to replace his exact statement with different their statements, which statements look like more soft for them... --Tim32 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I am a neutral observer here: I have never heard of either of the editors in this discussion, nor have I worked on any of the articles mentioned so far. Calling me an advocate doesn't assume good faith...and it is unsupported by my comments. I feel that Arthur Rubin's statement is fair, and the proper venue to dispute it would be on the reliable sources noticeboard, not a wikiquette alert.LedRush (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

←Maybe this alert should address Tim's behaviour, or be closed. There seems to be some bad faith and civility problems that may come from a misunderstanding of the basic English involved. I think AR has behaved very well in this matter! Verbal chat 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In the result of this discussion we found:

1) Arthur Rubin's statement that before, during, and after the Soviet era, Russian journals are unreliable is defamation, because the fact is that the first human in space was not possible for low level of sci. and for low level of sci. journals.

2) Obviously Russian journals are journals written by Russians. Arthur Rubin wrote that the journal (Russian Chemical Bulletin) is unreliable because it is Russian journal, i.e. because it was written by Russians. It is rasism.

3) Míkka wrote in GI talk page: "Who the heck is this Trofimov? What's his international scientific recognition?", "The fact that it is repeated in some obscure articles by persons with little credentials in graph theory bears little weight" etc. It is incivility and it is not only attacking an editor, but also attacking the authors of the sources.

4) Bold font is not forbidden.

5) It is not conflict of interest, because "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed" WP:COI

6) The majority of participants of this discussion have opposite point of view, but their point is baseless and so they could not prove their statements.

Thanks for this discussion.--Tim32 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

These are not the results of the discussion, these are your assertions and misunderstandings that have not been backed up by the discussion. I really think that some action needs to be taken to help TIm - to realise that he is wrong here, that making accusations of racism is not allowed, and to help him become a useful contributor. My suggestion would be the adopt a user program. If he continues like this he will probably end up blocked, through entirely his own fault. Verbal chat 15:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is any misunderstanding from my side, then only one cause for it is possible: you are unable to explain and to prove your reasons. As I have already noted your reasons are baseless. Moreover, nobody was able to answer many of my questions during this discussion. You want to show that you are right, but the facts are not corresponded to your point of view. Anyhow you have a right to think that your reasons are correct, but I have a right to think opposite. Very important to note, if I said that somebody words look like racism, then it did not mean that I think that he/she is racist, moreover, I do not think that somebody here is racist, I do hope that he or she does not understand his/her words, and does not understand why these words are so insulted for me. BTW, because you supported actions by Míkka, it would be very interesting for you to read his talk page:

"Greetings Mikkalai!
I'm aware that you have suddenly deleted pithikosophobia, phasmophobia (now re-created), papaphobia, nomatophobia, cymophobia, amaxophobia and podophobia without providing any rational or warning. Without any information about why these articles were deleted, I will assume that their deletion was in error, and may re-create them. Thank you for your time - αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ 11:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting articles outright without proper discussion, and without even providing an edit summary? Punkmorten (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see here. αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ 20:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to fill wikipedia with garbage. `'Míkka>t 22:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, how is it "garbage"? It's a perfectly well-written, well sourced article. You cannot go deleting articles just because you don't like them. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please restore them all. None of them met the Speedy Deletion criteria. Thank you. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring these pages, Mikkalai. I appreciate it, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ 22:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)"

Also recently he removed very important statement about SMILES from GI article without any proved reasons. I think such actions is very destructive for Wiki, and the actions are possible for Mikkalai because of this your support also.--Tim32 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. More results of this discussion:

7)Míkka, Arthur Rubin and you do not want to find consensus with me.

8)Mikkalai did a lot of destructive for Wiki deletions.

Is it right? If not, explain and prove, please, why you are disagreed with me.--Tim32 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, those are assertions again, not results. They have very little to do with the topic. You asked if ARs comments were racist, to which the answer is a very clear no. You might want to read WP:CONSENSUS - consensus does not mean other editors agreeing with you. Your edits have been against consensus. I think this topic is closed and should be archived now. Further continuation of your dispute and accusations might be looked down on. Verbal chat 19:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou

I come across this editor from time to time, mostly on Israeli-Palestine articles, where we both edit. There has long been a dispute on a separate article, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, over the inclusion of a cartoon which has been alleged by one campaigning non-WP:RS to be some sort of celebration of the attacks (published in a Palestinian newspaper) some six years after the event. There is consensus on the talk page from every editor apart from Jaakobou to remove the image (see the discussion, which I initiated, here)

Myself and another editor (User:Imad marie) have continued to engage on the talk page, initially leaving it up to Jaakobou to remove the image himself. Two other editors have commented to support removal, no-one has come in to support retention. Imad Marie did then remove the image, per consensus, twice in the space of four days (the second time after ongoing discussion), only to be immediately reverted. Jaakobou has now taken to accusing that editor of "edit-warring" and myself of "trolling" in his latest contribution to the discussion, while still not addressing any of the points being raised as to why the image is not relevant and not appropriate.

This article does have a complicated history and of course up to a point this is a content dispute, but surely it is not acceptable to be referred to as a "troll" or accused of not being "collaborative" for actually taking the time to explain the problems with using an image based on an inflammatory accusation; to be accused of being part of a "clique" on account of being on the consensus side in a debate; and also for that editor to continually revert a consensus change, and while doing so, to make accusations against others of edit-warring?

This is despite a specific recent request to this editor from me to back off from personalising any disagreements we have, here, following a stream of accusations (linked to on that talk page) that I was engaging in "tendentious editing", "stalking" etc. In all of the debate here, I have been calm and reasoned, while explaining the points at issue with I hope some clarity. One mildly sarcastic remark has been picked up on (indeed I received a short and quickly overturned block for it, something I am still a little bemused by), but at all times I have assumed good faith and discussed the issue rationally, without resorting to any form of direct accusations aimed at Jaakobou. Instead myself and other editors who disagree with him are being hit with repeated, specific and unwarranted abuse. --Nickhh (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the forum for content disputes, and you are misrepresenting the factual basis of that dispute, on top of things - there is no consensus to remove the image, for one thing. It is somewhat disingenuous of you to come here and complain about Jaakobou's behavior, when you have just been blocked for incivility toward him. NoCal100 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not bringing this here as a content dispute, as is clear from what I have written above. Most incivility stems ultimately from a content dispute of one sort or another, I have merely noted that this is indeed the case here, by briefly setting out the background. I am pretty clearly - you would have thought - not asking for adjudication on that dispute. I am making a specific note about being accused of "trolling" or being part of a "clique", following on from previous personal attacks. As for your other point, I was pretty swiftly unblocked. It was one comment, of a flippant nature and not malicious or abusive. I have noted this in my post here in any event, so to accuse me of being disingenuous is, well, disingenous itself. Thank you --Nickhh (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You opened your post here with two detailed paragraphs about the content dispute, misrepresenting it while you are at it. Those are not needed. You were unblocked after you agreed to apologize for your behavior, but then you come here to continue the battle in another forum , which suggests that you r apology was nothing more than lip service, to get yourself unblocked. NoCal100 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, your contribution has been noted. I refer you to my previous comment and to my initial post, where what I am saying should be quite clear and not at all misrepresentative of anything. I must have missed the point as well where I had to apologise for my alleged incivility btw. Nor am looking for a battle - I simply want Jaakobou to tone down his language and to lay off making accusations against me and other editors when discussing article content, as I asked him to do a while ago on his talk page. Could you please lay off the aggression as well? --Nickhh (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Where and when did Nickhh apologize? Provide the diff. Imad marie (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no apology. Nickhh maintained that he should not have been blocked. The block notice mentioned ArbCom sanctions related to a different subject area. Elonka's opinion was that he should be unblocked based on "time served". His unblock request was accepted on that basis. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And Elonka in fact also specifically said that in her view "a full block was excessive". Anyway this is all a bit off-point - I did acknowledge that this had happened as part of the debate on the page, and in so far as any action was needed in respect of this one individual (in my view pretty harmless) comment, that action has been taken and the issue dealt with. The reason I came here was in respect of the personal attacks accusing me of "trolling" and being part of a "clique". These came, as I have said, as part of a series of ongoing accusations made by the same editor, which I had asked them to desist from several days earlier. NoCal has effectively derailed that by wading in here as they did above. It's somewhat ironic of course that I come here to raise problems with an editor's comments and general attitude towards myself and others, only to find that the first person to respond here is another editor (now involved in the underlying content dispute), who launches into yet more personal attacks, accusing me of being "disingenuous", of wanting to "battle in another forum" etc - while at the same time claiming (entirely falsely) that I have had to apologise recently for some appalling breach of civility myself. --Nickhh (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Jaakobou has a record of edit-warring persistently against overwhelming consensus (as he seems to be doing again in this case). This table here demonstrates how, earlier this year, he refused to accept a consensus 8-1 against him, an RfC, an ArbCom and a block before the BLP he wanted was finally removed. It all took an astounding 19 months, completely dominating the TalkPage, and leaving everyone so exhausted there's been no further movement on the biography of an important player. PR 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In respect of the template added above, I'm not aware Jaakobou has been referred to ANI recently (and I've just checked back through the more recent archives, although I know he has been in the more distant past on at least one occasion). Even if his name did come up again more recently, I was not involved with it - and whatever it was about, it is presumably separate from my issues above. As it happens I came here because I wanted to avoid the drama of ANI, or any sense that I was looking for "punishment" of some sort. Plus it's not clear that it's gotten that bad yet anyway. I just wanted, hopefully, the problem sorted out more informally, after notifying him on his talk page failed to have any effect. I would add that he is still personalising the debate (eg see his latest comments and my response here), while refusing to directly address any compromise proposals to the underlying content dispute. In my view this is just bad talk page conduct and a waste of everyone's time. My stock of AGF is running low. --Nickhh (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ibaranoff24

User: Ibaranoff24 has repeatedly made personal attacks against me. He has ordered me to “back off” when I have been adding sourced information into an article because he disagrees with it (here , and here ). He has repeatedly accused me of “pushing POV” (here , here and here ), when all I’m “pushing” is sourced information. He has now accused me of sock-puppetry simply because another user is supporting me (here ). He has also shown agitation and aggression through use of bold, all caps and exclamation marks (as here ) and made statements regarding my edits such as “I refuse to bow down to flakey editors trying to insert bad sources and poor writing into articles in order to dumb down their content.” (), and edit summaries such as "responding to user's arrogance" (). Prophaniti (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - a MedCab case was opened here regarding the root dispute between Prophaniti and Ibaranoff24 (content dispute at Hed PE). I am confident that if we can get both parties to discuss the issue politely, all of these problems can be resolved.   23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the dispute i think both editors need to familiarize themselves with the Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. I've never seen such a misuse and misconprehension of policy! This could have easily been dealt with at the reliable sources noticeboard. --neon white talk 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting I have been acting in the same manner as Ibaranoff24 then I would have to assume you haven't been reading the discussion at all, sorry. There really is no comparison.

The medcab resolution is for solving the dispute itself, this is regarding the personal attacks that have arisen throughout, something separate. Prophaniti (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Once the dispute is solved everything should calm down. None of the personal attacks are that serious, though the user in question could do with being a bit more patient and stepping away from a dispute if tempers flare etc. --neon white talk 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If the "attacks" are occurring as part of the medcab, they are part and parcel of that activity. BMW(drive) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority are from before the medcab started, a couple are from the start of it, but personal attacks are personal attacks, a medcab project is no excuse. Prophaniti (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The MedCab is now closed.   12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to the NWQA tag: the medcab is unrelated to non-civil behaviour. Most of the incidents took place before it, and it has been closed because Ibaranoff24 refuses to co-operate with it anyway. As such, could it either be dealt with here, or could someone refer me to where to take the issue if not? Prophaniti (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded

This User has accused me of being a sock puppet, and apparantly claims i need to report in to him with my IP and any edits i make otherwise i'm being dishonest. I don't think this very polite could someone look into please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.42 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give pointers to or links to the specific instances where you consider this has happened? Also, I see you have a history of never signing your comments. This means it is difficult to see who is saying what at times, and can cause a little understandable irritation at times. It would help immensely if you signed your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of each of your messages. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The user is editing under two newly created IP addresses and demonstrates knowledge of WIkipedia processes that would not be present in a new editor. He is refusing to answer questions about past history of editing. I have said on both of the IP talk pages that multiple editing and refusing to disclose prior history is an indication of sock puppetry. Given the history on any page to do with Britain, Ireland or Celtic matters its a reasonable concern. There are similarities in editing style with previous sock puppets. My comments on the talk pages are here and here. The user also seems determined to place fact tags all over the place, see here--Snowded TALK 09:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After a quick glance at the IP's Talk page, I would recommend a little WP:AGF. If you have a sockpuppet situation, making veiled threats is a no-no. You either file your WP:SOCK case, or leave it alone. You're not the sock-killer. Make your case as per WP:SOCK and remain civil. BMW(drive) 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion noted, but I'm afraid I don't agree. These and related pages are plagued with one time IPs and socks. A polite request to the effect of "have you edited before" is reasonable. Repeating that request when the editor displays all the signs of having knowledge of Misplaced Pages beyond that of a newby is also reasonable. I didn't make any veiled threats, I know I'm not a sock killer and I am remaining civil. All the IPs have to do is answer a reasonable question. I also don't file sock puppet requests at whim, that would be uncivil, I prefer to give the editor in question a chance to state formally that they have not edited before. If they do, then I trust them unless proved otherwise (if you want some diffs on that I can give them. So try and be civil yourself and assume good faith. Some of us are trying to get some stability onto controversial pages. --Snowded TALK 11:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this back from Snowded's talk page...this diff is really rather pushy regarding this. -t-BMW-c- 12:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any sign of incivility or an assumption of bad faith from User:Bwilkins (a.k.a. BMW). On the other hand, repeatedly demanding answers is more uncivil, in my opinion, than simply filing a case at WP:SSP. If you believe that "refusal to answer... speaks for itself" then go ahead and cite it as supporting evidence. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking twice, then asking again when a new IP address appears from the same editor on the new site hardly constitutes "repeatedly" and the use of such a word which does not in any way correspond to the facts could be interpreted as provocative (but I won't). Giving potential new editors a chance to declare if they have edited before rather than leaping to a report at WP:SSP is a good example of assuming good faith SheffieldSteel. --Snowded TALK 18:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be less confrontational, particularly when talking to volunteers who are here to evaluate your own conduct. This edit summary is not helpful, based as it is on your position that the word "repeatedly" "does not in any way correspond to the facts" when the facts, as stated by yourself, are that you asked three times. Regarding the subject matter, please review the guidelines at WP:SOCK, particularly Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Identification_and_handling_of_suspected_sock_puppets, and try to avoid behaviour which could be seen as biting the newcomers or assuming bad faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Twice to one IP editor, and once to another IP editor (to ask if they are the same person) is not "repeatedly" under any normal use of English. One volunteer editor (me) explaining to another volunteer editor (you) that I think jumping to a sock report is not the way to greet a potential newcomer is hardly confrontational. Volunteer editors who spend hours most days clearing up vandalism and dealing with socks and newby IP addresses on controversial pages develop ways to handle those issues, where possible avoiding continuously reporting people. Its called avoiding biting the newcomers and assuming bad faith. Jump into support Bwilkins by all means. I disagreed with his comments and elaborated on that politely on his talk page. We may still disagree, that is Misplaced Pages. I will also feel free to evaluate your comments/conduct while welcoming yours on mine. So far I think my language is less confrontational. --Snowded TALK 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So far in this thread, you've described the editors who've criticised your actions of as being incivil, provocative, confrontational, assuming bad faith and not providing facts. I think we will have to disagree. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We will, including the appropriateness and accuracy of that last comment. --Snowded TALK 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• incivil:
• provocative:
• confrontational:
• assuming bad faith:
• not providing facts:

SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Please read the material. your incivil, confrontational and assuming bad faith are invitations to the editors concerned to consider if words they used could also be applied to them. Your provocative was a suggestion that you tone down your language. Not providing the facts was I think an accurate statement. I have tried, patiently to explain my comments and I am very happy to let them stand as is. I would strongly recommend that you look at the whole picture and try be a little less sensitive when people simply feed back to you words that you have used yourself. --Snowded TALK 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Now go and edit an article or suspect some sock puppets or something. Just please try to follow the guidelines while you're at it. Of course, that wasn't an accusation that you've acted outside of any guidelines; just an invitation to consider whether you might do so in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have been happily editing in parallel with this less serious activity. Suspecting sock puppets is an occupational hazard on the pages I edit (have a look at Wikipiere if you want an example) Always good to be reminded of the need to keep within guidelines and I welcome all informed criticism and comments as I am sure you do. Context as ever is king --Snowded TALK 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The cluster of articles connected with articles England, United Kingdom, and so on are continually being plagued by one-time IP editors who swoop in and make contentious edits for a while against established consensus before disappearing, or anonymous IP editors who are disruptive, or even newly created SPA doing the same thing. Of course not all editors who fall into this category are like this, but enough are for it to be a point of comment. United Kingdom, England, and the other articles (Wales, for instance) have suffered from this for a long time, and some actions (concerning the use of British Isles) have gone to arbitration on the matter. All this can be verified by simply looking at the histories of these articles, their talk pages, and their logs. Some of the articles are having to repeatedly be semi-protected or fully-protected to stop the edit warring, and only recently has there been a concerted effort to try to make the talk pages conform more to WP:TALK, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:CRYSTALBALL to remove the disruptive, personalised, soapboxing style of comments from some. In the light of this, and taken in concert with the failure of this IP editor, despite being reminded on more than one occasion, to sign their posts, relatively mild perceived infractions can become a source for irritation. I don't think the reaction of Snowded should be divorced from the context in which they were made, whereupon, I don't think there is much to apologise for, though his comments perhaps could have been phrased a little differently. Administrators do ask people if they have edited under other i.d.s from time to time, and I don't see that doing so is such a heinous crime, especially in the context, which I have outlined above.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It would help things along, if the IPs-in-question would create accounts. I know it's not required (creating an account), but it sure would help. I fail to understand why there's a negative reaction to Snowy's questions. PS- Yes, I support mandatory registration (in case anybody questions my views). GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is contentious about placing fact tags on unsourced statement, and putting notes that the content and style need to be improved, and correcting spag? i could understand if was rewriting articles to say the english are as bad as nazis or adding masses of unsourced analysis, put please Goodday tell me what edit you feel was contentious and i will be happy to discuss it with you. Why exactly should anyone have to give account to anyone else of their action? are not all editors equal? or do you consider some editors more equal than others? Also as for signing post and the term infractions please refer to the fifth pillar of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.162 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the edits you've made. I'm just curious as to your negative reaction to Snowy's request (concerning wheither you've edited before). I'm assuming this is the same editor, I'm responding to. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way IP, according to your contributions history, you've only been on Misplaced Pages for 'less then a day'. How'd ya know about making Wikiquette reports? I never knew about them for over a year. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The tone of it was more than anything, i do not like to be order or threaten, nor do i, nor anyone else have to make ourselves accountable. As for my knowledge maybe i just read up, but the IP is just dynamically assigned from my ISP or if i'm somewhere else in the world its random depending on the place or the computer. The reason i not bother with an account is simple, the hassle people become on many articles become so entrenched in showing their own personal viewpoints that even to put a fact tag on, infuriates them to the point of vendetta, i've seen it far to many times, also i can't be bothered to remember another password when i have no need to. As for how long I've been editing, from about 2001, I hate to think how many edits that be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.162 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This steadfast refusal to create an account is frustrating to say the most & annoying to say the least. Oh well, it's up to you. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY. Although userid's are preferred, badgering them about it is getting close to harassment. -t BMW c- 22:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:193.142.220.10 and abuse by moderator User:David Gerard

Congratulations for the circumlocution and "impartiality"!--Mazarin07 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take action against the vandalism of this user. See for example: --Mazarin07 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism. User has only made 3 edits in the last 48 hours and appears currently inactive. If the editor returns, contact him or her, via their talk page, and request that they use the talk page to discuss edits. --neon white talk 13:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting an interwiki link is not a simple editing, but real and actual vandalism.--Mazarin07 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible the editor did not know what an interwiki link is? Please WP:AGF a little, and help by educating/discussing with the editor and not calling it vandalism right away. In addition, you should advise the other editor when you file an Wikiquette report on them. -t-BMW-c- 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW has summed it up - see Misplaced Pages:Don't bite the newcomers. Also, we don't handle vandalism at this venue - please try here in the future. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW did not summ up anything. I already warned the user in question to refrain from deleting interwiki links. In addition, I am convinced that he/she is not a newcomer, but an old editor who doesn't want to edit under his/her real name because of the subversive nature of his/her deletions.--Mazarin07 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The minor (possibly accidental) removal of an interwiki link is not vandalism. Most people don't even understand them, and many might be tempted to therefore remove them. WP:AGF, my friend, WP:AGF. "Warning" vice "discussing" are two different things. -t-BMW-c- 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Per BMW. Additionally, if you think someone is a sockpuppet, you should try WP:SSP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence of sockpuppetry, considering the scant amount of edits made by this ip and the fact that the edits have never been made before under any username i fail to see where the claims are coming from. I think this can be considered resolved. --neon white talk 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Besides, Sockpuppetry is an deliberate attempt to change IP's, etc in order to skirt the Rules/perform multiple votes. I have personally used hundreds of different IP addresses, and sometimes forget to login. Does that mean I'm a sock? -t-BMW-c- 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to know that I was illegally banned by moderator User:David Gerard for 24 hours, then this ban was extended with another 12 hours. David Gerard abused of his moderator rights, because I nor made 3 reverts one after one nor I violated the WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons), since all my edits were backed up by sources. It is true that one my sources (European Tribune) deleted any reference to Greg Coffey, because of the fear of libel charges, but still remained three other sources in Hungarian. I, as editor am not bound to only back my edits with English language references, any language reference should be accepted, since English is not a divine language, a non-plus ultra of all human knowledge. And yes, references inserted in other languages than English can be verified, since - as far as I know - Misplaced Pages has moderators in all languages, or moderators of the relevant language Misplaced Pages can be asked to perform any necessary checks. I was telling this, because User:David Gerard deleted my Hungarian language references as "ill-sourced rubbish". Then, what a surprise, that I soon was banned from Misplaced Pages by this "well-sourced" gentleman. I think that User:David Gerard ABUSED OF HIS MODERATOR RIGHTS AND MUST BE BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA as well.--Mazarin07 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would advise you to please calm down, as you are not helping your case. Your vehemence at the IP for deleting a couple of interwiki links, with no solid evidence of sockpuppetry, has cost you a lot of credibility in terms of the community taking your complaints seriously.

Regarding the block from David Gerard... You must understand the project is very sensitive about anything applying to WP:BLPs. If somebody challenges the validity of a source on a BLP, the proper thing to do is to discuss the change on the talk page, in an effort to reach consensus over whether the source is trustworthy or not. Continually re-inserting the suspect allegations, even if it not technically a WP:3RR violation, is not the proper way to debate this.

Generally speaking, when it comes to adding controversial information to BLPs, the default is to leave the information out until there is consensus to include it. Thus, David Gerard was in the right to revert you. Can I ask why you didn't respond on the article's talk page?

That said, I'll admit Gerard probably displayed ill judgment in blocking you in regards to a situation in which he was directly involved. It is strongly preferred that in cases like this, the involved admin should find another uninvolved admin to do the actual block.

I will notify Gerard of this thread, and remind him about this. However, please note there is no action that can/will be taken here and now. While I disagree with Gerard's judgment call, this isn't anywhere close to the kind of thing that gets somebody desysopped. That would be like suggesting someone be thrown in prison for failing to pay a parking ticket. Furthermore, even if it was that serious, WP:WQA is not the proper venue to pursue that.

If you are serious about your edits to the Coffey article, start a discussion on the talk page. That's all you can really do at this point. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It was an OTRS-alerted BLP issue, so putting this rubbish back on even after the note doesn't show willingness to play nicely or being here to write an encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the OTRS involvement. My bad! I have struck the comments where I questioned your judgment in doing the block yourself. Uncontroversial block, then. Sorry 'bout that! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

When editors use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS TO SHOUT, that generally causes me to think they are not looking at matters objectively. In your comment you say that you were adding material to his biography that a reliable source has removed because they feel it was libelous. Do you think that might be a clue the content you were adding was unsuitable? Why would we consider facts about a person residing in London to be relevant if they can only be sourced to Hungary? If this info was relevant and accurate, I feel confident it would be published by a source in London, or England. In total, I am not at all convinced by your arguments, and recommend that you follow the advice that David Gerard has provided to you. If you wish to restore the Hungarian sourced content, please use the reliable sources noticeboard to get advice from uninvolved editors, and then follow it. Jehochman 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you can use capital letters not only to shout at the person you are talking with, but also to put more stress on some parts of your text. Secondly, let's speak about the matter itself without diverting our discussion toward unessential details. David Gerard was not entitled to block me, since I DID NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE WIKIPEDIA rules or principles. The violator was David Gerard when he called my sources rubbish. Now, I can accuse him of unpoliteness, at the very least. As a matter of fact, I did not want after all to reinsert that objected paragraph, but decided to wait for new media or legal updates on the issue. I agree that there is no need for vehemence for writing good encyclopedia articles, nor to involve Misplaced Pages in a legal dispute, but neither is need for dubious manoeuvres of "hush-hush" in the background.--Mazarin07 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by User:Readin

While discussing on the talk: demographics of Taiwan, I noticed that User:Readin did not responded to my comments directly and I said:-

"I note that you did not directly respond to my comments above your response, please do so. Thank you."

Then I got a reply saying:-

"please do so I did not realize I was being paid to follow your orders. I will respond or not respond as I have time. Please have patience and stop demanding that other editors follow your personal schedule."

In my view, discussion on an article cannot progress if an editor argues for A then other editors responds with B. I didn't demand Readin to "follow my orders" or "follow my personal schedule", I find the comment quite uncivil, uncalled for and it did not assume good faith.

For your reference, the diff is here . Thank you.--pyl (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that this is not the first time that Pyl and I have disagreed. The "follow...schedule" comment refers to instances where Pyl has set arbitrary deadlines for responding to his comments. Also, my comment began with "I don't have time to say a whole lot this week, but...", to which Pyl responded that I should spend more time responding to him. And I did respond to his comment. He did not make clear what he meant by "directly". Readin (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We do disagree but I don't believe I desert a comment like that. That's not resolving disagreement. I was very surprise to have receive that. I didn't give you a response like you said above as the arbritrator can see for himself or herself from the logs. You are an active editor, editing usually on a daily basis. During a disagreement for another article, I said if you do not respond within one week or so then I will have to remove a statement for which you provided a dispute source. I just asked for a response within a week when you were editing anyway nearly daily. In this case if you believe that I didn't say "directly" clearly, I would have been happy to clarify if you asked me to. --pyl (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have problems scrolling down on my iPhone to edit for the section below. So I will respond here. I apologize. I don't know LedRush that well but I remember him to be quite civil and helpful when we edited together last time. I am surprised that he said I routinely engage in contentious edits as he never told me that, and in fact I don't believe that anyone has. If i'm mistaken pls let me know. I feel rudely treated to and hurt, and that's why I filed this report. Whether it is borderline or false, I am happy to wait for a decision from an arbritrator. I don't want to escalate this matter and that why I file a report here instead of filing with the other boards. I just wish Readin can be gentlely reminded of the rules of assuming good faith and be civil by a third party.--pyl (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing uncivil in responding to a borderline rude comment with a slightly smarmy one. Pyl routinely engages in contentious edits and, quite honestly, I believe that he should be the subject of a Wikiquette alert for making this false claim here.LedRush (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the entire article called WP:CONSENSUS do I see anything about set timeframes for responses to discussions. Everyone who edits Misplaced Pages does so on a voluntary basis, whenever their personal schedule allows. The setting of arbitrary timelines for discussion, and even the insistence that certain questions be answered by others runs contrary to the foundations of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The goal of this project is to build a good encyclopedia, which takes time. Obviously, there are situations where time might be "of the essence", but that's rare as articles continue to evolve over time. To urgently request the response to certain questions smells a little of WP:OWN, is unWP:CIVIL in its own right, is against WP:AGF, and cannot be considered acceptable. I will not go so far as to say that the initiator should be investigated - more likely, the initiator needs to be aware of their actions, and how they have led to his own belief that they needed to submit this WQA complaint. Article Talk pages are group discussions, nobody truly leads them, yet everybody deserves to be heard. You cannot insist on a response, although if nobody replies, you may ask it again in a different (perhaps more general) manner. The slightly sarcastic reply by the named was not uncivil, it was an exasperated response to a situation. -t BMW c- 11:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I didn't set anything timeframes in this discussion and that's why I found Readins comments uncalled for and not assuming good faith. Readin and I were referring to another matter. Please refer to the article discussion.--pyl (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've read my userpage, you'll know that I looked at more than just the links provided and delved a little deeper than one might have wanted so that I could get the full background. -t BMW c- 12:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. I honestly thought the past agreements between readin and i were resolved when we apologized to each other a couple of weeks ago and we already moved on from that. But if by you holding this decision means the past disagreements can be finally resolved now, then I'm happy with it.--pyl (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:Eye.earth

Perhaps rather than taking administrative action, someone paying attention here may be able to help. User:Eye.earth has been undertaking disruptive actions on List of centenarians, deleting most of what little information is already contained in the introduction referring in such ways as "cutting out the fat", despite the obvious agreement on the talk page that the introduction needs to be lengthened, per the requirements at the style guidelines for lists. Although they have been contacted several times on their talk page and asked to discuss their edits, they simply ignore the request and continue to push their own version after taking a break. Occasionally the edits are even more disruptive, such as this one which removed content and references with no explanation whatsoever. More information can be found at the user's talk page. I'm hoping that perhaps this user will listen to someone else; if someone disagrees with your editing, you need to discuss it with them, not just keep reinserting in the hopes that the other user will give up. The latest one, by the way, was todayCheers, CP 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with civility. However, I have warned him of the apparent Ownership of articles. -t BMW c- 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (User:Mdd)

This user is WP:DE trying to oversimplify the broader subject of software development into the narrower scope of software engineering. This user has been making huge edits that lack WP:NPOV without getting buy-in from other users. It started when the user wasn't satisfied with a template that listed software engineering as one of many disciplines related to software development. So the user gave the template a double title , implying that all those other disciplines fall under the category of software engineering. Considering the edit history of the software engineering article over the fairness of the classification without certification, it's hardly a neutral point of view to suggest that everything involved in software development is summed up by software engineering. When I reverted the template to what has been accepted for years on wikipedia, the user became more disruptive by replacing the template on the main article and all related articles (again without buy-in) with a template which is obviously WP:POINT. When I reverted to the original of what was accepted yet again, the user got even more disruptive by merging the software development process article that had been active for 8 years into another article, waiting only 3 hours for discussion after the merge suggestion and having no by in. The user used the excuse of wanting to show the example of what the user thought the article should be, but could have used the WP:Sandbox to make the point. The user is now edit warring.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight (talk • contribs)

There are really a lot of false alligations here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to register the following arguments here.

1. I have no history of simplifying things, and the contributions I made last year don't deserve such predicate.
2. The huge edits had nothing to do with any lack of WP:NPOV. The hugh edits was an editwar about replacing and old template with a new template
3. Merging two articles is not perse disruptive as Neon white explains here below.
4. Waiting only 3 hours for discussion is a lie. I gave him more then a day to respond, whjich he didn't. He simply didn't notice the message I left him.
5. Urging someone to use WP:Sandbox after making over 40.000 edits to wikipedia and wikicommons is a heavy insult.

--Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging articles without consensus is an incredible attempt at WP:OWN. I would have honestly thought that Mdd had been in Misplaced Pages long enough to know not to do this. That said, this is NOT a civility issue, and should be addressed at WP:ANI -t BMW c- 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect, consensus is not required to merge articles. From WP:MERGE - "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument." However if a merge is likely to be controversial then a proposal/afd is a good idea to avoid confusion and reverts. Reminding Oicumayberight to assume good faith and not name drop policies out of context. --neon white talk 10:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the 2 articles (I wrote a series of articles on the subjects) they are related but not mergable...of course, this is content and not civility. As noted, this has already been moved to ANI by myself. -t BMW c- 10:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point neon white, thanks. Now Bwilkins, I think it is far from obvious that the two article are not mergable. There is hardly an other Misplaced Pages (at least German + Dutch) who makes this difference. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that the disruptive editing is now moved to the talk page. He appears to be suppressing my voice in the debate. He hid by archiving my previous yet settled debates here but selectively re-posted counter points that had been addressed in those debates without my replies as if there was never a response to those counterpoints or settlement. He's clearly beating a dead horse here. If he thought that the debate wasn't settled, then he shouldn't have archived it. The state of the article in the past two years has been a result of compromise and collaboration with software engineers, but he is trying to hide that fact. His latest act of suppression was to demote by two levels here a new section I created in the discussion page that was in direct response to the neutrality dispute tag that he put on the main page. It looks like he's selectively trying to hide the parts of the discussion that he finds difficult to dispute. Now he is threatening to remove content in 3 days if I don't respond in a time of only his choosing in the manner of only his choosing here. Why can't he just wait till other users respond to the neutrality dispute. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: User:Oicumayberight seems to accuse me of creating an archive on the talkpage to archive a two year old discussion, and changing the talk page lay out of a "new chapter" in a "subchapter", calling this disruptive behaviour. How more crazy can it get? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (User:Oicumayberight)

The comments Oicumayberight just made is really the other way around here. I am improving all kinds of articles and he has been referting my work for the past two days.

He doesn't consider what I am writting on the talk pages, and hardly response there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This appears to clearly be retaliatory. -t BMW c- 21:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there clear evidence of wikistalking here? or are just involved in the same articles or similar areas. Can you provide some diffs from unrelated articles? --neon white talk 10:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My answer here. The editwar here had spread over different articles because we were arguing about and old and new template, which is present in over 20 articles. The matter about these two templates is resolved for now, because we agreed to keep both for the time being.

Now I wonder where you got the idea of Wikistalking? The reason I came here was because Bwilkins gave me a warning, and I checked his moves once. So I admit: have I now Wikistalked Bwilkins? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You were accusing User:Oicumayberight of reverting your edits to a number of articles? --neon white talk 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok sorry. I accuse User:Oicumayberight of a lot of things, but not wikistalking. He was just reinstalling the "old template" on several places where I had replaced it. I can accept that. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not stalking. There are plenty of good reasons for looking at another editor's contributions to see where they've been. Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith tells us to assume you had good reasons. There's no problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that Bwilkins interfered here, and asked me to restore the situation. I am however not very happy with his whole argumentation here.

• He claims I acted as if I owned the article, but the actual situation is that Oicumayberight is acting for two years, as if he owns the article. I just came around.
• Bwilkins conclude that my remark here "appears to clearly be retaliatory". In fact I was considering aletering or ringing some bells here for a day ore two.
• Bwilkins claims here to be the expert (the only), because he made a series of articles there. I think he could be more thoughtfull here, writing me off as just a retaliatory discruptive user.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact I think Oicumayberight is still beeing very uncooperative. It looks like he wants to fool me. He is very politely giving all kinds of answers in the discussion we had yesterday. But he hardly is giving any real info or real facts. He seems to be stalling the situation here. Pretending to be the expert, and pretending to know for sure, that I oversimplify thinks. Now he seems to be a graphic designer with some preoccupation about software development. He keeps repeating the oversimplify argument, which brings us no closer to an other. I have tried to get some hard evidence to prove the intro he create is corrupted.

Now if this situation continues, it would be nice to have a real indepenent expert to judge this situation. In the light of my previous comments I have problems accept Bwilkins as expert here. (But I hope he can prove me wrong). So if the situations continues here, which cost me a lot of effort, can I look for an other expert to look/judge the situation? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You should avoid commenting on the person. Rather comment on his specific actions with reference to evidence in the form of "diff"s. Otherwise, outside editors cannot easily understand what you are talking about, and we may even take the view that you are attacking the other editor's character. Jehochman 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You mean I should state that Oicumayberight keeps accusing me of simplifying things (Just a selection of the past two days: , , , , , , , , , , ), and that is why I would like an expert opinion here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was closed and moved to WP:ANI based on the fact that it was NOT a civility dispute. Please refrain from continuing an unrelated discussion in this forum. It appears that most of this discussion should have taken place on the ARTICLE talk pages long before now, then this never would have been brought forward here. -t BMW c- 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a " closed sign" or "resolved sign" here, and I can't find any reference on WP:ANI about this, so how can this discussion been moved? You message seems like a nice way to say "get lost". I followed Jehochman advice and showed that Oicumayberight keeps accusing me of (over)simplifying. He also keep (which I can show if you like) twisting the timeline around and needlessly keeps accusing me of disrubtive editing, after you gave me a (questionable) warning. Aren't these wikiquette alerts? I am sorry. I have little experience here. If you want this to stop, couldn't you simply add a close sign or find one to do so. This is my first time here, so please explain? For me indeed the saga conmtinues? Oicumayberight has newly accused me yesterday here of disrubtive behavoir. Haven't you made it your job here to at least look into that. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See here the top of this entry where the Wikiquette entry was closed and advised to move to ANI. I took the liberty to move it for you. As you decided to continue commenting here, instead of at ANI, the ANI entry was archived here . None of the issues you have noted have to do with Civility. Common sense dictates that you discuss merges. If you TRY to merge without consensus, and someone disagrees, you then have a prolonged discussion in an attempt to achieve consensus either way. This is NOT a Wikiquette issue, it's common sense. -t BMW c- 15:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (User:Malleus_Fatuorum)

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

Malleus has engaged in abusive behaviour, borderline racist behaviour, negative behaviour, incivil behaviour and trollish behaviour, towards myself and other editors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Ireland/1 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment

Significantly, he does not apologise for the remark below, 'Give it a rest. Fix the article and renominate. GA is not a God-given right. The process was correctly followed, as has been been made abundantly clear. Or if you can't fix the article then shut the fuck up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time. There's a history here. Synergy 20:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC) And I expect him at any moment now. If not, I'll let him know about this alert.

(e/c) I believe this edit, which ZincBelief perhaps understandably did not include shows that this is not the entire story. I do think having a message with edit summary "Hypocrite" directed at Malleus, and then including the message "If you can't be bothered to review properly, then don't review at all." could be construed as being either significant baiting on the part of ZincBelief, angry that one of "his" articles was delisted at GA, or else equally if not more uncivil. That this then gets posted here by ZincBelief seems to indicate there is more at work here on his part than the bald report above indicates.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I explained why it is hypocritcal, I don't think it is an unreasonable comment. Ireland is certainly not my article, I never edited it before notcing that Malleus had told somebody to STFU.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are things that can be thought and which can be said; there are things which can be thought, but which should not be said; and there may even be things which should neither be thought nor said. I think we can conclude that, no matter what, accusing Malleus of hypocrisy here does not fall into the first of these categories, certainly not on wikipedia, and it matters not whether the accusation would be true or not.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's more to the story, but I don't think either editor can really be excused either. Anyway, someone else will have to handle this one I'm afraid - I'm short on time at the moment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Right. But it appears that Mal isn't responding in a manner in which he advocates. He tells others to grow up and then starts cursing like a child. Its unneeded and provoking. Synergy 20:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly isn't the way I would behave, or rather, it certainly isn't the way I would want to behave if I were put in a similar situation. Both sides are not showing their best here, but I would consider it an even greaterfaux pas on my part if I had done what ZincBelief has done: having made the edit I linked to, and possibly the one William M Connolley posted, and then to have posted a message here complaining of Malleus' behaviour.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That was probably my most extreme response. Having seen how another editor was treated for questioning why it was ok to ignore wikipedia's good article delisting guidelines I became rather angry. I don't think I have descended to personal abuse again, I don't think outlining somebody's behaviour as hypocritcal is that. Especially when I explain why they are being hypocritical. What I refered to is what happened, not being bothered to review an article properly, just delisting it with some scant notes. Anyway, I brought up this complaint because I was told to use SQA rather than telling Malleus to stop being rude, so I did. If you want me to raise a complaint about my own behaviour that's fine.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken in this claim: "I don't think I have descended to personal abuse again" See my message below where I give the diffs for a very recent message from you (certainly after this alert was posted) on the same article where you accuse OhanaUnited of lying. That is a personal attack. No one wants you to raise some complaint about yourself. Your time would be far better spent in changing your behaviour to edit within the guidelines of civility.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I will take on board your opinions. I see members of the arbitration committee I respect using what seems to me worse language.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Both editors were impolite and neither is entirely blameless. Certainly the original post misrepresented the situation. But both parties will have to make an effort to work politely together in future, because I can't see either one being "singled out for punishment" on this one. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a correct summary and describes the most reasonable way forward in this situation.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; based on ZincBelief's actions and comments, this cannot be put solely on Malleus. It is clearly tied to ZincBelief's frustration over the delisting. --Ckatz_spy 21:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I take exception to being accused here of "borderline racist behaviour", and I am unimpressed with that being apparently equated with telling someone (not the editor who has initiated this report) to "shut the fuck up". They are misdemeanours of an entirely different scale. I regret that I used such intemperate language, and I will endeavour to keep my frustration in better check in the future, but I offer no apology as I meant what I said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I perceive pigeonholing all Irish articles together as racist, the fact that you did it a second time in my view either confirms that or confirms that you are a troll.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am saddened to see you repeat your uncivil behaviour towards Malleus and even make a new accusation (that he is a troll). I think you need to review WP:CIVIL, and work on understanding what I wrote above about things which can be said and which can be thought on wikpedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I made both these accusations in the opening paragraph. Am I not supposed to do that when I explain why I find his behaviour objectionable? Let me expand some more. Trolling by demanding to know of philca what a "drive by delisting is" when he has already responded to the comment without expressing any doubt as to what it was is one such instance. Having been told by me that I found his remark about all Irish Articles borderline racist he repeated it, that I find to be also trolling. If I'm not supposed to say this I'm sorry, but I don't understand how I can express my opinions here otherwise, maybe I am in the wrong place?--ZincBelief (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Especially since this edit shows ZincBelief posted a message shortky before his above replies which accused OhanaUnited of lying (see the edit summary and the text): Lying means uttering an untruth with intent, and this surely is an example of a personal attack.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think as a central figure in the Good Article Sweep Committee OhanaUnited is well placed to know the various criteria involved in the review processes. Especially since he has been reminded of them repeatedly in these last few weeks. His comments on this page express the view that the GA Sweep criteria for Delisting are more important than the actual GA Delisting criteria. This is a bit off topic, but it is something I have repeatedly asked him about already. To date I haven't received a response that he can even accept my viewpoint as reasonable.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no question both parties have been less than perfect. Malleus has at least offered regret for his statement. Yes, "STFU" is not particularly becoming of a generally respected editor. I'm not going to argue why we give more leeway to respected editors - that's for another day. What I do find objectionable is the accusation that Malleus is "racist". I can't see any evidence of that at all. I think this whole thread is actually an extension of a GAR dispute that, whilst it does have a place here, is unlikely to solve the real issues behind it. Pedro :  Chat  22:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I was refering to Pedro 'If these people were so interested in the article, then why did they not have it watchlisted? Why did they let it degrade? Why is it that that every Irish article sems to have these kinds of problems? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)'

and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AGood_article_reassessment%2FIreland%2F1&diff=247020832&oldid=247019914 . I called these borderline racist. They are certainly unwarranted and have nothing whatsoever to do with a GAR of Ireland or a RFC on ignoring point 4 in the GA delisting guidelines. Because they were so out of place, that contributing to my feeling. --ZincBelief (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What you have offered up here is really a partial explanation of why you thought it was justified, but an explanation is often not an excuse. Can I suggest that you step back from this, as you seem to be digging yourself into a hole here. Step back, walk away from the dispute, and reflect on what you have done in the context of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and so on. Then, spend your time more productively in doing what we are all supposed to be doing: actually writing content of an encyclopaedia. Surely that would be a better way forwards for you now?  DDStretch  (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite right: I should have mentioned the accusation of being racist as being unsupportable as well. I find it astonishing that such new accusations are still' being made, and that they are being made both on here and on the GAR dispute page. I think that indicates that some action is required.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I did say borderline racist behaviour, not racist. Would you prefer I called it incivil? What new accusations are you refering to?--ZincBelief (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the use of a weasel word like "borderline" negates the seriousness of the accusation of racist at all. Yes, you should have said "uncivil", but better still, you should stop digging and walk away, as I have said above, and turn your attention to writing content. That seems the better way forwards here.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no new accusations of borderline racist behaviour then? (I take it?) I feel if I offered up a larger essay of why I felt this to be borderline racist behaviour or trolling you would tell me off. So I think I'm in catch22 here frankly. When I see a completely out of place remark appear. I complain about it to the person who made it. They repeat it, in a totally out of place situation out of the blue, that makes me think that the second case is very deliberate. It makes me feel they are pushing the boundaries, trying to get a response. Pretending to be upset later on on this page, a few days later only confirms that suspicion actually.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring obviously to the accusations that you newly made on this subject here on this page. Now, if you divert your energies away from logic-chopping and onto editing new content, we could perhaps all make progress. I hope this gets stopped by archiving immediately.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm about three comments away from archiving this. Yes, Malleus was rude and uncivil. However the "disruptive" heading to this section is misleading at best and the "borderline racist" (which I find the "worst of sins" if you will) accusation unfounded. I appreciate ZincBelief's frustration and disapointment. I do not in any way condone Malleus telling another editor to "shut the fuck up". I'm also not wishing to sweep this under the table. But I do believe that bad blood over a GAR has erupted and that this particular thread will simply enrage both parties and wider. I'd urge ZincBelief to let this go, and I'd urge Malleus to remember that whilst "telling it how it is" is sometimes needed, and that "shut the fuck up" may not be the deadliest of insults there are times and places and your use then was considerably less than ideal. It was not, however, trolling and ZB needs to recognise that. Frankly, we are unlikely to make progress so let's try and fix the article instead. Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will let it go. It's not just about me though. My interest in this came from an unwarranted insult to another user. I might say, I find you describing this "as telling it how it is" pretty unwarranted Pedro. I think you might want to reconsider that choice of words. Trolling is certainly there. Here is a sprawl of edits showing it is not just me who finds Malleus's behaviour frustrating, it also shows in my opinion trolling. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_articles&diff=247205496&oldid=247193245 .--ZincBelief (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I made an observation on a category of articles, an observation that is plainly supported by the facts. I deeply resent that observation being interpreted as racism. I have already said that I regret the intemperate language that I used once, to one editor. But I really do think that ZincBelief's behaviour here and elsewhere has been appalling, and for him to bring this charge of disruption against me, and for his own far more disruptive behaviour to be ignored, is just way beyond the pale. Is this the future? Raise dishonest complaints about every editor you don't like until you have wikipedia all to yourself, free to publish whatever crap you like? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that you have yet actually aplogised to the editor you told to shut the fuck up. If you did so I would be prepared to begin to accept your explanations.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you will cast your eyes a little higher up, I have already said that although I regret my use of intemperate language I will not apologise, because I meant what I said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, ZincBelief, you are still digging! You have some history of being argumentative, and that led to a block in which you were warned about complaining too much about quite legitimate decisions by administrators and which ultimately led to you being blocked from editing your talk page with the block extended for continuing to prolong disputes beyond what is reasonable. This can be easily seen in your talk page log. Please, I urge you to give it up now! Please, no more comments about this from you from this point on. Please, I suggest you try to write content instead of all this grief.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do people always refer to cursing as "childish behavior". It most certainly isn't. And calling those who use expletives "children" certainly doesn't do anything to help any given situation. In this situation, it's best to just let them both be. لennavecia 00:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• To conclude, Malleus regrets being uncivil and ZincBelief has let this go. A large bulk of the complaint did not tell the full story, and the community was unimpressed with this and some of the unfounded accusations made. Both parties were advised accordingly, and this incident is done and dusted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Soccer174

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.

A primary argument started here, when I suggested the deletion of a few categories I thought were trivial. The conversation was getting slightly strained, until the user literally threatened to beat me up here(last 4 letters) and here. So....I don't really know what to do anymore actually. Continuing the conversation will be fruitless, and I desperately need a third comment, can someone help me T_T. Dengero (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take note that user Dengero has first hurled insult at my culture. He belong to a rival sub-culture of Chinese which he has been promoting in Wiki. I like to question his credibility for being in 2 of Wiki project groups. He should leave them if he is a responsible person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer174 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Soccer174, please read WP:NPA and do not make personal attacks towards other editors as you have done towards Dengero. Grsz 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate Cantonese chauvinism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiChauvinism (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the above account indefinitely as a sock-puppet of User:Soccer174. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ross.Hedvicek

I suggested for deletion an article authored by Ross.Hedvicek: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tomáš Krystlík. After that, Mr. Hedvicek come to my talk page and accused me of fanaticism and hateful conduct. Therefore I informed him about the "No personal attacks" rule and hoped that this will finish the case. But few hours later Mr. Hedvicek () denoted me as a "zealot" who conducts "personal vendetta against Tomas Krystlik" (whose book I have never seen, by the way) and is "conspiring" with help of "useful idiots" against Krystlík. Now I feel offended and please for help of other non-involved editors.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I profusely apologize for anything remotely offensive I might have wrote.I go by the rule that truth can never be offensive to a honest person. I apologize for the second time and I stick to my claim that Ioannes Pragensis AfD is chauvinistic, nationalistic and politically motivated attempt for revenge and he should be one who is reprimanded. People like him had me banned from Czech Wiki. Now they trying to have me "eliminated" from English Wiki, too? When this persecution will end? Ross.Hedvicek (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have had never contact with you on the Czech wiki. I do not know you nor Krystlík. I do not know his book, I have found it only through Google. Do not suggest that I am not a honest person; at least I am more honest than you because I do not try to slander other Wikipedists.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Masem

• User: Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This Edit accuses me of Vandalism. Masem has made no contribution to Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not#NotMemorial. I have requested that he review the comment both Here and later. His response was to issue a 3RR (fair enough) but without the courtesy of notifying me. I wish him to either justify his identification of Vandalism or take it back. Lucian Sunday (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, your edit was not vandalism; I mistakenly hit the wrong rollback button, so I apologize for that. However, you were approaching a 3RR violation clearly from the page history which I did warn you about (and technically you had surpassed 3RR at that point, but I gave the benefit of the doubt); You subsequently deleted the warning (implicitly acknowledging it), and then reverted WP:NOT once more after the warning, and thus necessitating the actual 3RR report. Yes, I didn't mean to call it vandalism, but your actions still had to be notified and reported. --MASEM 06:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The filing party (Lucian Sunday) requested that the subject (Masem) either justify his identification of vandalism, or to retract it. Masem formally retracted it and apologised, stating that it was a genuine accident/mistake. Despite this, the 3RR report on Lucian Sunday was legitimate. This matter is nothing more than a misunderstanding, and has been resolved amongst the parties without any third party intervention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Causteau Policy interpretation. What constitutes a justification to revert edits, and what constitutes an edit war

This discussion pretty much defines the differences of opinion needing comment. For anyone thinking that the discussion is going ahead and therefore needing no help, please look at the rapidly expanding archives for the discussion page of the E1b1b article, since this editor started to monitor it only a few months ago, which shows that this type of policy misunderstanding (well, that's my opinion) keeps coming up but never gets resolved. (From the occasional brief glance at this editor's work in other parts of Misplaced Pages, similar problems occur elsewhere. His own talkpage is also quickly building up archives, containing frequent accusations of edit warring and the same typical responses showing that this editor believes when he reverts edits, it is actually he who is most closely following Misplaced Pages guidelines.) There are on-going problems editing the article in a normal way. Changes of existing edits are being reverted, so the only way to get in new material is to add text which often covers similar ground to older edits. The article quality must therefore get worse over time. On the few occasions when third parties have entered discussion there has often been some improvement in the situation, and having more third party involvement seems the most promising way to get a more constructive situation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute to me and not an issue for Wikiquette alerts. Follow the steps at Dispute resolution --neon white talk 16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, an editor who claims that they can revert as much as they want so long as it is to keep a reliably sourced statement in an article, and that such behaviour cannot constitute an edit war represents a problem. Admittedly it's not exactly a civility issue, but it's definitely not a content dispute, either. Note that Causteau is not joking or just expressing themselves ambiguously; they have just been warned for 4 consecutive full reverts on The Jerusalem Post, and this was not their first edit war. The following was part of their justification: "And WP:3RR does not apply to re-inserting material from reliable sources -- that is how Misplaced Pages functions: on verifiability!"

The quotation is from the ANI thread that I started on this editor (see archive). I hoped that an admin would explain very clearly that this is not how Misplaced Pages functions. Instead an admin with a (long past, I believe) history of edit-warring on related articles decided to treat Causteau and me symmetrically, which Causteau apparently took as confirmation that their interpretation of policy is sound.

In my opinion it would be the duty of Khoikhoi and Elonka to give some explanations to this editor (Andrew and I are obviously not taken seriously by Causteau), but they simply didn't respond when I asked them to do that. Causteau apparently believes that these two admins are backing them.

Moreover, as to civility, Causteau's bizarre and over the top accusations of policy violations against everybody who disagrees with them, often repeated almost literally several times in one thread, his extreme condescension, and all this while misunderstanding policy very fundamentally, are definitely a severe civility issue. For evidence of this, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive172#Synthesis,_editorializing, and abuse of primary sources and Talk:Press TV, as well as the continuation at Talk:The Jerusalem Post.

A general problem pattern seems to be that this editor never lets anyone know if/when they realise that they made a mistake. It's totally unnerving if you have to deal with someone who tries to edit-war in a statement from 2000 that purports to contradict that an event in 2004 happened. If this editor subsequently does not admit that they made a mistake, there is no basis for collaboration.

I have been somewhat active at WQA in the past, and I believe this is a good place to deal with this situation. The alternative would be for Andrew and me to just report the editor for their next 3RR violations until their block log is so long that we are taken seriously. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

-

This is definitely not a content dispute., but this misunderstanding is understandable. The passage I have selected as a reference is a pure and simple discussion about policy, at least until very late in the discussion. Have a look at that aspect and please be careful not to give up too early. Just comment on those policy discussions if you want.

I can understand why other Wikipedians tend to assume, perhaps want to assume, that such cases are something technical that they can't follow. That happens a lot with this particular editor, but I think that anyone who has ever edited an article together with Causteau knows that all these problems come from his understanding of policy. It very rarely has anything at all to do with a disagreement about actual facts. He often defends my old edits from my attempts to change them for example, on the basis of his interpretation of rules, so he says.

Indeed, the problem has perhaps been worsened by the fact that the actions of some admins (not only in the article I work on) have seemed to take his side - at least by his own interpretation. This is now a problem which repeats. Just being nice to each other and trying to talk things out on the talk pages has failed repeatedly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Following are direct quotes from the key part of a policy discussion which I (and apparently others) believe represent the core of a constantly repeating problem in articles where this editor, possibly with good intentions, is working in recent months. These particular comments about Misplaced Pages policy concerning reverting and bad faith versus good faith came out of a discussion about whether the word "common" could best be replaced with a more exact and detailed description. In other words, the "reliably sourced material" which caused such heavy debate, is one word, which is only being accused of vagueness. There was no dispute about facts. Nevertheless the core of the position against adjusting the text was only that the if anyone removed the word, it would be according to Misplaced Pages policy that such an edit should be reverted "in no time", simply because the word "common" (like many other words) can be found in a scientific article, and is therefore properly sourced. Believe it or not, this is a typical debate for anyone trying to co-edit an article with Causteau, and the types of reverts being threatened in this discussion happen constantly. The normal reaction of most editors is to avoid editing those articles. I agree with Hans Adler that the problem has been oddly exacerbated by some admin comments which Causteau understands to be supporting of his position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Should that reliable source ever get "deleted one day" from the article, rest assured, it will reappear right back in it in no time. Causteau (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoring a good-faith insertion of a reliable source ... from an instance of bad faith editing whereby some editor removes said reliable source due to, in his words, some non-existent "wording" issue does not qualify as "edit-warring". Causteau (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

...it is not a "good faith edit" to rewrite a phrase which is a direct paraphrase the very word the study itself uses! Causteau (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

...this is not "just about the "idiosyncratic" differences of opinion between of individual editors, not Misplaced Pages rules". I only wish it were. What it really is about is the proposed flouting of Wiki rules. Causteau (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Whilst there does seem to be etiquette issues in the debate, i still maintain that this is down to a content dispute and could be solved using dispute resolution. Third opinions and rfcs will often provide editors with correct interpretations of guidelines and policies leading to a consensus. Saying that the user needs reminding about AGF no personal attacks and edit waring --neon white talk 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You've already provided the solution: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. From my view, the original NWQA tag was correct. -t BMW c- 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On account of the user having now taken his personal attacks to the 3RR board, i have issused a final warning about personal attacks and civility. --neon white talk 13:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil and vitriolic "Angry Mastodon": User:Nukes4Tots

This guy is out of control and needs a breather, if not more significant admonitions from Administrators. See his user page for how he responds to other editors. He reverts comments from his talk pages in an attempt to supress the reproach from other editors who seem to give a damn about civility here. As you will see, he's been blocked before. I'm not the only one. Critical Chris (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 09:31, October 25, 2008 Nukes4Tots (Talk | contribs) (29,126 bytes) (rv: Go fuck yourself with this condescending bullshit. If you're right, Source it.. If not, shut the fuck up.) (undo)

See the discussion here: Talk:B-2_Spirit#Conspiracy_theories and more of his vitriol here: User_talk:Nukes4Tots

Edit comment in question was on my talk page on which Critical Chris posted a duplication of his comment on the B-2 talk page that can be seen here: This was outright condescending and is an escalation of CC's attempt to get a conspiracy theory posted on the B-2 talk page. I freely admit to cussing on a edit comment on my own talk page in response to a spam post. CC is not editing in good faith and his post was tantamount to trolling. Sorry for feeding the trolls. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Also note his testy edit comment (on which my comment was based): . "Add this to your rap sheet guy, you're getting quite the name for yourself aren't you?" Critical Chris is posting this as if my comments came out of nowhere. This is not the case. Further, he calls me a "Mastadon." Is this not also a personal attack? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir, "Mastodon" was not intended as an insult and is a technical reference to: Misplaced Pages:No_angry_mastodons. Before placing this noticeboard posting here, and only after further escalation of uncivility on his part, I warned him already on both the B-2 Spirit talk page, and his personal talk page, which he promptly reverted. I've repasted the text below for reference purposes. I've tried to assure him, this is not a fruitful road and to please consider taking a break and bring himself back to the table when he's ready to edit collaboratively and collectively with other editors.Critical Chris (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC) From your reverted talk page: "Your flippant attitude on B-2 Spirit talk page:" "Looks like you've got quite the rap sheet here on your userpage guy. From the B-2 Spirit talk page: "I'd be remiss If I didn't remind you to WATCH IT! and be careful with your handling of others edits, and of your regard for the contributions of other editors. There are a variety of other editors on here, some newcomers, and you poor attitude which apparently compels you to make thoughtless comments such as "you're wasting server space with this discussion," can only serve to marginalize the collaborative editing process. Keep it up and you'll end up on WP:WQA and other noticeboards. I suggest you take a breather and return to the article when you are in a better frame of mind."Critical Chris (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Then you come back with this: (cur) (last) 09:31, October 25, 2008 Nukes4Tots (Talk | contribs) (29,126 bytes) (rv: Go fuck yourself with this condescending bullshit. If you're right, Source it.. If not, shut the fuck up.) (undo)

BTW, I'm not attempting to post any so-called "conspiracy theory." I did attempt to offer encouragement to other editors who have complained of their edits being reverted. All of my edits are in good faith, I'm not "trolling" or "patrolling" which, in my opinion, is a complete psychological projection on his part (the pot calling the kettle black if you will). The "spam" to which he refers is my repost of Wikipepia guidelines that I recommended he read, which I felt could genuinely help him to become more civil and constructive here. A careful examination of his user talk page history and edits will conclusively show that Nukes4Tots has a history of incivility and disregard for the spirit of collaborative editing, manifold Misplaced Pages policies, and basic common courtesy and ettiquite. LOOK AT HIS TALK PAGE HISTORY, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE. I'm a bit concerned at this point that if he is left unchecked to his own devices and inclinations, this will have a chilling effect on many other editors' and their willingness to make meaningful contributions on Misplaced Pages. Nukes4Tots --will-- continue his anti-social behavior with other editors. It seems the only thing "Nukes4Tots" understands is a shot across the bow. It's time to draw the saber and put him in his place. In the interests of civility and a better Misplaced Pages, we cannot let this BULLY! run rampant as he has telling many others in the future to "shut the fuck up" and stop "wasting server space" making sarcastic comments about "Yiddish BLOG entries," etc. I'm mean really? Is this what you want Misplaced Pages to digress into?Critical Chris (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wishuponsarah

• Wishuponsarah (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)

This user has been war editing the article Physician. He/She neither adds to the discussion/talk page nor cites/sources any of their edits. They have been repetitively vandalizing. Many other users have warned him/her before. Wishuponsarah has been simply blanking the warnings off of their talk page and has continued to edit war and vandalize. Please help us control this user. Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of warnings of your personal Talk page is tacit acceptance of the warning. If it's true vandalism, report them at WP:AIV. If it's 3RR, visit WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR -t BMW c- 11:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution