Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive28

Recent discussion on my talk page
The entire discussion is 4 pages in word by now, so please refer to this section of my user page for the [complete version]

In short this is what happend(From my point of view, of course): During my regular vandalism patrol i spotted an edit that,in my eyes, was vandalism. The edit consisted the word "Scumbag" next to the name of an person. Also, the word "Too" was spelled as "Tioo" and the comment was made on a user page, leading me to think this was user page vandalism. I reverted the edit, and placed a level 3 vandalism warning on the users page. About 30 minutes later the exact same edit was made again, and i again reverted it and placed a level 4 warning on the users page(Uknown to me to be precise, as i forgot it was me who warned him before).

The response i got to this was the fist post in the long discussion on my user page. I deemed the response rather, if not very rude, and responded with a "more annoyed then polite" response to the users inquiry. Minutes later the owner of the user page comes around, and claimed (Again rather rude, in my opinion) that i made a wrong accusation here. I also made a response to this user, which was certainly more friendly then the previous one. When actually reading it thouroughly i decided to leave a little notice stating that i thought it was getting rather personal.

The responses after that can be described as a "Name and Blame" from the editors side, and a "Defend and counter" from my side. Claims from their side began to include that i threated a respected editor with blocking, something that was appaling, and that the origional commenter obviously had the right to feel insulted. The counters from my side mainly were that it wasn't intentional, and that (in more polite words) there shouldnt be such a fuss about it.

The next comment was actually the most(And anout the only) useful one, and came from a colleague reverter, Philip Trueman. Philip took a very neutral stance and indeed noted that i made a misjudgement here, but also offered advice that could prevent this from happening in the future. For me this was actually a big cheer up, which caused my next comment to be a lot more like my usual "Happy Dappy" style of commenting. The last two responces are actually the ones that caused me to post here:

''*There's no need to cut slack. He made a mistake. When I pointed it out, all he had to do was check it and say "oops, sorry" instead of reverting me again and issuing a second template. This debate is really pointless, and a real waste of time. Sure, busy vandal-fighters will make 1-2% mistakes, whatever. All they need to do is be humble enough to acknowledge it when it happens, and move on. It's the self-righteous twiddle and the "no one understands us vandalfighters, we're the front line" crap that gets me. Most of us old hands, myself included, were fighting vandals before you knew what wikipedia was. Move on.--Docg 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)''

(Responce transcluded from users take page, where it was removed in [This] revision) ''I have not got the time or patience for this nonsense. While working on a serious project to reduce libels on this encyclopedia, on a user's talk page, I happened to express my subjective opinion that a neo-nazi was a scumbag. Well yes, I think neo-nazis are scumbags. I think Le Pen is an idiot. I think Nick Griffin is positively evil - a prat, a dangerous lunatic. Are you going to call that vandalism. Now go away, play with your scripts, follow your logic with your brain in neutral, and stop wasting my time.--Docg 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC) '''

Since this involves 4 editors, i have a few questions, mainly to question my own behavior and handling in this:  (Yes, i understand that my vand3 warning at once was not the best move, and was actually not justified) - Were the two "attacking" editors comments ok, a little rough, or just plain rude? - Did the origional editor really have the right to react like this, especially at the last two comments? - Was my first comment along with the vand3 to strong, and was it perhaps the reason this ignited into a flame war? - In my opinion i stayed rather polite. But thats just me judging myself. Whats your thought, did i stay polite, or were my responses also flames?

Thanks in advance for your assistance! -- Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole thread would have stopped right there if you had admitted that you did make a mistake. I like how you were able to stay polite (and use smilies haha), but it really was a misunderstanding that everyone could have avoided. In a similar circumstance I think you would have responded as Doc did. ALTON   .ıl  21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not a neutral editor, but I'll give my 2 cents for the next time: when you use Lupin's RC Tool, reverting from it is okay, but then always double check your revert before issuing the warning. If you're not 100% sure, don't template (especially when a quick glance at the user talk shows that this is not some child vandal). Yes this is sometimes a loss of time, but it's a small price to pay compared with all the time you "lost" here arguing. Keep in mind that for a newbie, a non warranted template can be very bitey, and we don't want to drive contributors away, do we? (By the way, NPA is for attacks against editors, not people outside WP). -- lucasbfr talk 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you both for your advice regarding this matter. Its indeed true that i should have been more careful when posting the templates. The warning level was way to high for a "First vandalism", which is something i still cant explain. I still believe that Doc should have posted a more polite first responce, but then again: My responce to his post was also not exactly the most polite post ever. I think that if we both kept it a little more professional this would have been very easy to avoid/solve, but alas, we didn't. Guess this is just a nice example to remember for the future :) -- Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between users regarding pages on Korean Universities -pers. attacks, incivility
Users: Epthorn and Patriotmissile

Pages involved: Talk pages of users, and following articles:


 * 1) Korea_University (talk page and very recent edits)


 * 2) Sungkyunkwan_University (talk page)


 * 3) SKY (universities) (Talk page, bottom)

I do not want to go into detail here (for neutrality's sake) but this is a conflict I am afraid my end up moving from the talk pages to the actual articles. I hope this will provide some help of an informal nature. Especially useful would be some help from users who cannot be accused of puppetry, etc because of their long wiki histories. I would be tempted to just leave the issue alone but since there are few users interested I think there is little chance the articles would be improved.

I apologize for the general scope of the request, it does stretch across several articles- if someone would like me to explain reasoning or establish a better timeline, please let me know via my talk page. Thanks for any help you can provide. Also sorry for the format, I'm not yet particularly good at linking within wikipedia. Epthorn 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Epthorn - I'd like to help, but I would really appreciate it if you would summarize the conflict, and maybe provide some representative diffs. It's pretty overwhelming to jump in there without context.  If you're worried about neutrality, just be as neutral as you can; we're pretty experienced at cutting through non-neutral content summaries anyway. Sarcasticidealist 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've posted a calm down message here to see if people will stop slinging around blatant insults. I'll wait on a summary before doing anything else though -- B figura (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I will try and summarize the situation as best I can, and then see if I can figure out the diffs (I've not had to do this before)

-I read through Korea University's wiki page and thought it looked like an advert and was not NPOV. Overall I considered the article to be a poor example of what an encyclopedia should look like, so I decided to remark this on the talk page. I also added a "POV" tag to the page.

-User Patriotmissile seemed to immediately believe I was a puppet of another user, "Brincos." He continues to accuse me of this, despite my requests for him to take it up with an admin. Believing that I am from another University in Korea trying to vandalize Korea University's website, he has made several veiled threats to "edit" that article in kind (my characterization of 'threats' is, of course, my own).

-Patriotmissile also brought me up on the Sungkyunkwan_University page. At that point I got annoyed that he was misquoting me as an excuse to make edits there.

-Patriotmissile and I also clashed on the SKY (universities) page even though I basically agreed with him (at least insofar as I thought the page should exist). He still remarked that I was a puppet for Brincos. I'm not sure how much of this is miscommunication, but I haven't had much luck clearing it up and it's making editing difficult.

Now that you've heard my 'side', please give me a few minutes and hopefully I can provide the specifics in terms of "diffs" Epthorn 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry if this is a poor format, but here is one example I found particularly unnecessary as P.M. tried to misquote me on a page and then tried to blackmail me by threatening another University's article (which he has since marked as POV in the last few minutes). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASungkyunkwan_University&diff=166315966&oldid=157049751

Here is the infamous "dog" statement. Please judge for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APatriotmissile&diff=165811617&oldid=165361250

Finally, if you look at this page you can see what started all this. I cannot quite get the diffs right for this one, sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korea_University#POV.2FNeutrality_redux

Those are somewhat extensive diffs, and there are more. Many, many more. All basically follow the same pattern though... I'm a puppet from some other Korean university who should leave the country. Anyway, I hope this helps a little. Epthorn 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And now, since it's 7am in Korea, I should be getting to bed. Please let me know via my talk page especially if there's anything further I can do later. Hopefully I've roused enough 3rd parties that a consensus will eventually be possible (it's hard with 2 people who simply don't agree). Epthorn 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the diffs - those are very helpful. I agree that User:Patriotmissile has been behaving uncivilly.  I'll leave him/her a polite note, and see where things go from there. Sarcasticidealist 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hope that is the end of it. The user apologized for the allegations of puppetry. Hopefully this will result in a more productive edit discussion, especially with some new blood. Unless it attracts sharks. This was a useful board, hopefully I can pay it back as I gain experience. Thanks again, Epthorn 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and meatpuppeteering
Several users: ForeignerFromTheEast, Laveol, GriefForTheSouth, Lantonov and Jingiby are jointly involved in a systematic pro-Bulgarian pov pushing, specificaly in the articles related to Republic of Macedonia or Ethnic Macedonians. Also, in numerous cases, they provide (or advocate) highly questionable sources like private Bulgarian nationalist websites, such as in Krste Misirkov, or private blogs, as in ITRO, or in many cases- no sources at all. Some "sources": private website, again, personal blog, geocities page, some strange word document etc. One of the most blatant cases, is what can be seen at the National Liberation War of Macedonia which almost turned into their political pamphlet. Some of the statements that they've added there can be considered as espousing neonazi ideas ("the German and the Bulgarian WWII armies were greeted by the population in the occupied areas" and such), and a blatantly biased book published by the Axis Bulgarian military in 1941 is used as a "source" there. They have also turned the corresponding talk page into a mockery of the subject the article deals with. Another important case is what is happening with Kiro Gligorov. They insist on keeping some highly controversial Bulgarian nationalist sources in a living persons biography. I've also noted tendentious behaviour in Tose Proeski and on its talk page. In certain cases there is also a mild level of personal attack or cynicism. Another problem is Makedonsko Devoiche, a song article created a while ago which they have rewriten to suit their agenda. I contested their unsourced statements, and in return, ForeignerFromTheEast having no valid counter-arguments decided to nominate it for deletion. However, before i showed up to contest the article and while it represented a Bulgarian POV, he didnt have a problem with its existence. Same scenarios have already happened in the past. Also, numerous times some of these editors revert some valid edits, and sometimes their edit summaries are fake (for example rv vandalizm when there is no real vandalizm, probably to mislead an eventual recent changes patroler). Once I was reverted for "forking" in Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo although I provided sources and explanation to justify the renaming (redir) of the page. Also, some of them frequently move their usernames to new ones: ForeignerFromTheEast has been formerly named Mr. Neutron, while GriefForTheSouth has been formerly Jackanapes, Wickedpedian and Vulgarian. I contacted one the editors on these issues already. Dzole 10:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthon Eff: Name calling and general bad faith
Anthon Eff seems to resort to name calling, general bad faith, and violations of WP:Wikiquette when he gets into disagreements with other editors.

I have been involved in a content dispute in the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics articles over the prize in economics not being a Nobel Prize. Even though the Nobel Foundation and the Secretary of the Economics Prize Committee (the committee that selects the laureates for the economics prize)   have stated that the prize in economics is not a Noble Prize, there are editors who still believe it is. Disputes involving Anthon Eff related to this topic are:


 * 1) (2007-10-03) accusation of an "ill-concealed political agenda": Anthon Eff claimed that "some editors on one side of a debate have an ill-concealed political agenda", directed towards Tkynerd who also concluded that the economics prize is not a Nobel Prize.
 * 2) (2007-10-12) accusation of having a sockpuppet: Anthon Eff accused Lensor of being my sockpuppet, since we held the same opinions and brought up similar arguments.
 * 3) (2007-10-29) accusation of being a communist: Anthon Eff has claimed that those who change the articles to reflect that the prize in economics is not a Nobel Prize are on a "campaign to make the English WP conform to the position of the Swedish Communist Party."   Lensor approached Anthon Eff on his talk page about being called a communist and how it violated WP:NPA, and Anthon Eff clarified that he specifically meant me.
 * 4) (2007-11-03) removal of cited text: Anthon Eff removed a large portion of cited text stating "There was no consensus for the change in introduction, despite extensive talk page discussion".  However, there is also no consensus for keeping the text as is.

Anthon Eff has also been in a content dispute with Nastykermit about slanderous text in the biography of a living person, Johan Galtung. Nastykermit has removed the slanderous text while Anthon Eff has restored it.


 * 1) (2007-11-02) "angry boy alone in his room in Norway":  In one edit summary, Anthon Eff stated some snide comments in Danish, which another editor translated  as "Reinstating text extinguished by an angry boy alone in his room in Norway".  The comment was directed at Nastykermit.
 * 2) (2007-11-04) accusation of stalking: I noticed the Johan Galtung thread in the BLP noticeboard and checked on the dispute.  After posting my comment to the noticeboard, Anthon Eff claimed that I was stalking him

I don't know what can be done about this editor's behavior. Suggestions? –panda 05:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He has also been canvassing for support for his views. // Liftarn

I have left a note asking him to be civil. I will point out that changes require consensus, while "keeping the text as is" does not. However, this does not excuse incivility. --Cheeser1 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting the notice. I also noticed more bad faith towards the editors who are simply trying to keep the facts straight in the Nobel Prize in Economics article from his canvassing note:
 * (2007-11-07) accusation that "the apparent aim of making the prize look illegitimate" and "it is clear that they dislike mainstream economics".
 * Only one editor (SlaineMacRoth) has written a criticism about mainstream economics in the article and that editor isn't even involved in this issue with the first paragraph. Also the Nobel Prize in Economics article has always contained that it "is awarded each year for outstanding contributions in the field of economics. The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics".  So I have no idea where those accusations came from. –panda 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Judaism dispute and possible POV fork
There is an ongoing dispute over whether to use "Progressive" or "Reform" Judaism terminology. Three active editors are advocating for Progressive Judaism. (Egfrank, Jheald, A Sniper) They are knowledgeable and well-intentioned. They have raised their concerns in several settings, including WP:JUDAISM and WP:CSB. However, they have recently started adding to the Progressive Judaism article with content that, I believe, properly belongs in Reform Judaism. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, I've tried to explain (at Talk:Progressive Judaism) that it is important to avoid a POV fork and not duplicate content and coverage on this topic. However, I need some outside assistance in either explaining the POV fork issue with them, explaining to me that I'm wrong, and/or ensuring that they discontinue the effort to gain their objective via (arguably disruptive) editing. Most recently, Jheald just created a new POV fork by outright copying material from Reform Judaism into German Reform movement (Judaism). Plus, now the moved materials is deleted from Reform Judaism. I did an AfD and will revert, but this is time consuming. I'm sure they mean well, but it's very disruptive that they don't believe me about POV content forks. HG | Talk 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Posted some concise evidence at the AfD on the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) The "outright copying" HG refers to is not a POV fork. It's a straightforward start at moving to "summary style" for article Reform Judaism.  There are some very valid reasons for "summary style" there:
 * The article was considerably over-length, so summary style is recommended.
 * Summary style allows the Reform Judaism article move much more quickly to where things are at today, as WP articles on religious movements should do, rather than many many screens of history first.
 * Having a separate article on German Reform movement (Judaism) is a good idea in its own right, as there are a lot of articles on e.g. German reformers which can now link to the appropriate subject matter directly.
 * This is entirely orthogonal to any question of whether to call anything "Progressive" or "Reform". Creating German Reform movement (Judaism) makes sense in its own right. Jheald 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I second User:HG's request [for some external input -JH]. HG clearly means well, but HG's current behavior is coming across as disruptive to a clean-up process that had the agreement of 3 editors who carefully research and cite sources and have a good feel for the scope of the material and what is needed to manage it effectively (see []).  In addition to the AFD, User:HG has
 * deleted cited material from Progressive Judaism.
 * copied/paraphrased material from Progressive Judaism into Reform Judaism, thereby increasing the risk of the content/POV fork which he so fears and does not trust the existing editors to avoid.
 * We need help so that edits can proceed without disruption. Egfrank 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the second. I now want to add that the "Progressive" editors also removed from Reform Judaism and created Reform Judaism (United States) without discussing this, for instance, on WP:Judaism where such major moves are reviewed. HG | Talk 20:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * HG - take a look at the WP:CSB page - I think you even agreed to it over there - though to be honest right now I'm too tired to check... But really - don't you think it is a good thing that Reform Judaism (North America) has some breathing room to grow? Egfrank 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The creation of these articles is legitimate at this time when there are active editors who wish to expand and research the articles. There is no need to raise the decibels here. Let everyone get on with editing and writing. Thanks, IZAK 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though perhaps this might be a good locale to discuss issues of cooperation and relationships, while we pursue content dispute on the relevant article (or project) talk pages. HG | Talk 01:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Lactose_intolerance
Specifically, here. User:Tallard started out running against guidelines and editing and using strikethrough on my comments, and then has continued to claim what he did was right and now claiming that my comment should be deleted. After being warned about WP:CIVIL and this specific section things are only getting worse. I don't want this issue to continue and want to step out, but I'd also like it to be clear to him that this is unacceptable behaviour so that he doesn't continue with someone else. Therefore I'd appreciate if someone outside of the situation would take a look and weigh in impartially. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 13:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have left him a note. --Cheeser1 16:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd. He removed my note from his talk page but then added it back by undoing his own edit. I don't know what to make of that. --Cheeser1 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's deleted it again, without comment. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:LtWinters
This user who no longer edits Wiki continuously adds personal attacks against Wiki editors in general and the Wiki project into his user page and user talk page. I have removed them several times and given WP:NPA warnings as well as citing WP:USER but he logs back into his account solely to revert back to the personal attacks. See the attacks at: and  --Strothra 00:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This user appears to have been blocked indefinitely. Jame§ugrono 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia
This user is abusive, adopts a confrontational stance at all times, and makes the experience of editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for others. This is a long-running low-level irritation at the Cyprus page, and I would ask interested editors to refer directly to both the talk page and to the edit summaries on the article history: similar issues can be seen at Geography of Mexico, Metropolis, North America, and so on. It is not a question of accuracy, but of incivility (and, on a side note, an insistence on incorrectly marking changes as "minor"). I and others have repeatedly requested that the user abide by the usual WP:CIVIL guidelines, but he refuses to do so. I note from his contributions history that he is engaged in similar low-level unpleasantness on several other geographical articles, involving many other editors: this reassures me that, while my own behaviour is certainly not perfect, I am not alone in finding Corticopia a disruptive and aggressive presence. An experienced administrator's intervention would be useful here. Thanks, Vizjim 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, since he created that account he's being contributing mostly to Mexico-related topics, for reason that couldn't explain in one paragraph but if you check his record you'll see what I mean, I myself have had countless confrontations with him, usually reverting my changes with the excuse of NPOV, and it's not just me, users Jcmenal and AlexCovarrubias (who's been absent for a while) have had the exact same problem, Alex even suspected he was a sock of a previous user that was banned, he even has some evidence but for some reason nothing happened, I would really like the intervention of an administrator here, he uses profanity and uncivil manners and it should not be toletared in Wikipedia, there has been too many warnings for him. Supaman89 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This should be at either WP:AIV or WP:AN/I, this user has been blocked far too many times for this to be simply a matter of incivility - there are plain, obvious, disruptive edits.Jame§ugrono 05:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User: Fridae'sDoom
When doing my new page patrol I checked one article out and found that this new user had posted this in a article he/she had created. I then moved it off of the article to the talk page, I think the user should be given some type of warning, but I don't know which one to give him/her VivioFa  teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This doesn't need to be here. A simple message on the user's talk page, outlining where and why they made a mistake should suffice. In the event of ongoing vandalism, give them sufficient warning and then refer to WP:AIV. Jame§ugrono 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive, bad-faith edits by Gene Nygaard
Help. I need assistance with editor User:Gene_Nygaard. He disagrees on factual disputes on the Kilogram article that are totally beyond any debate in science. His arguments have been debated to infinity and back and he ignores reason. For instance, he continued to argue that “weight” does not mean “force due to gravity”. When he was told the following:

Encyclopedia Britannica very simply defines “weight” as “[the] gravitational force of attraction on an object, caused by the presence of a massive second object, such as the Earth or Moon.” Wikipedia’s Weight article defines weight as follows: In the physical sciences, weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object. World Book (print edition) says this under Weight: Weight is the gravitational force put forth on an object by the planet on which the object is located. Further, the Kilogram article adheres perfectly to Britannica’s'' discussion of the distinction between “weight” and “mass”. The article also gives proper and fair treatment to the fact that the term “weight” in common vernacular can occasionally mean “mass.”

…He responded with “There's no reason for us to stoop to Encyclopedia Britannica.” He also said “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” and then linked “reliable source” to Wikipedia’s own Reliable sources. His point was that the link in the Kilogram article that linked to weight wasn’t suitable. He didn’t agree with either Wikipedia’s definition nor Encyclopedia Britannica’s. With regard to World Book, he responded only with “Now World Book too?”

One of the editors who disagreed with him is a professor of astrophysics. This would normally carry extra weight but Gene Nygaard argued with him too and had his question properly answered (again). When his arguments didn’t get any traction on the kilogram article, he went to the Mass article and engaged in the same sort of edits there. The editors there had to deal with him (account here). After other editors weighed in with edits in an attempt to appease Gene Nygaard, he did this to the article. Another editor User:Enuja, who does her best to seek consensus and accommodate others, told him that "Disputed" and "Misleading" tags were not suitable (account here).

Please help. Greg L (my talk) 18:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have had a similar experience with this editor at Talk:Enzyme_kinetics, he changed the article to replace a set of units with an incorrect set of units diff then edit-warred to retain the error diff. On the talk page he stubbornly maintained that his preference for units were used in biochemistry, and quoted obscure journals on inorganic and organic chemistry to try to support his argument. It was only when faced with overwhelming evidence of multiple citations from biochemistry journals that he accepted the actual usage. This is verging on disruptive editing. Tim Vickers 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to stem from a content dispute. Has an RFC/U been considered? -- B figura (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bfigura, please briefly explain the distinction between this forum and the one you are suggesting. The spark that lit the fuse on all of this was originally an argument over the definition of “weight” and the proper, encyclopedic treatment of the topic. The real issue, IMO, has become one of not accepting the consensus of others after hours of tirelessly explaining to him what the facts are, only to ultimately have him do stuff like this…


 * While the weight of objects (their gravitational force) is often given in kilograms, the kilogram is, in the strict scientific sense, a unit of mass.
 * While the weight of objects (their gravitational force) is often given in kilograms, the kilogram is, in the strict scientific sense, a unit of mass.


 * …and this:

The unit of force: kilogram-force  TotallyDisputed-section

When an object’s weight (its gravitational force) is expressed in kilograms…


 * …again, this is all after lengthy and tedious debate had transpired far beyond what any administrator would put up with (due to lack of acceptance of reality) and his arguments didn’t get traction with any other editors. In short, the issue is one of being disruptive. Tim Vickers’ problem with this Gene (see above) seems to be the same basic issue: ignoring clear facts he simply choses to ignore and incessantly doing the same edits anyway. I don’t know how many other editors weighed in on Tim Vickers’ article, but Gene totally ignored others editors too on Talk:Kilogram (not just me) and does what he wants anyway the moment anyone stops responding to his circuitous and ever-expanding arguments or it has become clear he won’t get his way.


 * Do you see this as being the central issue, and if so, are you saying the RFC/U would be a more suitable forum? Greg L (my talk) 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm not entirely sure. If you want to form consensus on an issue (ie content), you should use a request for comments (or RFC). But if you want to establish consensus on an editor's behavior, then you want an RFC/U. Basically, you list the places where you think the editor has gone against policy, or been disruptive, and invite comments (which includes responses from the editor in question). The idea is to try and establish if a certain behavior is or isn't acceptable by the community.
 * As far as the above, those tags would seem needlessly disruptive, although I'm hesitant to say that with any certainty since I'm not entirely familiar with the dispute. Best, -- B figura (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will go to RFC/U. Thanks. Greg L (my talk) 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Drop me a line when you list it, and I'll be glad to give my outside view. Best, -- B figura (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bfigura, after looking at the RFC/U process, it looks like a daunting process that is too great of a hurdle. I think if we can just address the suitability of the “dispute” tags that should suffice for the problem at hand and will serve as a lesson-learned. User:Slashme has done lengthy and excellent edits (recent history) trying to reach a compromise. Some of Slashme’s edits were painful for me to see because Slashme’s treatment of the issue was to delete entire paragraphs I had written (like this one). But I accepted them and understood they were a reasonable compromise. I actually expected that all that would satisfy Gene too. Nope. User:Enuja has patiently explained why the article doesn’t merit them (here). I’ve given him ample warning of his disruptive edits (here). Now he’s got the “disputed” tags in the article again. Please help. Greg L (my talk) 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I deleted the STUCK tag at the top thinking it might somehow interfere with your ability to note that this is back to being active. Sorry for being presumptive. Greg L (my talk) 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite ok. I shouldn't have stuck them in yet :). I'll go poke my head into the article though. -- B figura (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bfigura, I don’t know what the proper remedy would be, even if you do find that the tags are unwarranted. But if you conclude that the article should be restored to some other state, this was the state I last had it in. And this is the state the last known other contributor had it at. That contributor User:Timb66, whose real name is Tim Bedding, is a professor of astrophysics at the School of Physics, University of Sydney. I can’t make a case that Professor Bedding is unbiased regarding Gene’s behavior, since he wrote “I agree with the comments by Greg L” (Talk:Mass) after I laid out a clear case regarding the scientific nature of “weight” and how Gene’s behavior was disruptive. Note however, that Professor Bedding made his edit to the Kilogram article after he posted that comment. Accordingly, he wasn’t a party to any disputes on Kilogram before reading that one was raging on Talk:Mass. Only then did he take an interest in the Kilogram article. I think it is fair to assume that Professor Bedding found nothing else he felt was worthy of correcting and find it noteworthy that his edit was only to change an occurrence of “and” to “or” (edit difference here). After studying the Wikipedia policy some more, I believe the proper charge in this forum would be that his incessant arguing on the discussion pages after finding that his arguments don’t get traction with other editors, and his resorting to the use of and  tags, are all aspects of tendentious editing. Greg L (my talk) 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Update regarding expert help: Bfigura, during the writing of the Kilogram article, I exchanged over forty e-mails with a physicist at the NIST who works on the kilogram in order to check facts, clarify issues and obtain additional information. That NIST physicist directed me to various papers published in Metrologia and Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards (some of which I used as citations in the article). As a favor, he has previously reviewed specific portions of the Kilogram article for accuracy. I asked him if he would review the entire last, non-Gene, historical version (this one by Professor Bedding), and to comment on its accuracy. I also asked him to compare it to the current version and take note to the sections that Gene tagged. On Friday he agreed to do so and said it will take a few days. Given that this dispute originated over technical issues, I hoped you would appreciate the outside help as it might make your job a little easier. Regards, Greg L (my talk) 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gene_Nygaard has a long history of problems in this area. See his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gene_Nygaard block log. He was informed of this Wikiquette alert on 25 Oct on his talk page. Yet he has not participated and continues in this behavior, even calling one user and "ass" and referring to at least one other's lack of intelligence; see User_talk:ArielGold, , and . Based on this, I am blocking him for 72 hours. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is hard to imagine anything more likely to sabotage what is intended to be an informal first step in a dispute resolution process, anything more likely to exacerbate this dispute, more likely to fan the flames and to create more hard feelings and anything more counterproductive to the spirit of cooperative editing, than what you have done here, User:Rlevse.


 * Your actions, Rlevse, (and perhaps equally important or more so, the actions you have failed to take) fly directly in the face of the spirit of this entire process.


 * But your actions are not merely contrary to the spirit of this entire process. It is much more than that.


 * In fact, they are contrary to very black-letter rules of this process, as set out in a big honking box at the top of this very page:
 * "'This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum. ... 'Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts.'"
 * a "non-binding noticeboard"; and in the opening paragraph:
 * "'Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors. This page is not part of the formal dispute resolution process, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate.'"
 * and further down the page:
 * "'Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures.'"
 * and you can't get much clearer than without resorting to formal procedures.


 * The ball had already been picked up by one of the regulars here Bfigura, who had already said that he was going to look into it. Rlevse grabbed the ball right out of his hands, with no discussion whatsoever. (The fact that Bfigura some time afterwards tried to pick it up again, but fumbled the ball himself, is irrelevant, though at that time it might have been appropriate for him to call for some backup help.  But that hadn't happened until after Rlevse's disruption here).


 * If my participation on this page were important, and there is no evidence whatsoever that you, Rlevse, know beans about how this is supposed to work, then you should have invited me to come here and comment on it.  An out-of-the-blue, totally undiscussed block, for not doing something which I am not in any way obliged to do, is not by any stretch of the imagination an appropriate response. To instead prevent any comment from me is about the most illogical, irresponsible action anyone could possibly imagine.


 * The only possible explanation for it is that it was somehow deliberately intended to give Greg L the advantage of unfettered, one-sided discussion.


 * That this process's integrity was in fact the primary target of your (User:Rlevsa's) attack is also evident from your posting of your notice about blocking me here a few minutes before you even posted a notice to me about it on my talk page, as well as from the fact that you had not done the same at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade, nor had you done so at User talk:ArielGold. It is further evidenced by your placement of your notice on my talk page under the existing User talk:Gene Nygaard header halfway up my page, not in a new notice at the bottom (and you didn't add the subheader, I did that later).  There's no disguising of the fact that the additional charges laid were intended as nothing other than red herrings.


 * Especially when
 * There is absolutely nothing on this page instructing me to offer a response.
 * What is here, in fact, actively discourages such discussion, by saying "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page" and "Do not continue your discussion in detail here".


 * I am at a total loss as to why you might have done this, Rlevse; however, once again, no possible explanation offers itself other than the clear implication that this was, for whatever reason and motivation you had, deliberately designed to give User:Greg L an upper hand in this dispute.


 * Purpose, and future, of this process


 * I've never seen it used anywhere, either successfully or unsuccessfully, that I can recall. Does it ever work? Is it even used to any significant extent? (Rlevse doesn't know, either, I'll bet.)


 * I don't know if there is anybody who even cares about this Wikiquette alerts process any more.   Hello!  Anybody home here?


 * If there is no one here willing to stand up to a rogue administrator, one who has never once in the 2½ year history of this process ever made any positive contribution to making it work, never once participated in it, who comes barreling in out of nowhere and intentionally disrupts it, then maybe it is time face facts and to admit the obvious. If it doesn't work, whether it was just a bad idea in the first place or has out lived its purpose or has just withered away from a failure to advertise it and a lack of participation or whatever, just throw in the towel, and officially declare it dead. Is there anybody left who even cares enough to go through the steps to officially place this page up for deletion? Gene Nygaard 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This alerts page is not the place to see help attacking or otherwise censuring a "rogue administrator." --Cheeser1 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That administrator blocked me specifically for not replying on this page. I have now done so.  So why aren't you taking him to task for telling me that I was supposed to be here?  Maybe what you need is better instructions as to exactly what is and what is not expected on this project page, because User:Rlevse obviously does not know that, and now you are telling me that I do not either.  Gene Nygaard 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, while you do have explicit instructions to "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page", you have let User:Greg L fill the page with hugely excessive discussions, so you also need better policing of the policies you do have. Gene Nygaard 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bfigura, I’m still waiting on the opinion from the kilogram expert at the NIST. I must say, that after writing that previous sentence, I am struck by the preposterous number of hoops we other editors have had to jump through in order to accommodate Gene Nygaard’s outrageous behavior. Anyway, besides the kilogram expert at the NIST, I also asked Professor Bedding to carefully review the historical version before Gene Nygaard’s last wave of edits and dispute tags (version, here). I asked him to comment on the accuracy of the version and to give particular attention to those sections in the current version that Nygaard tagged with DISPUTE, DISPUTE! I asked him to comment as to whether he found the historical version accurate, balanced, and informative. I received his opinion several days ago but it took until today to receive his permission to quote him. He wrote “feel free to quote my reply in full.” His comments on the original version are quoted in their entirety as follows:
 * From: [e-mail address redacted] Subject: Re: Kilogram Date: October 27, 2007 1:41:36 PM PDT To: [e-mail address redacted]


 * Hi Greg, I am sympathetic to your problem.  I am not an expert in the definition of the kg, but I do know basic physics and I know how things should be explained.  I have looked through the current article and don't see anything that is worthy of a dispute tag.  Thanks for the effort that you have put into Wiki editing.  I don't have the time for such diligence and am grateful for your efforts.  Best wishes,
 * Tim


 * Bfigura, I think it is safe to assume that since Professor Bedding teaches astrophysics at a university, that he 1) is being slightly humble in stating he knows “basic physics,” and 2) I believe it to be obvious on the face of it that when he wrote “I know how things should be explained,” we can assume he is very familiar with textbooks and the proper encyclopedic treatment of subjects. I’ll let you know when I hear from the kilogram expert at the NIST.  Greg L (my talk) 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your actions (I think, work prevents me from doing a complete review), in as much as I don't think there's a need for a dispute tag here. I'm not sure there's a need to contact experts (any such material couldn't be included as it'd be original research), although I do recognize it as a good faith effort to settle a dispute. Best, -- B figura (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. I see from Gene Nygaard’s talk page, where he is arguing against being blocked, that he claims my contacting the NIST amounts to “original research”. Of course, this is patently baseless and false. As I clearly stated in my above writings, those communications were to “check facts, clarify issues and obtain additional information.” And by “additional information” (as I also wrote above), I was referring to obtaining numerous scientific papers published in Metrologia and Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards—not baby food from Popular Mechanics. Of course, I cited these papers throughout the references section in the Kilogram article. It was this very same NIST employee who also e-mailed me a free picture of the NIST’s electronic kilogram after the one used in the NIST’s own press release was yanked from Wikipedia because it was copyrighted. I uploaded it to Wikipedia and used it in the article. Does this picture also constitute “original research” since it came through me via private communications with my contact at the NIST? Obviously not. Wikipedia and its readers are the beneficiaries. Any quick reading of the Original research page reveals a clear and unambiguous policy: that “material must be verifiable and backed by reliable sources.” It isn’t “original research” to contact the experts at the NIST and get directed to the original scientific papers and to cite them throughout the article, nor is it original research to ask the NIST expert to review some of what I wrote to make sure I gave the subject proper treatment; it’s called “researching the subject thoroughly, making sure I understood it accurately, and citing the writings extensively while contributing to a Wikipedia article.” Wikipedia and its readers are, again, the beneficiaries. Nygaard’s transparent attempt at taking my effort in doing my homework to track down all the original scientific papers—something that probably fewer than one in a thousand Wikipedia contributors make the effort to do—and trying to turn it around to his own advantage is nothing more than a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Greg L (my talk) 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think my comment may have come accross wrong. I applaud all the work you're doing. I was merely saying that we can't cite communications with experts in the article itself. Material obtained from them (images, references, etc) is perfectly fine. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understood that. Sorry, I wasn't railing against you. I precisely understood your point and why you wrote it. I perceived (perhaps erroneously) that your feeling the necessity to write it suggested that Nygaard’s arguments on his talk page (while trying to get unblocked) might be gaining traction with others. So I thought it best to preempt that trend. He may eventually try to argue his case here. His arguments absolutely never end, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. As of two days ago, he was still arguing about the definition of mass and weight. Note how endless his arguments are with the editors over on Talk:Mass. Scroll down and note that, throughout the length of it, both the other editors don’t agree with him. Note too, the appeal at the very end to somehow put the issue out of its misery. Greg L (my talk) 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. At this point, it seems that his behavior seems to be verging on tendencious editing that is starting to outweigh his positive contributions here. -- B figura (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Concluding this

 * Bfigura, I received the response from the NIST contact. Not surprisingly, there were zero problems with “weight” being “force due to gravity.” Unfortunately, I can not quote him nor even name him without getting his first getting NIST Public Affairs involved so I don’t know if the wait for his input was worth it. I think we just have to go with the arguments provided above. The only person who feels the disputed and citation needed tags are warranted is Gene Nygaard. Can we fix this? Also, I expect the removal of the tags will not change Gene Nygaard’s opinion on the issue of “mass vs. weight”; how can we avoid disruptive editing on Kilogram in his usual forms just because the tags are removed? Any remedies you think will work would be much appreciated. Greg L (my talk) 07:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To get some idea of how much needless effort would be invested in trying to make good-faith answers to Nygaard’s objections, please see Sorting it out on Talk:Kilogram. There, I provided detailed responses to the two easiest-to-answer issues he raised. A proper treatment of all Nygaard’s objections would simply be too tedious and, in the end, would result in circuitous arguments that go nowhere, as others have discovered on Talk:Mass. Greg L (my talk) 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best solution would be to make the changes, indicate why on the talk page, and try and build consensus That seems to be done already. I'd just remove the tags. If Gene continues to revert against consensus, I'd start an WP:RFC/U. If he's violating the 3-revert rule, you could report him per WP:3RR. Other than that though, I'm not sure what the best solution is. -- B figura (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should reconsider your advice, and rethink what you role is supposed to be here. Have you done anything consistent with a "first step" in dispute resolution here?


 * Please also address the issue of why, despite the explicit instruction "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page", you have let User:Greg L ramble on unfettered here, will you? Gene Nygaard 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Greg L's comments, though extensive, (much like yours!) are still valid. Jame§ugrono 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At risk of making this post prematurely, it appears to me that this issue ( tags, as well as tendentious, disruptive, and POINT editing) is resolved. Thanks to you, Bfigura, and all the admins. I am sincerely grateful for all your attentions to this matter. Greg L (my talk) 17:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI people here on the Wikiquette alerts board are not (necessarily) administrators. --Cheeser1 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup. Although being confused for an admin is sort of a compliment :) I'm going to mark this whole thing as resolved. -- B figura (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought “…Bfigura, and all the admins…” wouldn’t be interpreted as “…Bfigura, and all the other admins…” but I was wrong. Indeed, I understand Bfigura, that you are not an admin. I am also quite keen as to how well you are doing at your “internship” here. I don’t know enough about the process of nominating someone for admin-hood to feel confident in taking the initiative to do so. But please let me know when (that’s “when,” not “if”) someone else nominates you; I would be pleased to second the motion. Greg L (my talk) 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sudden Disruptive behavior
User:IvoShandor has taken to bothering recently. Yesterday, he tried to come down on my signature, which is not a big problem.

Today, he became disruptive: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured list & --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like IvoShandor is leaving the project. I've seen some of his work and he's been a good contributor in the past, but some of his edits the past few days appear to have seriously violated WP:CIVIL.  I hope he's just taking a wikibreak and will come back rested and in a better mood, but that type of behavior isn't acceptable.Karanacs 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked over it, and it seems like he might have something bothering him lately. He has been a really good contributor.  Drop him a note on his talk page, saying you care about him as a person.  Tell him something like "I understand you don't like my signature, but I would rather keep it. If consensus truly want's it gone I will remove it.  Aside from that fact, it seems something has been bothering you lately.  YOu need someone to talk to at anytime, let me know, just remember your not alone." Something to show him he has his brothers/sisters here at wikipedia to talk to, should the need arise.  Perhaps as karanacs said, a wikibreak or something similar. PS, I am not watching this page (on my watch list), if you need something urgent, put it on my talk page, as I likely won't run across this specific page again for a long time (if at all).--businessman332211 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(The way he came down on your signature does not appear to be Disruptive and incivil to me. He seemed to treat you politely in that regard.) 99.230.152.143 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree - I think IvoShandor's comment to you regarding your signature was quite civil. His more recent comments about "douchebaggery" and such are definitely out of line, but I also agree (looking over his past contributions) that he seems to have snapped recently, and/or someone has been abusing his account - those comments seem very much unlike him.  One can only hope that it's a temporary issue and that he'll come back at some later time feeling better. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 02:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Coz 11
There has been a disagreement over including the Seattle SuperSonic's owner's declaration of intent to move the team to Oklahoma City on three pages: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Seattle Supersonics. Discussion is mainly here, but also on User Talk:Coz 11 and my user talk page. Coz 11 has threatened me on my talk page and reverted my attempts to discuss our dispute on his talk page. I am weary that I will be unable to work things out with this user, as he seems to have an obvious bias in favor of the Seattle Supersonics and against the Sonics' ownership. Frankly, I fear he is a disgruntled fan who is angry over the prospect of his team moving, and, as such, any attempt at reasoning with him is failing. Also, Oklahoma is set to appear on the main page on November 16, so I am anxious to get this dispute settled by then so important information can be available to readers. Please let me know if there is a better place to put this dispute. This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has created a sock puppett account to be used to insert rumor and speculation on a possible future relocation of the Supersonics on many articles. I have directed this user to take this issue to the Supersonics talk page and allow those that edit that article to resolve this issue.  Instead he has decided to make this a personal attack.  I prefer to allow this issue to be resolved in one location rather than dragging all of wikipedia into it.  --Coz 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have brought this here because the user has displayed incivility and no intention of rational discussion, reverting my attempts to contact him on his talk page with uncivil edit summaries like "reverting rants" and "remove attacks from vandal." My efforts to reason with him have failed, as he reverts sourced edits with unreasonable claims: (see the following edits in question:,,  ) Based on these actions, his posts on Talk:Seattle SuperSonics, his incivility towards myself, and the "Save our Sonics" banner on his userpage, I can only conclude that the user has a strong bias on the subject and a rational resolution is impossible. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I can see, both of you need to cool down and back off from each other for a little while. You're both interpreting things each other has said as personal attacks and threats when it doesn't appear that there have been any. In fact, I see both of you engaging in rather civil attempts to talk to each other, and then reacting to each other as though the initiator had just leveled a serious threat. (Coz: You in specific did threaten to get an admin to block Okiefromokla, which does not seem warranted in this case - when it comes to content disputes, there are other avenues to follow first.)

So, here's what I see: You two are in a content dispute. That's fine - that's what WP:3O and WP:RFC are for. Please explore those routes and try to come to consensus. Keep yourselves focused on the content and refrain from personal attacks. Keep your cool, and I'd suggest also reading WP:POT, since I see both of you engaging in pretty much the same behavior toward each other.

Coz: While you are entitled to maintain your User talk page however you like, I disagree with your edit summary that stated that Okie was attacking you. He appeared to be asking you to work with him and trying to discuss the issue openly. Your reversion of his comments seemed a little out of place there.

Unfortunately, I gotta run for a bit, so this response is a little sketchy. But I hope it'll help. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it does help a lot. I have been a little hot as well, I admit and apologize for. Thanks for taking the time to read through all of this mess. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/ talk 23:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Icelantic
This user's only activity has been to make a user and user-talk page that violate Userpage, and then make many user-subpages containing only personal writings that are not at all related to the encyclopedia. Examples include what are apparently elementary or high-school biology lab reports, similar-level essays on the causes of the American Civil war, and a very verbose summary of the last Harry Potter book. I have warned the user on their talk page and tagged the pages for speedy deletion. Please advise: is this a suitable response? I require a better understanding of consensus on this matter. Michaelbusch 01:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This really doesn't have to do with incivility or breaches of etiquette (at least, I don't see anything). I believe what you're doing is fine - the pages are an abuse of userpage space and are definitely nonsense/irrelevant to Wikipedia. This is an issue, perhaps, to raise at the administrators noticeboard, if you believe administrator intervention or action may be necessary. --Cheeser1 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think this was at a level to flag for admin intervention. I was more concerned with my own etiquette. Thanks for the advice. Michaelbusch 05:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Should I put a "resolved tag" on this one? VivioFa  teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 11:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already been tagged as a non-issue. Cheeser1 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Insults on Elihu Root article discussion page
Stale Mateo SA has been insulting another user on the discussion page of the Elihu Root article, thereby violating several Wikipedia behavioral standards. Mpublius 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the Talk:Elihu Root page, and the only violation of policy I can find by User:Mateo SA is a big of a failure to WP:AGF on copyright violations. I'll drop him a note about that.  You said that he had violated several behavioural standards, though - would you like to elaborate in case I missed something? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Hammersfan
I and others have been updating the route boxes of UK railway services, in my case reflecting the new existence of the London Overground. User:Hammersfan is blatantly reverting them en bloc, also losing other edits in the process, rather than discuss them with others. Similar reversions of others also making route boxes more accurate are at this diff and this diff. The point in having proper templates is to use them and improve the usability and readability of our content, not to retain old and incorrect versions that are more difficult to use and maintain. Review and comment please. --AlisonW (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While Hammersfan's lack of discussion does seem like a breach of Wikipedia etiquette, I don't necessarily agree with AlisonW's assertions of "accuracy", "correctness" or "improvement", or her understanding of London Overground's status (which I have tried explaining on her talk page, but she hasn't responded to me). Nor does it appear that she has read relevant discussions about these succession boxes at WT:RAIL.  So I want to make clear that Hammersfan should not necessarily be portrayed as the villain here.  --RFBailey (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See responses at User_talk:RFBailey (I've only just seen your second comment so dupe my response here for completeness):
 * I disagree with you in part, and completely agree in another! If we are permitting the existence of 'London Underground' route boxes then 'London Overground' is an entirely accurate and logical extension of that practice; we *are* depicting services/routes in both cases. Where I agree with you is that splitting all the clearly national (ie not a part of TfL or similar body - eg. Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow underground, etc Metro services) to their constituent operating organisations is not necessarily the best way to go, though the use of the s-rail tamplate system provides for a far easier maintenance and less 'code' within each page having a route box. We're here to provide information to the general reader imho. --AlisonW (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the absence of specific discussion on the London Overground, I've now added Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways. --AlisonW (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I blocked Hammersfan for 24 hours - (a) blind reverting (b) with no discussion - is just disruptive to the process of writing an encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Angli Cado Primoris and List of female metal singers

 * User:Angli Cado Primoris has been repeatedly inserting the name of a non-notable into the List of female heavy metal singers. I have left information on his/her talk page explaining him/her that wikipedia has certain notability criteria for including musicians on it, but s/he has not responded and has continued to reinsert the non-notable into the list, and has not responded to my attempts to reason with him/her. Can somebody please help me straighten this out?Asarelah (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say you've handled the situation well so far. I'll add my two cents to the user's talk page, but assuming we're dealing with a non-good faith spammer here, which seems likely at this point, you'll probably wind up having to take it to WP:AIN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * S/he did it again. I'm going to go to WP:AIN. Asarelah (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's probably wise (alternatively, you could go to WP:RPP and seek to have the page protected, but if it's just one user doing the damage that might be overkill). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my mistake - you probably want to go to WP:AIV rather than WP:AIN. 23:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs)
 * Well, if s/he won't listen to me, maybe s/he will listen to an admin giving a warning. Who knows. Asarelah (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Awotter

 * User:Awotter has been making a number of bad-faith edits to the World War II Online page.  His initial edits seemed in good faith but have been escalating and are becoming increasingly il-tempered, disruptive and in bad faith.


 * This spurs from a dispute where he cited a number of paragraphs in the article for removal based on missing references. It was unclear (and still is) if he thinks the text is inaccurate, but I provided references anyway.  He subsequently deleted all the text, claiming the references were insufficent.  Another editor User:KCMODevin reverted the deletions, arguing that the references were reasonable and User:Awotter had no reason to delete them.  Awotter took this to a revert war, and subesquent discussions on the talk page became very personal and heated.


 * I stepped in, trying to calm things down but also arguing that the citations were reasonable. I also asked for disinterested opinions on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Acceptable_video_game_reference_material page.  Two third parties, User:Nifboy, User:Anomie also felt our references were reasonable, and we continued to revert his deletions.


 * In a failed attempt to lock his edits in the page, he requested a page lock - but fortunately misunderstood the procedure and locked the original version of the page. See User_talk:East718.


 * With the page locked, he continues to vent by changing the assessment of the article to Start class, which really isn't reasonable since the article was not under the process for peer review, and he was really not a disinterested third party that would typically be doing a peer review.


 * There is an open mediation cabal case, but it has not been accepted by an administrator, and Awotter isn't showing any interest in trying to find common ground (see the mediation case), and his attempts to disrupt the WWIIOL page show he's really not interested in mediation anyway.   His escalating disruptiveness really requires administrator action.


 * Hoping someone can take a look and provide a little oversight and guidance. Thanks!
 * Warthog32 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like this has progressed beyond being a wikiquette issue. It also looks like a member of the mediation cabal has agreed to take on the case, so I'd suggest that you pursue that route and see what comes of that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Wwerawrocks
This is an early warning about this user. This user has been pushing an opinion on both the Chris Benoit and WWF Fully Loaded pages in violation of WP:OR. His edit summaries have been in violation of WP:CIVIL (referring to me as an "idiot") and have in general been rude and unacceptable. I have posted an informal warning on his talk page. Another user has noted a possible WP:3RR violation coming but at this point in time the user's online conduct is the biggest concern. We may need admin involvement if this keeps up. His comments are solely based on his presence at the event, and have no back up. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional - one of his edits was when he was not logged in and he edited as User:69.123.30.159. It was in this edit that he called me an "idiot". This may have been a deliberate act to avoid connection with his WP ID. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Justa Punk - could you provide some diffs to these incidents? Also, what makes you so sure that User:69.123.30.159 and User:Wwerawrocks are one and the same? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind the diffs; the user's edit history is short enough that I was able to find all the relevant bits myself. I've echoed your warning at his talk page; hopefully that will help cool things off.  Let us know if the behaviour continues. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was about to point you here, where the obvious similarities in edit history and CAPSLOCK-malfunctions make it clear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone would do a checkuser on this user, you'll find it comes back with the same IP. I'm sure of it. He just reverted an edit on the Fully Loaded page under that IP - I changed it back. That's not an continuation of the etiquette problem, but it shows this user is still around. Sorry about not providing the diffs.  !! Just a Punk !!  07:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now taken this to WP:ANI as this user is (under his anon IP) continuing his edits against WP:OR and WP:V.  !! Just a Punk !!  00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think that was the right move. Marking this as stuck. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl
This user has been causing disruption for some time across a number of articles, such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, British monarchy, Second city of the United Kingdom, Canadian monarchy, Commonwealth realm, and various others. In my personal experience with this person, I have noted a strong POV, which wouldn't be of much consequence if this user didn't disregard consensus and content verified by reliable sources in order to push his personal views on a certain subject.

The drive tends to be passionately pro-United Kingdom and relatively derogatory to other Commonwealth realms. In essence, he is convinced that a monarchy shared amongst sixteen countries is not only dominantly, but solely British, and the other countries which are under this shared crown are simply still colonies subordinate to the UK and its sovereign. This POV goes against that which has been decided upon through consensus and properly sourced material, and thus tends to start edit wars which spill into disruptive discussions on related talk pages. Though some of the following were valid discussions and/or raised valid points, and I have been involved and sometimes proven wrong, forced to concede, or swayed, TharkunColl's comments in them reveal much of his POV and general demeanour:
 * Talk:Canadian monarchy
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
 * Talk:Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms
 * Talk:Passport

A look at the edit histories - over the past year or so - of the associated articles will also generally reveal edit wars breaking out as TharkunColl attempts to remove information that does not suit his POV, sometimes even that which is directly sourced. Exactly that type of behaviour came to a head with his most recent attempt to do so at List of Canadian monarchs, wherein he blatantly deleted both the material and the reference it was almost directly quoted from. When notified more than once that he had deleted referenced material, he stated on his talk page that the cite was of little matter and explicitly promised he would revert one more time; and did.

This is only a selection of that which I personally know of; his talk page shows a long list of vandalism and civility complaints, and his block log shows a number of entries.

I would like an independent party to review this editor's actions in the hopes that something can be done to ensure more smooth editing in future, for many people. --G2bambino (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm - I think there's already been a Wikiquette alert about this user for this behaviour. I'll dig through the archives and see what I can find - not that the previous alert and whatever conclusion may have come from it invalidates this one, but it could provide some useful context.  Or it could convince us that this needs to go beyond here.  Either way, let me see what I can find. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, here's the old alert: . It looks like everybody involved just resolved to try to get along better, which would be great except that it doesn't seem to have worked.  For what it's worth, User:TharkunColl does seem to be ignoring consensus on this central question.  I'll let him know that this is how I see it.
 * (Full disclosure: I'm a Canadian who sort of halfheartedly supports a transition to some sort of republican system.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with Sarcasticidealist. It does seem as if TharkunColl is getting somewhat tendencious on this issue. (Note: I'm referring to this discussion mainly). -- B figura (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This statement of G2bambino's says all that needs to be said about his debating tactics: "In essence, he is convinced that a monarchy shared amongst sixteen countries is not only dominantly, but solely British, and the other countries which are under this shared crown are simply still colonies subordinate to the UK and its sovereign." It is a complete and under lie. I have always made it clear that the realms are absolutely sovereign, and retain the British monarchy of their own free choice. The problem is G2, who has developed a POV based on a selective reading of the evidence, and ignores evidence to the contrary (such as a recent statement by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth that the realms retain the British monarch). G2's POV has led him so far from reality that he cannot even see the supreme irony in accusing me of having a pro-UK agenda, whilst he himself is a staunch supporter of the UK's monarchy in Canada. If there is any genuine nationalist bias here it is G2's, who has convinced himself that the British monarchy does not reign in Canada. He has spread this POV to countless articles. He will use any possible technique to defend it, such as reporting his opponents at every opportunity, mind-numbingly long winded argumentation, claiming false consensus, ignoring consensus he doesn't like, and misrepresenting my arguments to others so as to cynically gain support from people who mostly oppose the monarchy. TharkunColl (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for further evidence of your stance; the talk pages and your edit history provide show of the generally negative reaction of other users to your claims, meaning your view is not supported by consensus.
 * For the benefit of those looking at this case, the following offer some further insight:
 * Talk:Canadian monarchy
 * Talk:Australian monarchy
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 10
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 10
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 10
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 10
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Archive 8
 * Talk:Royal Burial Ground
 * Talk:Royal Burial Ground
 * I allow the data to speak for itself. --G2bambino (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet again you are bamboozling people with masses of irrelevant data. This is further evidence of your techniques. TharkunColl (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's allow others to decide what's "irrelevant" and what isn't, shall we? --G2bambino (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You expect people to read through masses of rubbish, ancient arguments brought about by your own intransigent POV in the first place? Or more likely, you probably hope they won't, and will just take your word for it. You are a single-issue fanatic. You only ever make edits to articles relating to the British monarchy, and those edits are almost always tendentious. TharkunColl (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did look through several of the linked pages, and they seem to support G2bambino's claims. I'd be happy to take a look at any diffs or links that you think would support your point too though. (Providing such would be much more productive than making unsupported assertions that someone else is bamboozling people). Best, -- B figura (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with User:Bfigura. Besides that, the issue here isn't your position in the content dispute, but rather your tendencious editing and evasion of consensus.
 * We can't force you to change your behaviour. But this should be an early warning sign to you that it's not just editors with whom you're engaged in conflict disputes who find these things problematic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to harp on this, but, despite this alert being made, Thark is still causing issue that's either confounding or aggravating a number of people:
 * Talk:Commonwealth realm, where people are confused by his removal of cited material
 * Talk:Commonwealth realm monarchies, where he is threatening reverts if a consensus doesn't match his wishes.
 * Should this go to a higher level? It's getting really out of hand. --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not threatened any reverts! Your vendetta against me is getting out of hand. TharkunColl (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I refer reviewers here. The rest of the commentary doesn't demonstrate much in the way of good faith, in my opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You've made it clear that if consensus moves an article against your wishes, you will create a new article under that name regardless of the consensus against it. It may not be a revert, but it is just as bad.-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 16:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As this behaviour is continuing, and suggestions he present his accusations and arguments before ArbCom or some other reviewing body have been dismissed, I'm considering filing an RfC/User for TharkunColl. Would that be the appropriate next step? --G2bambino (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * An RfC/U is generally the next step. Good luck with resolving the issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regertfully, Tharky has gone against consensus at talk: Commonwealth realm for all monarchy articles to be moved to Monarchy of X, by repeatedly reverting Monarchy of the United Kingdom. He also threaten to create a new article called British monarchy (the Monarchy of the UK articles' former name). I've tried to steer Tharky aways from these latest actions, but was unsuccessful - I feel he has a OWNERSHIP issue with monarchy articles relating to the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There was never a consensus, merely two editors pushing their POV. But I really can't be bothered with all this any more. TharkunColl (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What a joke; two editors plus eight others who all-together supported one of seven presented options. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --G2bambino (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ten editors called for movement to Monarchy of X, I find Tharky's attitude regretful & apparently self-distructive. This (his actions) is so frustrating, so unproductive. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fuck off, Bambi. I hope you're satisfied. TharkunColl (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This alert has been marked as stale. No more commenting in it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with user
I have a problem with a user user:71.106.173.211. I was reverting vandalism a couple of days ago, and posted a vandalism note - which was subsequently deleted - on the IP's Talk page after reverting an edit. In retrospect, the edit was misguided rather than vandalism, but I used the vandalism template after seeing a previous vandalism warning.

Since then, the user has attempted to engage in argument in increasingly accusatory postings. I've requested that he stop, and think I've been patient and cool so far, despite the accusations and talk that I feel is becoming a personal attack. You can see the postings at my talk page. I cross posted my replies to the IP talk page. Opinions would be appreciated. CMacMillan (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You should also note that I've been reverting the most recent post. CMacMillan (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your exchange has become pretty uncivil on both sides. At this point, I would suggest that both of you simply disengage, since there doesn't appear to be any point to your arguing.  I could analyze who's been uncivil where, but that seems less productive than both of you just cutting off this poisonous exchange.
 * (Tengentially, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages; doing so signifies that they have read and understood the warnings.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with SI, except for misspelling tangentially :p - you should let it go (maybe he's not a troll, but the point is the same) . I've left a warning asking him to cool it. I'd suggest you just let him do whatever. If the content dispute persists, handle it as calmly/professionally as you can, and if need be, just ignore that part of Wikipedia for a while. Responding by getting to into a more heated type of argument (ie the piss and vinegar comment) isn't going to help much. Take the high road. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that if the IP user continues to introduce bad changes that are consistently reverted, he may be in violation of WP:3RR and other edit-warring policies. If you see a genuine violation, please feel free to report it at the appropriate admin noticeboard.  If it's just a matter of this person harassing you, I'd recommend what SarcasticIdealist and Cheeser1 have suggested - disengaging - and let us know if the situation persists.  If you make a good faith effort to resolve the situation by letting it fizzle out on its own or working proactively to bring focus back to the articles, it'll be that much easier for people here and on the admin noticeboard to intervene. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)