Revision as of 04:42, 18 November 2010

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

User:Sarujo hounding and threatening me.

User:Sarujo seems to revel in making sanctimonious accusations and overt threats. He recently left this note on my talk page after I politely asked him to stop hounding me, "Excuse you but I haven't been hounding you, this is the first time I've actually come to regarding your delay. And no, this is a serious issue that can only be resolved by your full cooperation with the admins. You're walking a thin line right now, so it's best that follow along. As there's no telling what may become of you. You were asked a question, so it's in your best interest to respond back at WQA. Sarujo (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)" (the link here)

I mean, I dont know what to make of this. He should lay off. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's not a threat. I really didn't know what would become of you if you didn't respond. You're already in hot water. Again, I have not been hounding you, as you so put it. I asked you once to respond. Then you tell me I've been harassing you, so I responded telling you I haven't. Clearly as the record shows you're making something out of nothing. Sarujo (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding. We'll just take care to let the populace sort this out. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not hounding. Sarujo asked you to respond to a question in the thread above. I see you have now finally done so. Can we close this and move on please. Fainites scribs 10:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

... and perhaps modifying one's possibly offensive behaviour might just mean that one would no longer need prods every now and again to reply to civility issues? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Carolyn Baker III has now been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Fainites scribs 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing that struck me as odd about the name: because Carolyn is a female name, and surnames pass through the paternal side of families, it is really possible to have a "Carolyn Baker The Third?" Jus' sayin'... ;> Doc talk 18:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Daicaregos

• Daicaregos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I requested sources on the talk page of Anglophobia after some deleted text was restored. After a discussion with another editor, Daicaregos has resorted to calling me a liar. This comes after a long edit war some time ago in which he, among others, halted the expansion of the article. I would appreciate it if someone would explain to him what it means to assume good faith and to be civil. BillMasen (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wquette people, if you think he did nothing wrong please at least have the courtesy to say so. BillMasen (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

talk page for Theraputic Touch article

• Theraputic touch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Would someone please look at the talk page and monitor it for mutual insults between editors (messages which disregard wp:civil policy). Please see the "Erroneous Article" section for details.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Talk:Therapeutic_touch#Erroneous_Article

Thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutic touch. Seems to be afflicted by SPA, single edit editors complaining about the entire article but not entering discussion, editing or suggesting actual improvements. Don't really see "mutual insults". Perhaps Famousdog's exasperated comment is a tad strongly worded, but understandably so in my view. The complainers are being invited to edit. I'll add it to my watch-list. Fainites scribs 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Things seem quiet here - so probably no need for further monitoring. Thanks for your help. Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace is contagious

• User-multi error: "Peace is contagious" is not a valid project or language code (help).
• Kyle Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.

Belligerent, fairly new editor, User:Peace is contagious, who refuses to adhere to core Misplaced Pages policies, has heaped insult and name-calling against me on his talk page for about the last 24 hours. I've kept my tone professional at User talk:Peace is contagious, and I've asked him not to indulge in his bullying, uncivil behavior. Yet he has not stopped. A sampling:

• u comic-nerds (q.v.) are incorrigibly 'goofy'.
• ...take ur sweet time, Il Duce; I'm sure u get paid more than I, so I would not wish to cut into ur hectic schedule. Forgive my humble obstructions your grace (bows deeply here).
• some jerk who lives in his parents basement @ age 35 ;^)
• great, so ur a cynical old fart, ... ur jealous ?! ... U still read comics @ ur age ?

His behavior is not constructive, and neither are his insults nor his edits — which at least one other editor, independently, has reverted. I beseech someone to please help. He doesn't have a right to verbally abuse other people. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I've notified him (which the reporter should do tsk tsk :>) and hopefully explained why "undoing" edits is not a "misuse of authority". Cheers... Doc talk 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have; you're correct. I did notify him of a Admin Notice Board entry about his multiple vios and belligerence, and forgot to do a second notice.

That said, he's has since name-called me "stubborn," "old" — which is reprehensibly ageist — and "lazy" (which I think my contribution history would belie). I believe he feels he can continue to be verbally abusive. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I put the :> in for a reason - wasn't trying to give you a hard time. Insults are not the only apparent problem with this user, and I've asked him to respond. Hopefully he will. Doc talk 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

He reveals in this edit summary that he is Davidmedlar (talk · contribs), but I don't think it's a sock issue since that account hasn't edited since before the other was created. I think... Doc talk 01:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is now here and here as well. Fainites scribs 12:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Davidmedlar was at ANI here. The edting style is familiar. he also made edits on the Kyle Baker article about Shrek's donkey. As you say - it doesn't seem to be a socking issue but it does mean he is not a new user. Fainites scribs 12:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Untillu loose

• Untillu loose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MillatFacebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just warned the user for his clearly uncivil attack on a user. The content is absolutely irrelevant for an edit summary like that.

Just saw his contribs, and he has serious issues. Lihaas (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked, as a vandalism-only sock puppet. Does the edit summary need to be REVDEL'd? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL the edit summaries in all of his contributions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

24/7 (TV series)

• 109.152.195.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.155.240.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24/7_(TV_series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User_talk:Hholt01#24.2F7 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flagrant PA as well as threeR, vandalism etc. Hholt01 (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the 24/7 (TV series) article, which might put a stop to the nonsense for a while. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster

• Loremaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Technological_utopianism#Dispute_over_new_lead (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I started editing the Article Technological utopianism but Loremaster objected to all my edits. Loremaster previously insulted me during my editing of the Singularitarianism Article, he said I was foolish and should get a life. It seems Loremaster has distinct anti-technology views specifically related to technology making the world a better place. He feels the world is heading for ecological catastrophe. He has been blocked previously on a number of occasions, which I can see: here is one example User_talk:Loremaster/Archive01#October_2010

Currently there is a discussion on-going between myself and Loremaster, which you can read here Talk:Technological_utopianism#Dispute_over_new_lead. The bias of Loremaster is prohibiting my editing of the article. He seems to be using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for his anti-technology agenda.

Here is the previous discussion regarding the insult Loremaster made towards me: "Forgive me for being insulting but if you truly believe the quote by Eliezer is a realistic scenario I regret to inform you that you are foolish and need to get a life."

Some pertinent quotes regarding Loremaster's views relating to the current discussion are as follows:

"I am an optimist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

It seems Loremaster is fighting to promote his views, he seems to be using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. This seems to be a campaign for Loremaster because he wants to avert ecological catastrophe. I feel the Misplaced Pages neutral point of view has not been adhered to.

I look forward to your advice and assistance.

Thank you from User:JackBlack86.173.28.149 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is basically a content dispute, and may be difficult to solve without getting input from other editors. That being said, I am not at all happy with this edit by Loremaster, which reverted a whole series of edits without so much as an edit summary by way of explanation. JackBlack, you need to notify Loremaster of this WQA, or it will simply be a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looie496, although I didn't provide and edit summary, I explained my revert on the Talk:Technological utopianism page. Furthermore, I have repeateadly told JackBlack to discuss substantial changes on that talk page before making them. --Loremaster (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel this is more than a mere content dispute. Loremaster has blatantly insulted me and his insults continue in a indirect manner. I shall mention this WQA to loremaster. user:JackBlack86.135.39.135 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* JackBlack's accusations are so incoherent and ridiculous that I don't think I or anyone else should waste their time taking them seriously. I'll therefore ignore this “alert” debate and go back to doing what I do best: Making sure that the Misplaced Pages articles I watch over are well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A *sigh* too from me. This is a great example of the impoliteness and inability of Loremaster to discuss the issues raised. Looie496 you highlighted how you were not happy with this edit by Loremaster, but Loremaster in his typical manner fails to address that point you raised. He has stormed off in a huff stating he is going to ignore me; and on the Techno-utopia talk page he states: "I've responded to your ridiculous Wikiquette alert and it's the last time that I do." I should add this is the also the first time he has responded. 86.173.28.88 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)JackBlack

Dr.K.

This user has been rather aggressive towards me since Spring 2010, which came up in various circumstances. He initiated multiple ANIs and discussions, trying to intimidate and oppress me. Since he has a high command of Wiki Policies, it's rather difficult to pinpoint a direct blatant incivility in his actions, but there's a lot of pressure coming from him. He removed my polite messages from his talk page multiple times, calling them "hectoring". Since the last time he did this was just a few days ago, I'd like to request assistance of a mediator to somehow try and mitigate the situation. This is not an imperative request, but rather a suggestion if someone would like to have a friendly chat with Dr.K., which might ease his attitude a bit. To make the issue simple and easy to start with, I don't think it is very polite or helpful when my notifications are repeatedly tagged as "hectoring". This is also my first test of how useful and functional this noticeboard can actually be. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This complaint comes from an editor who works on virtually nothing except the article on Prahlad Jani, from what appears to be a somewhat credulous point of view, and is upset because Dr.K. insists on treating as a fringe theory the claim that Jani has lived for many years without eating or drinking anything. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"is upset because Dr.K. insists on treating as a fringe theory the claim that Jani has lived for many years without eating or drinking anything." -- this is not true. I myself said in article discussion that Jani's claims are fringe. but even if it was true, does it justify calling my notifications a "hectoring"? -- Nazar (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"This complaint comes from an editor who works on virtually nothing except the article on Prahlad Jani, from what appears to be a somewhat credulous point of view," -- this isn't true as well. I was involved into editing multiple articles, and even started nearly a dozen of them. Prahlad Jani is my current interest. I always represented a neutral point of view, so Looie496's remark is not very accurate, leaving out the fact that it is also not very polite to evaluate the volume and thematic focus of my contributions this way... -- Nazar (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken you to ANI for incivility multiple times. You keep attacking me on your talkpage but I always try to avoid you so I did not reply in your latest attack against me on your talkpage ironically while you were replying to users McGeddon and Nuujin who came to your talkpage to warn you about civility. Now you come to this board and you don't inform me. As Looie496 correctly states all you do is add SYNTH and OR on Prahlad Jani and Inedia and edit-war against multiple editors and when I come to tutor you about these policies you call it an attack and harassment. You do the same with users McGeddon and Nuujin. I have reported you to User:Prodego multiple times and provided links about your incivility and personal attacks. I have nothing to add here. For anyone interested please go on Prodego's page to read about this saga of personal attacks, false statements and incivility directed toward me. Dr.K.  20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In the link you provided you mentioned: == Skeptic SYNTH == Please kindly avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH into Prahlad Jani article. Your last edits removed reliably referenced factual information. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Your tone in telling me to avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH is reprehensible. Using the verb "push" against other editors is demeaning and incivil. I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me. It was a clear case of SYNTH on your part, yet you chose to come to my talkpage and accuse me of "pushing skeptic SYNTH", but you did not come to the article talk page to reply to my arguments and McGeddon's. I call this harassment. What is "Skeptic SYNTH" anyway? The only SYNTH added in the article is by you and it keeps getting removed by many other editors. If I need any mediation is by someone to save me from your personal attacks and innuendo. Dr.K.  21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that: He initiated multiple ANIs and discussions, trying to intimidate and oppress me. is ridiculous. I did not know that going to ANI is a method of intimidation and oppression, as opposed to say, having valid concerns about your behaviour and wanting to report it. I provided relevant diffs to support my ANI report and by going there I exposed myself to all kinds of criticism if my report was not valid. I did not get any such criticism because my report was well founded. I do not appreciate you coming long after my ANI reports claiming oppression and intimidation. Your claims simply do not ring true and it is more evidence of unfounded accusations on your part. Dr.K.  21:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• When I saw this Wikiquette alert, I went read Talk:Prahlad Jani, and I can fully understand the irritation (I don't see aggression, let alone intimidation) sometimes expressed by the other contributors towards Nazar, who argues his points, big and little, against consensus, with great stubbornness and much repetition. Such editing wastes other people's time woefully. It reminded me of the editor on the Shakespeare pages who has just been given a page ban for a year for Shakespeare pages, "broadly construed", including their talkpages. Perhaps seeking such a ban of Nazar is becoming appropriate here, Dr. K? Especially if you have already initiated a number of ANI threads about his editing. Or possibly an RFC/U, though those are only useful with editors who are somewhat prepared to take community criticism on board. The timewasting aspect struck me forcibly when I saw Nazar declare on the talkpage that he saw editing Prahlad Jani as a bit of a joke:

I also don't really care much about the changes. It's more a game for me. It's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react to ideas which are out of your conventional understanding. In the process of this game I also hope and try to improve Misplaced Pages, but that is a secondary priority for me personally, so, even if all my edits are deleted, that's really not a very big problem ;) -- Nazar 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

That was posted a month ago, and I don't suppose "playing with you sceptic guys" is the way Nazar consistently feels about it; after all, he has been upset enough to write an "alert" here. But if I was one of the editors on the talkpage, I'd still be discouraged by seeing it. For is Nazar's game fun for anybody else? Doubt it. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Nazar, please avoid posting in the middle of my message, as that makes it difficult for readers to figure which of us said what. I've moved your post down here, to preserve the integrity of mine. I hope your message and its purpose remain clear, too. Please note, readers, that what follows is Nazar's comment on the passage by him that I quoted just above, that "it's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react". Bishonen | talk 13:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC). I'd like to comment on that, to avoid misunderstanding. It's just my personal attitude, which, I suppose, is useful in cases when lots of my work invested into an article is removed because of some reasons (valid, or invalid). I believe it's more constructive to see it as a game, rather than make a tragedy out of the difficulties experienced. This 'playing' attitude also proves more productive in many cases, like children find it easier to learn new things and overcome emotional stress when they 'play' with the subject, rather than take it deadly seriously. This attitude is not intended to be a sign of disrespect towards other editors, or their work. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen, I think you are right and more work is needed to avoid further problems. I am an involved editor because, like Dr.K., I oppose the use of Misplaced Pages to promote WP:FRINGE material, and I know of nothing sillier than some versions of the article about Prahlad Jani, who has lived without food and water since 1940 – seventy years without a drink. In the above report by Nazar, the only diff regarding behavior by Dr.K. is this which is given twice ("just a few days ago" and "hectoring" repeat this link). In that diff, Dr.K. removes a message from their talk page with edit summary "Same old hectoring". This is not a kindergarten, and Dr.K. is entitled to revert messages on their talk page, and if Nazar wishes to avoid edit summaries regarding hectoring, they should stop posting messages like "Please kindly avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH into Prahlad Jani article. Your last edits removed reliably referenced factual information. Thanks." on user talk pages when all the user (Dr.K.) has done is to remove yet more self-published hyperbole to promote what is obvious nonsense. Like all good fringe cases, the situation is complicated by the fact that the subject claims to have lived without food and water for seventy years, but the "investigations" are conducted over two weeks. Rather than locking the subject in a room for two months and seeing how he his afterward, the investigations involve multiple interactions with the subject over two weeks. Then lots of mumbo jumbo is written about leptin ... ghrelin ... metabolic waste material ... energy for sustenance ... hydration status, and a lot more pseudo-scientific waffle designed to impress the gullible, which we have so far managed to exclude from the article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you very much Bishonen for your erudite and insightful comments. You expertly captured the essence of my predicament. To reply to your questions: I didn't think that an RFC/U would do much because I don't think that this user would respond to such input. Further even if I initiated an RFC/U regarding this user's conduct, I am fairly certain that there would be a tit-for-tat RFC/U against me from this user. Therefore I counted out this option as counterproductive. RfAr is another option but I try to avoid it as much as possible because it involves, as you know, a lot of time and meticulous preparation. I am impressed that you chose to quote a comment where Nazar mentions that s/he sees this as a game. I had forgotten about that but you make an important observation. As you so aptly mentioned, this may be a game to Nazar but not to me or I imagine to the other editors as well, who have to explain OR and SYNTH issues over and over to this editor since June 2010 till today with reoccurring bouts of SYNTH-laden slow-motion edit-warring, occurring weeks or months apart and always targeting the same issues and the same articles. Not to mention multiple RFC's and reports at ORN, RSN and ANI. I am grateful for your expert input. Take care. Dr.K.  23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly John for taking the time to add your comments. I agree, as usual, with all your well-taken points. It is always nice talking to you. Take care. Dr.K.  23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To summarize this discussion here, I'd like to remind that I did not request any administrative measures taken against Dr.K.. This was just a non imperative request for mediation, and my humble test of how this noticeboard works. Whether Dr.K.'s edits are, or are not a skeptic SYNTH (and I think that some of his edits were an attempt to push a skeptic SYNTH, though that attempt may have been undertaken in good faith), I still don't think that calling my polite message to his Misplaced Pages talk page a "hectoring" is appropriate and fits into the civility rules. Regarding the Prahlad Jani article, I'd like to point out that those most ridiculous versions of the article, including ridiculous fringe claims not supported by any references attributed to serious researchers, were produced by the party which opposes me in the article discussion, and, when I tried to revert those unsubstantiated and disruptive changes, the article was locked and I was accused of editing against consensus. But let's not dwell on this, as I was luckily able to fix many of these problems subsequently, and I hope my opponents were able to see the point and correctness of my edits. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that this request for mediation was attempted based on advice of McGeddon, which recently said: "If you have a problem with other editors' incivility, then by all means attempt to resolve it - here are some pointers for doing so". I'm not inclined to take that offense by Dr.K. very seriously, but, well, I gave it a try, as per McGeddon's advice. Was good to see how it works. -- Nazar (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Bishonen's comments, like "Such editing wastes other people's time woefully." etc., I think this isn't civil as well and is not in accordance with WP:AGF. My time is wasted greatly as well by such non professional editing and tendentious discussions like this one. Please kindly be reminded that I'd like to receive an apology for this derogatory evaluation of my work in Misplaced Pages and my general attitude towards the project. I'd also like to receive such an apology from Looie496 regarding his similarly derogatory general evaluation of my work expressed above, which violates civility rules. Johnuniq's comment that "all the user (Dr.K.) has done is to remove yet more self-published hyperbole to promote what is obvious nonsense" is not professional, and does not correspond to the actual facts. The removed passage wasn't self-published, it was a direct citation from an official statement of researchers recorded and published by press, and claiming it an "obvious nonsense" is a clear-cut case of WP:OR. I'm hopeful more careful examination would reveal the mistakes of my opponents. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is quite a breathtaking example of WP:PETARD. Although Dr.K. can be a little heavy in quoting policy and loudly thanking other editors who are in agreement, in this case it seems to have been provoked by Nazar's consistently aggressive attitude towards anyone who edits the Prahlad Jani article, who he or she lumps together as a "gang of skeptics", making casual bad faith accusations in the majority of talk page posts, and openly laughing at the idea that any of the other editors might be there to improve the article. This makes for a very uncomfortable editing environment, and I can understand if Dr.K. is sometimes a little terse towards Nazar, as a result. If the worst incivility on record is a single edit summary that used the word "hectoring" when deleting a talk page accusation of "pushing skeptic SYNTH", then I admire Dr.K's restraint.

If anyone here needs advice in basic Misplaced Pages etiquette, it would seem to be Nazar - last week, he or she chose to reject polite WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL reminders as "baseless accusations" (seemingly on the grounds that other editors also deserved the same reminders). That Nazar is now demanding apologies over perceived WP:AGF breaches from Wikiquette commenters who have remarked critically on his or her behaviour suggests a very flawed interpretation of Misplaced Pages etiquette policies, and one that needs addressing. --McGeddon (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the context of Bishonen's comments, as you have not provided a link or a diff, but the statement you cited does not contravene AGF - she indicated that the editing wastes other peoples' time, not that your intention was to do so. Based only on what's been said at this page, I see no need for either her or Looie496 to apologize. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)::Thank you, Nikkimaria; I don't see any need for it either. Nazar, I note you want both the outside, uninvolved reviewers — Looie496 and me — who have commented on the "alert" you posted, to apologise to you for the nature of our comments. But if you take somebody, in this case Dr. K. to some board — ANI, WQA, RFC, RFAR, whatever — and complain of them, your own demeanor will naturally also be scrutinised. You are mistaken in believing that frank commentary which you have by implication requested yourself (by posting at this board) violates WP:CIVIL; it does not. Don't use these venues if you don't want to risk having your work and your attitude criticised. I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I don't have an apology for you. I spent some time on this (reading a long unfunny talkpage) and summarised what I found. That's what I'm supposed to do. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

• We don't normally give out sanctions at this page, but I'll drop a hint that one particularly stubborn, shall we say tendentious, editor is likely to get a topic ban at minimum if this editing pattern is reported at WP:ANI. Shall that be the next step? Jehochman 13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do you see where I have already suggested the same thing, Jonathan? Bishonen | talk 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

• Ok. Thanks everyone for the input. I might agree or disagree with particular points expressed here, but for the moment I don't seem to receive much support from this noticeboard, so there's probably not much sense in continuing the topic. The use of WP:PETARD was very cleverly suggested by McGeddon, but well, thanks for the experience. Regarding Prahlad Jani article, I don't think we have a major problem at this moment and the article wasn't the main point of my original message here. But, if some of the editors feel that topic ban can benefit the editing environment, I encourage you to follow the appropriate procedure. I can only add that most of the referenced information for this article was provided by me, and it was me who started this article. The editors who oppose me mostly modified the available info (often just messed it up) to better reflect the points they defended. I also think that an editing environment, in which editors representing somewhat alternative views are excluded from the editing process, does not benefit the neutrality and completeness of the article content. But, of course, you may think differently. Thanks so far. -- Nazar (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• @"your own demeanor will naturally also be scrutinised" and "Don't use these venues if you don't want to risk having your work and your attitude criticised" -- I don't mind someone criticizing my work, demeanor and attitude. Moreover, I greatly welcome it, since I attempt to gradually improve these and other aspects of my activity. However, I feel it is my right to point out some deficiencies of the respective criticism, as well as its one-sided, tendentious and inaccurate nature. Of course, some aspects of the criticism are definitely worthwhile considering, and I'll do take them into account. Thanks again, and the apologies I requested can still be provided at a later point, if respective users become ripe enough to provide them. I can also add that regardless of my own faults, it is usually expected from more experienced advice-givers and administrators, as well as from the kind minders of such noticeboards, to behave in a more mature and delicate way. Being ready to apologize for caused offense (regardless of who's right and who's wrong) is one of expressions of such maturity and expertise in dealing with difficult situations. -- Nazar (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow up

Some follow up will be needed to monitor Prahlad Jani and Inedia because it is easy to add mumbo jumbo to lend an air of authority to the claims that certain people can live indefinitely without food or drink. There is a serious problem with the way WP:IRS can be interpreted in a case like this because there is an institute which has "investigated" Jani, with an enthusiastic supporting doctor (see this page on the doctor's website for text like "Can you imagine a human being staying alive & doing all routine activities even at age of 70, just by Sungazing – i.e – Surviving on cosmic – Solar energy"). Then, media outlets join the fun by repeating the claims, and editors can use all this as sources to add tidbits to the articles. By contrast, no reliable scientific source would bother taking the time to refute the nonsense. I have tried to argue that WP:PARITY means that sources like this should be permitted to refute obvious nonsense, but strict application of WP:IRS rules that out (see RSN discussion). Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent ideas but this is not the only problem. Even discounting your well made points about the media-circus and the weird medical theories surrounding the practitioners involved in this research, I think we are facing a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problem of monumental proportions. The edit-warring to add this SYNTH and OR into these articles has been a lengthy affair spanning a period of many months. It is tiring to keep cleaning this up every time it flares up. Just looking at the edit histories of these two articles reveals the amount of edit-warring and SYNTH these articles have gone through. It is about time something was done about it. Dr.K.  23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps to follow up Jehochman's suggestion? A report for long term edit warring at ANI? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

e/c. Agree with Elen (ahem, that was my suggestion, repeated by J.) Dr.K., nothing is going to be done about it unless the editors of the article — say, you, or McGeddon, or Nuujinn — do it. You can see several people above suggesting that it's time for a page ban. ANI would be the place to propose that, if you guys are up for it, and if you think now is a good time. After all, one can hope that Nazar's editing style is about to improve spontaneously; it's always possible that the advice on this page has, despite appearances, given him something to think about. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Thank you Elen and Bishonen for the suggestion. Going to ANI may be one option which could bring some resolution to this problem. It may take some time though to present a clear case and to gather all the facts and diffs. It would be a time-consuming task. Dr.K.  00:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The ANI report is here. Dr.K.  04:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Historical figures sometimes considered autistic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently, I have begun attempting to fix what I see as many problems in the article Historical figures sometimes considered autistic (including changing much of the format in order to try to make adding evidence easier, trying to eliminate words on the MoS words to watch such as "speculated" and trying to make the article more neutral). SandyGeorgia disagrees with many of the changes I have made and I feel has violated Wikiquette in expressing her disagreement.

On the talk page, SandyGeorgia constantly assumes bad faith: "the editor who requested it hasn't read sources and is filling the article with original research at this moment."

A point of particular contention with her was my removal of the following sentence from the article: "Fred Volkmar, a psychiatrist and autism expert and director of the Yale Child Study Center says, "There is unfortunately a sort of cottage industry of finding that everyone has Asperger's.""

Since there was no follow-up on Volkmar's quote (he, in fact, appeared nowhere else in the article) I felt this was poisoning the well and violated NPOV. SandyGeorgia disagreed because Volkmar (according to her) is "one of the world's leading autism experts".

When I admitted that I was unfamiliar with Volkar's work and asked her what qualified him as "one of the world's leading autism experts," she offered no explanation of who he is, instead responding "If you've never heard of him, that would explain some of the issues you've introduced into this article. Have you actually read any of the sources you removed or minimized?"

She also accused me of biasedly promoting the views of Michael Fitzgerald, despite the fact that I did not introduce his presence to the article and eventually greatly reduced it.

She refers to the article with my changes as "unintelligible" and "deteriorated" saying "I can't see how to repair what's here now."

In the articles of deletion entry for the article (Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Historical_figures_sometimes_considered_autistic), SandyGeorgia refers to me as "uninformed", refers to the current version of the article with my changes as "damaged" and says "Looks to me like the nominator here didn't bother to glance at the talk page... would have been good of the nominator to review the talk page."

As a person with Asperger syndrome, I recognize that there are many people out there who feel that any display of autism as something other than a pandemic cannot possibly have value, but I feel that SandyGeorgia has used her personal views as an excuse to uncivilly attack me personally. May Cause Dizziness (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you need to notify SandyGeorgia of this thread, even though you mentioned it here: see the top of the page on that, as it's a courtesy we must extend to other editors. Secondly, I personally am not seeing any personal attacks with what you've shown. She seems to be commenting on your edits: and "uninformed" is not saying the same thing as saying "You're an ignorant person", e.g. I don't know, MCD - hopefully this can be worked out easily. Cheers :> Doc talk 00:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What about assuming good faith?--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm assuming good faith in both of you: I just don't see any personal attacks from what you're showing here. If you have more evidence, you should provide it in "diff" form, and then others can see what you are referring to. I see you've notified her (excellent): this should move along soon. Cheers :> Doc talk 01:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps not personal attacks, but certainly incivility. From Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying_incivility, "The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment... ill-considered accusations of impropriety... belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")" Certainly, you can recognize her comments as belittling?--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of editors here can be a bit "brusque" from time to time (myself certainly included): it's the price we all pay for editing a community encyclopedia, with a huge variety of different personalities, opinions and specialties. Is she going to be punished for "incivility" because of this report? No. I'm seeing a few other editors telling you the same thing: you need to work out your issues on the talk pages of the articles you are both editing. There are a ton of policies and guidelines to be familiar with, and they change, too. Also see WP:BOOMERANG: it happens all the time. Talk about it on the talk pages: WP:AN/I is the place to seek sanctions, but you don't want to go there, I trust. Cheers :> Doc talk 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: SandyGeorgia has twice tried to revert Historical figures sometimes considered autistic before consensus was reached. When I changed back her reverts she placed the edit war warning template on my talk page.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And it was right for Sandy to do so. If members of WP will look at the AfD in question I think you'll see who is really violating WP:CIVIL in this instance. 124.180.208.132 (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Have you read WP:BRD? It seems you have significantly changed an article that has been reasonably stable for months, and you should be discussing your proposals on the article talk page. It is standard for such changes to be reverted during the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(multiple ec) It is generally the responsibility of the editor adding material to get consensus. If you add something to an article and it is reverted, you need to get consensus before re-adding it. Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding about how wikipedia works and you should try pinging SG on her talk page. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy's not doing anything wrong. She may come across as harsh to you, but she's simply following policy. The Utahraptor/_Contribs 03:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have time for this tonight, but Dizziness has submitted an SPI on me with an IP from Australia ... since most of the CUs know my IP and where I live, that should be fun :) It looks like I'm being hounded, and Dizziness doesn't seem to want to respect talk page consensus :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen an SPI or two that "sat" for while; and that report doesn't look like its gonna be anything like that. Toss!... whoosh whoosh whoosh whoosh...WHAP!!! Doc talk 05:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Catching up now (was very busy with something else): Dizziness is now blocked for edit warring, and the SPI will sit there until ... whenever :) I'm afraid I don't know how to get Dizziness to read talk page comments or understand policy, but clearly no one on talk agrees with his changes. The article was so damaged that someone came across it and submitted it to AFD (apparently without reading the talk page, where they would have realized that there was a good and well-sourced version) before I had time to get back to it ... although I'm not sure I could have done anything to salvage it if I had gotten back to it, because Dizziness doesn't seem to follow what's written on talk, but is willing to edit war in changes without gaining consensus on talk. I'm going to be traveling the rest of the week, so will see how the article is when I get back, although I will have some internet access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The SPI is closed. Marking as resolved. Next time, kiddies ;> Doc talk 05:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

See? Who says WQAs never result in anything... Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) No More Mr Nice Guy, is trying to discredit me in discussions. He openly (using diff) pointed out to my previous mistake of using unrealible source in another article. (The non-RS was deleted as soon as I was told that it is not reliable.) I have tried to resolve the dispute and asked the editor to remove the discrediting edit which I found to be contrary to the WP:CIV.. The comment he made has certainly been done NOT in a good faith. The editor refused to comply with my request . I find it very disturbing when an editor is trying to discredit other editors in discussions. I would like that the editor removes his comment from the talk page and be warned to stick to civility.-- Jim Fitzgerald 04:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor is not required to remove his comment from the article's talk page. The comment is a record of the actual discussion, and serves as proof that you were told that the website is an unreliable source. In a couple of months, the whole discussion will be moved to the archive, where no one will find it without looking for it.

In the meantime, please remember that everyone makes mistakes on Misplaced Pages, and there's no shame in having made a mistake that you promptly and willingly corrected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The comment realistically wasn't that bad. NMMG could strike them out if you have expressed concern with them to be decent. Unfortunately, the it was so trivial compared to other editors in the topic area that it is doubtful that anything will (or should) be done. If you take issue with it I recommend you see the arbitration decision and ask admins why they are not enforcing decorum (4.1.2). It is easy to make a poor comment when there is obviously a problem (he didn't make it because you are doing a stellar job here) since it is assumed that anything goes since other editors are infinitely worse in there incivility.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing do you think that the editor was assuming a good faith? Pls also keep in mind, that the comment was made in different article in different discussion page. So the comment was not relevant as such in that very discussian page. Just imagine a case when editor goes to various discussion pages and in every and each case reminds an editor not to make the mistakes that he/she did.-- Jim Fitzgerald 09:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my comment was uncivil. Jim was using sources incorrectly, I gave an example of previous (pretty egregious) such behavior. The diff doesn't make it uncivil, on the contrary making accusations without supporting diffs is uncivil. At least that's my understanding of how things work around here. I'm open to being corrected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why you have chosen to go into conflict about this, nonetheless your refusal to delete the discrediting edit tells that it was not done in good faith. You could have said "pls stick to RS", but you have chosen to mention specifically (Historical Boys' Clothing) source, and your sarcastic tone was influenced by this edit, which makes it worse. You had no reason to "remind" me about the unrealiable source, because I have taken your comments and agreed with you that a number of your claims are substantated and that I will be addressing them. So, you had no reason to repeat your comment once more in a totally different article's talk page] and you did it in a rude language (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AHuman_rights_in_Israel&action=historysubmit&diff=397137477&oldid=397132347 ("I find some consolation in the fact that at least this time you weren't using the Historical Boys' Clothing site as a source").-- Jim Fitzgerald 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you said you'll address my comments, and then went ahead and made several contentious edits to the article (one using a self-published source) that did not address a single one of the detailed points I made. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it mean that you demand me to make edits which would satisfy your standing? And if there not, then it called "a contentious edit? This is not simply way Wiki works, there are always different opinions, and the only way to deal with them, is to discuss the views in civility and come to the consensus. Violent reverts of edits is not a solution.-- Jim Fitzgerald 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also I have to report here that you have directed a personal threat against me. Your statement:

"I then reverted your edits, and will continue to do so when you continue to violate policy."

Whereas it is duty of all editors to revert, discuss, or report any violation of Wikirules, in the context of our discussion on the topic on your talk page, your statement is clearly a threat directed against me personally (WP:PERSONAL, WP:CIV). Your ground assumption that I am and will be intentionally violating Wikirules, this is contrary to WP:AGF.-- Jim Fitzgerald 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained to you on my talk page, that is not a threat. I also made no comment on whether you're violating policy intentionally or not, although I find it hard to believe an editor with 2000+ edits doesn't know that Historical Boys' Clothing is not a reliable source for almost anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jim Fitzgerald - I don't think you're going to get anywhere here. These look like mildly aggressive comments from a typically aggressive editor. Not worth arbitrating over. NickCT (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to wonder if calling people "a typically aggressive editor" is considered acceptable behavior on WQA. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Aggression includes a tenacity to pick fights No More Mr Nice Guy. This isn't the first time you've got into these kind of disputes. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is the first time I've been reported here, but nice try. Are you aware that accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are a violation of WP:NPA? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

1) When I said "these kind of disputes" is wasn't referring to "Wikiquette alerts", 2) Do you not feel that it's slightly ironic that when I say "picking fights is aggressive" you get all litigious and say "accusations about personal......violation of WP:NPA". That doesn't appear to you to perhaps be confirmation of what I'm saying? NickCT (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of things I find ironic here. 1) That you chose WQA of all places as a venue for your personal attacks. 2) That you're trying to pick a fight (or was there another reason you added a personal attack to your comment?) by accusing me that I like to pick fights. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

All right No More Mr Nice Guy. Have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ranp

• Ranp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Association_for_Renaissance_Martial_Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and talk page)

User Ranp has been a Misplaced Pages editor for years. I recently edited the article relating to a group he belongs to, to add significant recent historical detail (in as neutral a manner as I could). I am somewhat concerned that has chosen to revert my additions with no further explanation than "stop vandalizing the article with that Schism BS". I do not personally think this edit is vandalism, but I wrote it. I am attempting to reason with him on the talk page, but it is difficult as he seems to think I am "hostile" towards the organization in question. I would appreciate any advice on how I can improve my efforts to interact with this user. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's a reliable source that supports the material about the schism there isn't really a reason for either of you to be talking to eachother. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the only sources which talk about the organization in question on that article are from the organization's own website. In other words, the entire article lacks reliable sources, more or less. It is notable that Ranp is not arguing about the veracity of the event in question; he is arguing about its relevance. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution