Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive33

User:Johnbod
During what is otherwise a perfectly normal dispute over content on Domestic sheep, has been especially snide and abusive. He has made comments such as "Perhaps someone who actually knows about sheep will happen on the article." and has unequivocally called me an idiot. Van Tucky  talk 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No one has given any response for some time, so I made an ANI report. Van Tucky  talk 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Hardy
-- Simple  Paradox   20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC) made some uncivil comments during an Afd discussion.

This user was also cautioned to desist,, but rather than listen, he just continued.

This user should apologize to those he was uncivil to. Ra2007 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that off site canvasinng for this Afd may have occurred at slashdot . Ra2007 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The offsite post was made by a different user, ., appears to be informational. Ra2007 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What I said that appears to be considered "uncivil" was that three users were speaking rather emphatically about matters of which they had not bothered to inform themselves. I said that I don't contribute material to articles on how to do open heart surgery (except, e.g. fixing typos, linking, etc.) because I don't know anything about that subject, and those three should do the same, and I therefore found their behavior offensive. It seems different standards get applied on AfD pages---people don't feel they should know anything before they write about it. User:r.e.b., surely one of Wikipedia's most respected contributors, has told me on my talk page that I was wrong to attribute this behavior to bad motives because it can be explained simply as stupidity. But I expect if I'd called them stupid, these three users would not be more pleased than they are with the fact that I pointed out that they were completely uninformed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take a heart surgeon to know that WP:NOT does not allow an article on how to do open heart surgery. Ra2007 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite an irrelevant comment. If there is a reason why an article on that topic should not be here, then just substitute some other example. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Quite an irrelevant comment"--The comment is relevant. The AFD was on WP:NOT issues.  Also, it was a response to your own "how to (perform heart surgery)" example.  Ra2007 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * His example was not related to the AfD issues, only to the idea that editors should stay within the scope of editing things that they are qualified to edit, in some fashion or another. Please don't drag the entire AfD discussion here. The only question at hand here is his comments and their (un)civility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While it was a valid point that the nominator et al may not be nearly as well informed regarding the topic as you, your comments seemed uncivil at several points: Referring to them as 'illiterate', which appears to be an insult since they are demonstrably not so; Implying that their comments where made in bad faith; and calling TableManners' behavior offensive, well, your metaphor does not apply - TableManners was not adding content, but rather participating in a discussion. --Nog lorp (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm relatively sure he meant mathematically illiterate, which should be clear from the context (but apparently is not). I had a few comments, but since I participated in the AfD, I'll refrain for the moment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just one encyclopedia. It encompasses a vast general encyclopedia and several specialised encyclopedias on subjects like mathematics, which need (and have) slightly different rules. The majority of people editing content in mathematics articles has a formal mathematical background, which means that they live in a different culture.

AfD discussions on mathematical articles seem to be a general problem because for some reason they attract well-meaning non-experts who are not aware of the cultural differences. They know that they are not experts, they try to take this into account, but they often fail because they have no idea of the extent of what they don't know. Such as the role of proofs in professional mathematics, or the prior discussions on how to treat proofs in Wikipedia.


 * SimpleParadox made a suggestion based on the mistaken comparison between the language used in proofs and textbooks. After this point was explained to him he left the discussion, but left his vote as "delete", based on his faulty argument.


 * Ra2007 stepped in for SimpleParadox by not conceding the point ("I disagree" with no justification) and opening a new line of attack: OR allegations because the proof had no citations. By asking "Encyclopedias do not have mathematical proofs, do they?" he contradicted a well established mathematical guideline.


 * TableManners suggested transwikifying to Scholarpedia (which does not cover pure mathematics and will not do so for a long time, and is certainly not intended as a repository of Wikipedia proofs). He seemed to attack the question of proofs on Wikipedia generally with the words "Sorry folks, but other stuff (proofs) exist on Wikipedia is not a good enough argument."

In the context of a mathematical article this was not constructive behaviour and it is no wonder that Michael Hardy became angry. He should not have become (and remained) uncivil. But the major problem is not Michael Hardy, it is structural. Some editors are not qualified to judge on mathematical articles, and some are not qualified to judge on editors who are not mathematicians. A minor problem on both sides was not being prepared to concede a point after stepping outside one's personal field of expertise.

I agree that it would be a good thing if Michael Hardy apologised for having been uncivil. I do not agree with trying to force him into a formal apology. I suggest that Ra2007 afterwards apologises for having started this discussion and for his pointless rhetorical attacks above. Just my opinion. -- Hans Adler (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so someone proposes deletion of Othello and says "Encyclopedias don't have articles about plays, do they?". Another votes to delete, citing the use of terminology in fact commonly used in articles about plays, in Wikipedia, in Encyclopedia Brittanica, in scholarly journals, in all other forums, and says "Only in a textbook would that kind of rhetoric be found." Someone objects, asking whether all Wikipedia artilces about plays are to be deleted, and asks why this one was singled out. One of those voting to delete says "Sorry, 'other stuff exists' just won't cut it as an argument here'", ignoring the existence a WikiProject on articles about plays (I don't actually know if there is, but supposing...), ignoring the fact that the existence of those thousands of articles is in accord with Wikikpedia policies prescribing their existence and how they are to be written (let's say an extensive style manual for articles about plays, discussed for several years by hundreds of Wikipedians with expertise in that topic).

That's what happened here.

Someone said Encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs. That is lunacy. It is a fact that hundreds of Wikipedians, many with professional expertise in this area, have discussed how articles on particular mathematical proofs should be written, when they should and when they should not immediately follow the statement of the theorem; when they should be relegated to a separate article and when they should not, when they should be in a subpage (as in the present case) and when they should not. Wikipedia contains more mathematical proofs than most encyclopedias because Wikipedia is more extensive than any other. No encyclopedia would disdain to include a proof of the Pythagorean theorem on the grounds that encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs. No encyclopedia would disdain to include a a history-making proof such as Cantor's diagonal argument on the grounds that encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs; that argument is short and simple and is comprehensible to people who know only secondary-school mathematics, but considered a major breakthrough. No encyclopedia would disdain to include Euclid's famous proof of the infinitude of primes on the grounds that encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs; that proof is short and is comprehensible to any 15-year-old and is considered beautiful by many eminent authorities who have opined on it. These facts are universally known. But nonetheless, we are told this article should be deleted because encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs.

Someone said the language used in the proof was the sort that would be used only in textbooks. But those who have read many thousands of proofs in research journals know otherwise and don't need to be lectured to condescendingly by someone who hasn't.

Someone suggested transwikifying to Scholarpedia. The article would OBVIOUSLY be unwelcome there. Scholarpedia's policy is only to publish INVITED expository articles by experts in certain fields of science and applied mathematics. This isn't their sort of article and it isn't on one of the topics they're currently working on.

I think those users were abusive. They were condescendingly lecturing on subjects on which they know nothing, to an audience of those who do know.

It is said that I was uncivil. Is that simply because I said those people were abusive? If so, I deny the accusation. If not, tell me what is the civil way to say that those users were abusive. Be specific and keep the main point fully intact: those users were abusive. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So now I'll go ahead and comment. I think the only real problem here is that your responses were a bit harsh and give people the impression that you are not assuming good faith (even if you really do assume good faith). You suggest banning and call others abusive, and such things may be premature. It was helpful that you eventually contextualized your use of the word "illiterate" for example, but at the time it may have been mistaken for a personal attack (it appears very near the words "idiotic crap" you know). Mathematics articles are not the domain of only mathematicians, and while non-mathematicians are welcome to contribute, yes sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they are stubborn or over-zealous. But I think a more tempered response may have conveyed your ideas better and given people a better impression of what you were trying to say. I've seen this several times, and I'm well aware of how frustrating it is, and I sympathize. I just think that, in the end, you could have been much more tactful or diplomatic. I'm not saying you have to change your opinion or refrain from commenting, just step it down a bit and try to assume more good faith. Your contributions and opinions are valued, but so are others' - even if they're wrong, misinformed, or stubborn sometimes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record I am not mathematically illiterate. But absolute or relative mathematical literacy is a non sequitur.  The Afd was clearly based on WP:NOT.  As I previously stated, it doesn't take a heart surgeon to know that policy does not allow articles on how to perform heart surgery, and it doesn't take a chef to recognize a recipe for stewed pork feet does not belong on wikipedia.  This is not to rehash the Afd, but to provide context for the uncivil comments.  I would also like to note that Michael Hardy seems to be directing what seems to me to be uncivil comments on his user talk page still.  Ra2007 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, he's quoting someone else (who happens to be a highly respected Wikipedian and mathematician). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheeser1, are you implying that license to be uncivil comes with wikipedia respect and mathematical credentials? Ra2007 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Cheeser1 may be implying that everybody who is an expert on Wikipedia (all of it) or knows a bit more about mathematics than what is necessary to add a formula with a summation symbol to an article on an engineering subject agrees that the views that you are still defending here are obviously crazy. If that's what he means then I certainly agree. Please stop your attempts to confuse the two issues. (Are these opinions crazy? Yes. Was it wise to say so and make personal attacks? No.) --Hans Adler (talk) 18:19/19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's an extremely convenient (and perhaps deliberately incorrect) interpretation of what I'm saying. That was clearly not what I'm saying or implying and you should know better or at least assume better. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you are replying to Ra2007 or to me, and that makes me aware of a problem. Therefore: I am sorry for the part of my preceding comment where I answered with cheap rhetorics to cheap rhetorics. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My indentation should indicate I was replying to him, not you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't take a mathematician to understand that a proof is not a sequence of instructions to follow in order to get a physical result, even if it is customary to phrase proofs as if this was the case. If you, Ra2007, really were mathematically literate you would be able to understand this, at least after it was pointed out. I would also like to note that I find it extraordinarily hard to explain some of your edits while still assuming good faith . But I will reserve this for the next Wikiquette alert. One at a time. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Someone said Encyclopedias don't contain mathematical proofs. That is lunacy. It is a fact that hundreds of Wikipedians, many with professional expertise in this area, have discussed how articles on particular mathematical proofs should be written, when they should and when they should not immediately follow the statement of the theorem; when they should be relegated to a separate article and when they should not, when they should be in a subpage (as in the present case) and when they should not."
 * Sorry, it is not lunacy. At best it is mere ignorance. If hundreds of Wikipedians have discussed this, and/or there has been precedence, then you merely had to point them to those discussions. Beetle B. (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the lunacy was when users insisted that they knew the role proofs play in mathematics (comparing them to a "how to" or recipe is not very apt, to say the least). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just want to submit a diff to indicate the level of my mathematical literacy.. Hope this helps.  But it really should not matter.  The Afd was about What Wikipedia was not, and did not require mathematical literacy.  Ra2007 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't look like a math article to me. You may know physics, you may know how to typeset a summation, but that doesn't mean you understand proofs. Besides, your literacy is not in question, unless you want to continue the dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "At best it is mere ignorance." Okay. At worst, it is worse that "lunacy". Either way, they seemed like crazy statements to me. I prefer "random" to "lunacy" - but, I don't think that "lunacy" is out of order. Tparameter (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While I was quite taken aback by the vehemence and inappropriateness of Michael Hardy's comments on the AfD nomination page, the user's talk page, etc., I will assume good faith and chalk this one up to this editor's passion about the subject matter. I left a note on the editor's talk page and I consider the issue done on my part. If I do happen to run across this editor abusing relatively new editors (who may not have as thick skin as I), I will certainly bring his/her actions up in this space in the future. Cheers. -- Simple  Paradox   17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution: Michael, in future will you do your best not use "illiterate" as shorthand for "mathematically illiterate"? That should solve this tempest in a tea cup. Guettarda (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and specific "apparently", since we should comment on actions, not persons. Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a friendly reminder:
 * Why should we tolerate people who write things like "Encyclopedias do not contain mathematical proofs, do they?" asking to be treated with the same respect that good-faith participants in discussions like this are entitled to? That's wrong. We should consider banning that user
 * Why do illiterates who write idiotic crap like this feel entitled to be treated with the same respect that honest people should get? That's just wrong. It is sickening to see the people who hang around the AfD discussions always feeling their [sic entitled to push people around, when those they're pushing around differ from them in that they have some professional expertise in the subject matter and those feeling so entitled are illiterate and dishonest ]
 * They shouldn't be using this page to demand such tutoring.
 * I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I find the behavior of the nominator and two of the discussants offensive.
 * Hope this helps. Ra2007 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, we can close this, per SimpleParadox. An apology is clearly not forthcoming, and this is not getting anywhere.  Ra2007 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Either Michael is right, and mathematically illiterate people are piling on to deletion discussions, in which case, he's calling a spade a spade, or it's false, and they are simply being disruptive. Since it would appear from your history that your main objective here is to be disruptive, it may be unfair to call you mathematically illiterate; you may just be acting that way to further your disruption. You are free to apologise to him for your goading and time wasting. I think there are a lot of other editors to whom you should also apologise. Guettarda (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As of this writing, I have submitted about 17 articles for deletion, and about 10 of them were successful. This is a good ratio, and not disruptive.  I do apologize for failing to recognize earlier that attempting to garner an aplogy from Michael Harding was futile.  I should have recognized this earlier, and moved to close earlier.  Perhaps as I keep my deletion ratio above 0.500, I will come to earn the respect of other wikipedians such as Michael Hardy, and earn the same pass Michael Hardy has received here.  In hindsight, it was certainly a waste of my time to attempt to persuade Michael Hardy that he was not civil.  Ra2007 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Michael Hardy went beyond the line in some of his comments. However, you aren't raising a big stink about the harshness of his comments but rather the appropriateness of the sentiment behind them.  Hardy has a good point that those who think that proofs aren't appropriate material for an encyclopedia's coverage of mathematical concepts have a shaky understanding of writing about mathematics, and it would be bad if a deletion issue on such a topic was settled by those with that level of understanding.  I think he got a little over-frustrated and started to be rude, and he shouldn't do that.  But at the same time, the core sentiment that you seem to be objecting to is a legitimate one.  Mango juice talk 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a small point, but I think I disagree with the sentiment you discuss. Someone could be the number one expert in a given field, and they wouldn't be the most qualified to judge whether a given article in that field should exist/be deleted. They might actually be biased toward keeping an article that should be deleted. Knowledge of a field certainly does color how to apply policy, but it doesn't mean that those with little knowledge of the field can't contribute to the discussion, as policy applies to it. --Nog lorp (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Those with little knowledge of the field can provide valuable perspective. Or they can provide ignorance.  It's a question of being aware that there are things you don't know, and not persisting in an ignorance-based argument when you get corrected.  OTOH, one shouldn't assume that being in the same field makes someone likely to be biased, especially not when we're talking about mainstream academic subjects.  Mango juice talk 04:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point. On first sight I felt that it is probably not worth to preserve the article. But I did not feel qualified to argue, because I did not know the exact background and did not bother to read the proof in detail. So I stayed out of the discussion, only to see much more unqualified people dominate it by insisting on absolutely ridiculous arguments and using rhetorical tricks to defend them. By this polarising behaviour they prevented a sensible discussion with real arguments. The very least that we can expect from those who concentrate their energy on deleting rather than writing is that they give actual content writers who are interested in the article a chance to have an open-ended discussion. That would be less disruptive, and at least in cases like this one it would result in a higher percentage of deletions. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 10 out of 17 is less than 60% confirmation. Since AfD usually deletes a higher percentage of its articles, Ra2007 is doing worse than usual. He might profit by considering why AfD is disagreeing with him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As a point of interest, let's not forget that the mathematically uninformed have been AfD'ing mathematical proof articles for years (e.g. here). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE I added the resolved template to the top of this discussion. The actual parties involved stopped participating two days ago at least.  Cheers.  --  Simple  Paradox   20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I will admit that the style of my comments was certainly unkind and could certainly besr editing. The content---that here we have a persistent problem worth complaining about---is valid.  And frustrating, the way it persists (in the case cited by Cheeser1, one "strong delete"r said on his own talk page that it should be deleted because it's mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Arcayne
I have detailed below just a few incidences of Arcayne breaking Wikipedia policy. He has been blocked seven times for this--although two blocks were lifted. He has also exhibits WP:OWN on the 300 film article.

Incivility

Arcayne accused me of having a "merry little band", and having a "frail post-Persian psyche". Arcayne has told me to use my "noggin".  He has called me and other editors at the 300 article "Petulant, vengeful children"

Arcayne has accused those that disagree with him of being "a pro-nationalist group of editors".

Alteration of other users edits on talk

 User Arcayne has changed the header of a section on his talk page, even though I created it. The original header was "Stalking". Please see. His edit summary was "May [sic] talk page - if I wish to change contentious edits, or headers, I will." This is very misleading since I never accused him of stalking me (that is, until months later when definitive evidence was provided), which the changed header "Who's Stalking Who?" implies.

He removed my answer to his question from his talk page. . And called the answer, which was sourced from ArbCom, vandalism (rvv).

Sniping in talk pages

Arcayne sniped me on Dmcdevit's talk page and recieved this admonishment by Dmcdevit: "Please do not refer to other ediors you disaree with as vandals, as this is uncivil". Furthermore, to his accusations of harassment he responded "The proper response to harassment is not response in kind."

Sarcasm and tone that has been disruptive

"That I find little patience for proven POV editing is not against Wikipedia policy; while I choose to be perhaps a bit insulting of the POV nonsense and not at all sensitive to the frail post-Persian psyche, I would remind you and others that it is not my job at WP to make you feel better. You have mommies for that, and I am not your mommy"

"I am presuming you read it, since you track my edits." 

Prejudice comments

"...your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits", Arcayne later claimed he was talking to the Iranian government, but could not explain why he was talking to the Iranian government on my talk page. You will see further examples of him saying he was referring to other people when he is attacking me.

Accusation of Stalking

Arcayne has accused me of stalking on multiple occasions. Please see. He also accused me of stalking The Behnam and harassing him on Dmcdevit's talk page. I did not stalk in either cases.

Arcayne stalking me

Arcayne recently followed me to the Persian Gulf article and tried to argue with me there. He had never edited that page. This happened during a dispute on the 300 film article. Please see. This is a prime example of wikistalking. I decided not accuse him of it until there was definitive evidence (I did not want to violate AGF).--Agha Nader (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Perhaps it would be important to point out that all of these instances (but the last, referring to the comments in Talk:Persian Gulf) are more than six months old. It's my understanding that the source of his Wikiquette alert is from a sub-page of his user account called RFC/User:Arcayne, created back in April of this year. Talk about holding a grudge. I believe he was inspired to submit this here because he would have found some difficulty with finding someone who would agree that a six-month-old RfC was worthy of consideration. And even 6 months ago, Nader's own conduct (and misinterpretation of events and statements taken out of context) would have sunk him in any RfC proceeding.
 * It also bears mentioning that Nader is currently arguing in the 300 article (which became FA after all the partisan editing went away) that we should be using the word 'Iranians' to replace 'ancient Persians'. And has been scolded by other, established editors for edit-warring and initially refusing to discuss a contentious edit. When he finally made his way to Discussion, he began making fairly impolite comments, which have become increasingly uncivil.
 * As far as the contributions to Persian Gulf, there have been three I've made in over 2 years. the first was to tell folks to essentially calm down, and the second was to counsel Nader for accusing someone of sockpuppetry (where RFCU and SPP are immediately available and can resolve the situation quickly and without the perception of personal attacks). The third time was to point out that Nader needed to read the earlier post, as he accused me of wiki-stalking, which is odd, considering that he then followed me to another user's page and commented there.
 * It is unfortunate that Agha Nader seems to consider those who disagree with his point of view to be targets for incivility and unwarranted accusations, and not just in one article, but across the spectrum of his edits. I say unfortunate because, when he isn't pushing a nationalist point of view, he can perform very good edits. Where his nationalism comes into play, he becomes somewhat narrow-visioned (which is fair to say of anyone, I guess). I do wish he would learn to recognize when his point of view is compromised and withdraw accordingly. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I have serious concerns about Arcayne's behavior, I am no longer pursuing this claim. I do this because Arcayne and Fayssal have requested me to. I also do this in hopes of resolving this problem.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2007(UTC)

Good luck. I hope the two of you are able to resolve your conflict and will have a better relationship. Hmrox (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Lima
Work in Progress - comments welcome

Request for third-party opinion: The respective involved parties have said their pieces. Could some uninvolved editors please review the comments below and offer their opinions? (And could someone please attach this request to the Work in Progress tag?) Leadwind (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is Lima altering two cited sentences and leaving the citations in place. He's implying that the RS says what it didn't say. He came in about an hour after I had added the citations and altered them. This is just the last, clearest example of his campaign of opposition against me. He apparently defends a pro-Catholic POV. Meanwhile, I'm consulting reliable sources on religious topics (purgatory, baptism, early Christianity, etc.). I've got a POV (who doesn't?), but I'm happy to use RSs and simply want Lima to do the same. I want to use several RSs to fashion a standard definition of purgatory; Lima wants to quote the catechism. I can sing a long song of grievances, but let's start with him altering cited information. This has got to be a faux pas, and I hope someone can tell him so, please. Leadwind 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with on this, given that  is misinterpreting the citations for a non-balanced viewpoint. Other editors seem to agree with this stance as well.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For what I did wrong, I apologize. When I edited that text, it seemed to me that the statements (which are not between inverted commas) attributed to the source could not have been exact.  Does the source say simply: "Jesus did not baptize"?  Surely the author of the source knew of, which says it was reported that Jesus baptized (not personally, but his disciples did).  In any case I did not change what was attributed to the source, which is what Leadwind accuses me of: I, in a way that I recognize was wrong, gave an interpretation of the apparent contradiction between the 20th-century source and the 1st-century source to which I drew attention.  I thought that infelicities in what I wrote would be ironed out by other editors.  With regard to the second change from "doctrine about baptism" to "forms of baptism", I thought this was necessary, because the examples that followed were, I thought, only about the manner in which baptism was administered (the text itself uses the word "form"), unrelated to doctrine (what baptism is, what it does).  Does the source really speak of the variable forms of early Christian baptism as variable doctrine?  (In view of the touchiness shown, I have since then refrained from correcting a more obviously false attribution of incorrect information to a source.)  These two changes, done perhaps rather too hurriedly, followed the other change that I made and that I thought was made necessary by Leadwind's insertion of the word "immerse" as if it were the only meaning of the word "βαπτίζω": the article itself states that the meaning of this word was broader, as Leadwind too indicated when he reported his source as saying that the usual method of baptism was by pouring water over the upper part of the body of someone standing in water.  This is not baptism by immersion as usually understood.  Now that I have explained myself, I will add that I hope the Wikipedia community will reprimand me for what I did.  Certain people, who have now got together here and here, have been making me spend too much time on Wikipedia, and I would love a pretext to retire.  Lima 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, you're creepin' people out. Eschoir (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started on Lima - he has reverted Eucharist 13 times without saying what he challenges among the new material, if anything, deletes sourced content and substitutes distorted paraphrase, constantly argues a position using primary sources, won't answer yes or no questions in Talk, defends a pro-Western Catholic POV, doesn't understand basic editing like usage of [sic] in text, has tried to have me banned first as a sockpuppet, then as a sockpuppeteer, tried outing my private Identity, and generally wastes a lot of time dealing with him. Eschoir 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who views the corresponding Talk page can see that I have indeed been pressing Eschoir to discuss our differences of opinion.  Lima 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's any question as to whether Lima's errors were innocent, I'm happy to provide context to show that they weren't. But I don't want to jam this page with my litany of wrongs. I'll happily respond to direct questions. Leadwind (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some further comment is found here. Lima (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind has asked me to comment here-- and I I can substantiate that Lima and I have very different points of view about what a NPOV, Verifiable article looks like. Our specific dispute has been over the article Purgatory. I made major rewrites to the article, but Lima reverted them wholesale. One two other occiasions, I've tried to make similar changes, only to find that my changes were wholesale reverted-- leading me to withdraw from the page until there's the edit-warring situation resolves itself.

I can't go so far as to say Lima's POV concerns are completely without merit, but the net effect of interacting with him led me to seek other places on the project where I could be more useful without having to fight so hard to improve things. Whether Lima's behavior is problematic or whether my changes were problematic is, of course, something neither he nor I can objectively comment on-- but if others have found him to be a little POV-pushy in other context, perhaps he should be looked at just a tad, so see if ya can help him stop. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that Alec's brough it up, let me jump in and say that Lima's repeated pattern on Purgatory is to make life unpleasant for editors that he disagrees with until they leave. That's what Alec did, twice. I've also seen it with other editors. He's been in mediation twice with me, and we've done at least 4 RfCs. The page has had the POV tag since February, and Lima has been the most active and unpleasant in attempts to keep others from fixing the page. Like I said, making cited information wrong is just the latest and clearest transgression of Lima's. I was hoping that a word from an objective third party would help straighten him out, so I set up this alert. Leadwind (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in original research. Please stop making uncivil and snarky comments, especially as editor notes in article space. Also, please do not make edits to prove a point. I implore you to deal with me politely and to work productively towards article improvement. If there's a content conflict we cannot resolve, we can take it to dispute resolution. However, the disruptive and rude attitude you've taken is not acceptable. Vassyana 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) [Best not to respond to this objection to counter-arguments being inserted in "editor notes in article space" to balance the arguments inserted in the same editor notes by the objector. On alleged Original Research, see below.] Original research is prohibited. You cannot use primary sources, like the Bible, to argue against secondary sources. You cannot advance your own position or form your own interpretation. You must cite reliable sources to put forward such arguments and discussions. This has been repeatedly explained to you. Please take the time to read and understand our content policies. Vassyana 03:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Eschoir (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eschoir quoted Vassyana. Vassyana had been the mediator between Lima and me when we were in mediation. V has since taken a wikibreak and drastically limited their participation, partly because of obstructionist editors on WP. --Leadwind 70.102.136.132 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

With two editors on record trying to get Lima to stop using OR, and two on record trying to get him to stop being snarky, would we be well-served to bump this up to an RfC on Lima? Maybe we wait to see how this Wikiquette alert turns out first? Leadwind (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima got to be too much for me for a little while. I developed an aversion to Wiki in recent days because I might have to deal with him. He is an attention seeking missile who would be on "ignore" in a chat room. He has affirmed that he reverted edits even though he did not challenge the content, which he agreed with, to get me to "discuss" them with him, yet he won't respond to any questions put to him when the invitation to discuss is put to him. I've read his work and mine togeter and it sucks because it is the product of edit warring. His attitude is real drama queen, he is inconsistant, and can't just go about his work and entertain a neutral POV. HE is going to drive away more editors than he brings in. Just my opinion. Eschoir (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What now? It seems as though we've said our respective pieces. I hope that the Wikiquette alert leads to some experienced third party sharing their perspective on these conflicts for our benefit. Leadwind (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Plese note the shambles that certain areas of History of the Eucharist are in because of Lima's persistant arguing with sources. He inserts to engage in war of attrition then argues with the source given. He has even demanded a source for a purely literary allusion, and provided a footnote. Eschoir (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:I AM JOHN SMITH
This brand-new user has come into Wiki with guns blazing: trying to speedily delete/merge sourced major articles, leaving somewhat impolite edit summaries and trying to delete correct information because he personally thinks it's "stupid". His edits are easy to clean up, I don't think he's a troll (although he's been here for four days and knows how to use cleanup and speedy deletion tags?!), and I don't think there's any admin intervention needed, but I do think it would help if another editor or two could have a friendly chat with him about how things work around here and how it's important to be civil and keep NPOV. I've offered some suggestions myself but since I'm working on one of the articles he's fighting about, he might not be listening to me. DanielEng (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Left a talk page note and reverted two unsupported edits. The remainder have mostly been reverted in relation to the speedy delete proposals.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It still bugs me about "artistic" gymnastics. Fine,you win. I'll leave it alone. There's plenty of other stupidly named articles that bug me, and I'll try to be nicer about them......"guns blazing"? LOL--I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this Alert isn't so much about any one article but your attitude here in general. If you approach other articles and editors with the same "if I don't like it or know about it, it must be wrong and stupid" mindset and lack of civility, and you try to disrupt other articles with speedy deletes, you'll just end up reading lots of warnings on your Talk Page and eventually you'll be blocked. And your incorrect edits will just be reverted. That's your choice, though...it's your time to waste. DanielEng (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's take this edit summary as an example. You're nitpicking grammar - calling someone "retarded" is highly inappropriate anytime, but especially when either sentence is grammatically correct. Furthermore, I'd say the prior version was better than yours. You need to seriously adjust the tone of your editing, and also to not go around deleting things you don't know about, when they have well-written, properly established articles. You might think an article is "stupidly named" but artistic gymnastics is a recognized form of gymnastics, sort of in the sense that ice hockey is a type of hockey. "I don't think this is an art" does not suffice. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note. This user does still contribute. His recent edits have all been reverted with notes on his talk page. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 21:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that this user is still being less-than productive in some cases. However, he is entitled to remove comments from his talk page. While he doesn't "own" it, it is a space for people to drop him notes and messages, and it's his to purge, tidy, or archive as he sees fit. That's the community-accepted practice. Don't continue to restore these comments, it may only provoke him further. Refer to WP:TALK and WP:USER for more on this issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem as though this user has any intention of changing his behavior, which is a shame.DanielEng (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood, but the two comments I added TODAY (December 15, 2007) that you removed shouldn't have been removed. The only comments I added back was from the one headline text of comments from a week ago (December 6, 2007). I assume that you didn't notice the date on the comments that I added and just removed everything. For the future, PLEASE look before you lead. That is all I'm asking. Thanks. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 02:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding on your bitchfest, but I'd like to know why my talkpage was reverted again(?!). I'm not such a bad guy, but my patience is running out here. I'm also not mad at anyone in particular, I even took another break; but still I get messed with! Can we like, get along here?I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone removed a heading on your talk page, and someone reverted that edit and left a comment. x42bn6 Talk Mess  01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, I figured that part out. I just wanted to know why.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this is about "etiquette" in a broad scope, let's forget for a moment what he's done, his user name is the net equivalent of SCREAMING!! Not in all my time here have I seen an editor with an all cap user name.  Can that issue be addressed?  KellyAna (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you could ignore it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And how, exactly, do you ignore screaming? KellyAna (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's a hotel with many rooms; some of them are soundproofed, some of them serve as an asylum. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What? KellyAna (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a non-issue. Usernames in capital letters are not a violation of any policy or guideline.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:USERNAME telling us not to capitalize as we choose, as far as I've ever read. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you can't use all caps in replies, but you can in a user name. I really could have sworn you couldn't.  I guess most users know all caps breed hostility, maybe that's why offense was taken by this other editors to this user?  Don't know the full story but I do know the name struck me as offensive the minute I saw it.KellyAna (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I was falsely accused of requesting censure, let me be very clear, my QUESTION ~ get that, question ~ was about the screaming all cap name. In all my time here I've not seen that allowed so I asked. I have RUDELY been accused of wanting the user censured. This is far from true. A title case name would be preferred, but I never stated to ban the user because of his name. I was merely questioning the Wiki rules about ALL CAPS in a user name and the etiquette of such a name. KellyAna (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No one here accused you of "censure." You were simply pointed to the relevant policies, which do not prohibit any such capitalization. Furthermore, for someone overreacting to all caps, you seem to use them liberally. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did at my talk page, given that the user was essentially pressing for censure (i.e. action) against a very minute item. The user had no prior involvement with the case and it seemed a little suspicious. The user has engaged in some reverting on my talk page after I archived the discussion, given that the user wanted to report me for being hostile.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to look up the definition of censure, it is not simply to take action it is to ban or quiet someone. You implied I wanted the user banned when in reality I wanted an explanation of the allowability of all caps since it's expressly forbidden in certain areas of Wikipedia.  I do find it uncivil to accuse someone of "suspicious actions" for expressing concern over a user name here rather than reporting it officially.  That seems to me to not fall into the category of assuming good faith.  And you were very rude on your talk page.  I asked questions which you, in a position to make decisions about others, should have been able to answer but you refused.  Your actions were rude, regardless of your opinion.  When someone asks an honest question not designed to inflame, it should be answered.  But rather than answer you accused and reverted with accusatory edit summaries. KellyAna (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a total non-issue stemming from a total non-issue. I suggest you drop it. Seicer, I suggest you let it go too. It's not worth arguing because neither of KellyAna's complaints have any merit. And no, it's not unfair or rude to say it, it's just the facts of the matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

new comment: I notice that the case is now listed as "resolved" above. I respectfully think it's too early to say this...the user's pattern seems to be to drop out of Wiki for a few days and then return with exactly the same attitude he had when he left. It's only been a few days this time too. I would suggest that we leave this open until the user appears again so we can see if there's been any change in his behavior. Saying "no further uncivil behavior"...well yes, but he hasn't been here to behave in any fashion. DanielEng (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it comes to the editor engaging in incivil edits, then it can be reopened. But given that the original report is over a week old, and the only major edit he has done since then that has caused any concern was a template that he stated was made for satire, I can't find any major complaints.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken, as long as this can be reopened. I hope it won't come to that, but given what I've seen, ten to one there will be more complaints about him when he returns. DanielEng (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Sceptre
I edited the article on Gamespot to include the section on the criticism regarding Jeff Gertsmann, because of the fact that the amount of agreement on the discussion page seemed to suggest it should be included. Sceptre and another editor were the only two editors actively watching the page. So, despite my edits, they were reverted. Per the 3RR, I let it go and did not press it.

However, in the process, User:Sceptre was extremely belligerent and rude to me. I saw some disturbing stuff on his talk page, where it seemed like he was frequently stirring up trouble on Wikipedia.

So, after reviewing his edits, it seems to me that Sceptre does not believe in WP:CONSENSUS, which he refers to as the "mob mentality." He is a disgruntled ex-admin that believes Wikipedia is in horrible condition because of widespread trolling ("the horde"), which admins are not tough enough against. In the edits he makes, he is constantly accusing users of breaking the rules and of being trolls. He frequently invokes shortcuts to WP rules. He comes off as belligerent, arrogant, and uncompromising. He was warned before by an admin for improper Wikipedia ettiqute. 

I don't expect him to agree with my edits on Gamespot. I can compromise. Sceptre just needs to be a bit more polite and drop the bad attitude. Another example of what I mean is our discussion over the neutrality of calling Al-Qaeda "terrorists." 69.138.16.202 (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Piece-by-piece response:
 * The Gerstmann incident just stinks of mob-mentality.
 * You're trying to push for rumours in BLPs and HOCs. Rumours that have been rebutted.
 * Local consensus on an article can also not override WP:NOT.
 * RockMFR's post wasn't a warning, it was playful banter (ask him to verify if you wish).
 * As you say, I am an ex-admin, so I know trolls when I see them, and call them thusly.
 * Will (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I went over to User:Sceptre's Talk Page, and could not find any discussion between you and Sceptre. Since you noted that he was belligerent and rude on his Talk Page, cuold you post an exact date on which this occured so that we can get a feel for what might have happened?  Without concrete information, this would give the appearance of a baseless accusation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's present on Talk:Al-Qaeda. I removed it from my talk as it was becoming evident that it was made in bad faith. Will (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide diff's so that we can assist you in a speedy manner. I can't find any obvious citations of where Sceptre labeled anyone as trolls or vandals. For easier access:   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my post on his talk page was just a joke. While I'm here, I guess I'll comment on the situation - the initials edits to after the Gerstmann thing were absolutely terrible, and caused me to fully lock the article. There was some headway made on the talk page creating a sourced account of the incident, though it still was pretty poorly written. I personally think this should be covered in the article (if only to finally have a few secondary sources in the article), but whether the rumor itself is included is an entirely different matter. The problem lies in the sources we have. We've got some stuff from CNET and GameSpot saying one thing, we've got blogs citing "anonymous sources" saying another thing, and we've got a variety of websites later on providing coverage of the incident (I don't know - did any non-blogs ever pick it up?). The rumors themselves carry virtually no weight because nobody publishing the rumors is willing to give their source or otherwise show their reputation for good fact-checking. The coverage of the rumors (provided by various websites and even GameSpot itself) is another matter. --- RockMFR 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See our discussions on Gamespot here, our discussion on al-Qaeda here. As for RockMFR's comment, it may have been playful, but does that mean it's OK for Sceptre to be rude? The "joke" was still in relation to a rude comment he made.


 * In the words of the Message Board Help forum at GameFAQs, "Fair. Next."


 * That was rude. Give me some more time. I can find plenty of more incidences of this guy being caustic and abrasive.


 * Also, I just noticed that Sceptre put me on the admins' noticeboard for wikistalking, without even notifying me. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And when he reported me to Crum375, he falsely accused me of making edits on Eidos Interactive, Jeff Gerstmann, and Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. I have not edited any of those articles even once. I edited the Gamespot article, but let it go after the 3 reverts. So far, his claim that I am "wikistalking" and "wikilawyering" and "trolling" relies upon me reverting Gamespot and al-Qaeda a few times. So, it's rather frivolous for him to be making such charges.


 * Please see the paragraph titled "A small thought" on his user page. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note, GameSpot should be monitored for possible WP:BLP and WP:SPS violations, per this comment.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the edits of, I see no violations of civility or of vandalism. The editor has been making a steadfast effort to revert changes to GameSpot and etc. in accordance to policies and guidelines -- specifically, WP:BLP and WP:SPS. Adding in blogs and rumors that attest to the ability of an individual, no matter if there was a "consensus," is a violation of BLP and must be removed. Per Jimmy Wales, this is non-negotiable and all steps must be taken to ensure that BLP is enforced. Per SPS, blogs are not generally credible sources. And note that per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is gained through discussion, not by voting; looking at talk:Gamespot, I see no general consensus and additional input should be requested from other sources.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with Seicer here. Sceptre might be a bit abrasive at times, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's out-of-line. I think he might jump to conclusions about who's "trolling" but he seems to do so only when his patience runs out, and it's not up to us to decide how much bickering one must endure before deciding an argument with an anonIP is too much. His observations on Wikipedia are bitter, cynical, and quite pessimistic. I can't really blame him. A userpage expressing honest sentiments about how Wikipedia functions is not a violation of any policy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering
Placed personal attacks on my talk page and then edit warred to return them after I elided them:, , claiming that because s/he believed the attack to be "true", that it justified the incivility,. GlassFET 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In+deed: there is no attack in Truth. The attribution of 'incivility' and 'personal attack' is bunk. Svaha B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A tad incivil, regarding the following --
 * "Your demeanor is that of an offensive primary school teacher..."
 * "...you are demonstrating your lack of spiritual accomplishment..."
 * But nothing that would grossly violate WP:CIVIL. For quicker access: and    Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding B9 hummingbird hovering's edits at User talk:GlassFET: Per WP:TALK, a user is allowed to refactor comments if they are perceived to be incivil, remove discussions or archive them on their own talk pages. Revert warring, such as what you have begun at the user talk page, is not generally tolerated. Please be more mindful of that in the future and just drop the issue.  Seicer ' (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My read is that both editors need to take a long breath and consider what has been written. I agree with User:Seicer that there is nothing unbelievably uncivil here.  While B9 hummingbird hovering's use of words may not have been the best at taking a situation in the best direction, the statement that was left oner her page by User:GlassFET was accusatory. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Incivil" is a non-standard English construction: "civil" does not generally combine with the adposition "in+". The adposition "un+" is standard. That said, the vowel sound does change with "incivility". NB: Source: (accessed: December 20, 2007)
 * Ah
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While we are impressed with your random word assignments peppered throughout your talk page in lieu of an actual reply, can you provide an assessment or reason to the personal queries at GlassFET's talk page? And please stop peppering my talk page with comments regarding incivility: . I can't make heads or tails regarding your comment or even the underlying reason behind them.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you asking a question of me? I am more than happy to respond. Moreover, what "we" are you 'speaking' for?


 * A joust in jest


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Context: this editor was mentioned in a previous Wikiquette alert, here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

is the reincarnation of a banned user.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please substantiate that? --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A CheckUser report.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please link to it? WP:BAN makes it pretty clear to me that reincarnations are not allowed, unless I've been terribly mislead. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They aren't allowed, which is why I've just blocked it. I received a CU request via email on being a sock of banned . I checked and that was the case. Then CU also showed that AC was the same as GlassFET and .  Blnguyen   ( bananabucket ) 06:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, because up until just now, there was nothing indicating that this accusation was true. Thanks for the information. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Antelan
I approached this editor here regarding his characterization of several of my edits as either hypocritical, disrespectful and aggressive. I have asked him to refrain, but but he has asserted the his characterizations were correct. I would like to get an opinion and request that his comments be edited or removed as per removing uncivil comments section in the WP:CIVIL. Anthon01 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please direct us to the source of these comments and his responses, rather than your discussion of them. Providing diffs is most helpful. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The conversation started here. Her recommendations was carried out. The next day part of the text was reinserted by ScienceApologist. I questioned ScienceApologist on his talk page. Antelan's response is the last part of this diff, where he claims I am being aggressive. I question CrohnieGal on the Quackwatch talk page about the reinsertion of the text. Antelan claims I am being disrespectful and hypocritical.


 * If you need more information please let me know. Anthon01 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of incivility here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain. Are you saying that characterizing edits as hypocritical, disrespectful and the like is ok? Are you saying that I have not been (uncivil) hypocritical or disrespectful? I assume being disrespectful is a form of incivility. Anthon01 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The diffs you have provided include bickering, content disputes, etc. They do not include any substantial violations of WP:CIVIL. Please look to that policy to understand what civility is, instead of asking me, and check the policy next time before you file a complaint. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you input. I will review the policy. Anthon01 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The myriad disputes going in at Quackwatch and environs notwithstanding, I'm inclined to agree with User:Cheeser1 that there doesn't seem to be much incivility there. Actually, the most uncivil thing I saw in the diffs you provided was your "Thanks for trying" retort to User:Crohnie; I think that User:Antelan was quite right to chide you a little for that remark, and I think that he or she remained well within the boundaries of WP:CIVIL while doing so.
 * I'd encourage you to take Antelan's words to heart and to take respectful criticism in the spirit in which it is intended, rather than as a de jure violation of WP:CIVIL. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. But "thanks for trying was sincere." Why are you seeing it as an insincere retort? I then went to her talk page here and reiterated my thanks. Please note her response to my thanks on her talk page. Do you still think that Antelan was right? I will ask Antelan if that was his interpretation also. Anthon01 (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It actually appears that you were being sincere, so I do apologize for suggesting otherwise. However, I think you'll find that "Thanks for trying" immediately following an explanation of why somebody's wrong about something will almost always be interpreted as being snide and sarcastic - it's a phrasing you might want to say away from entirely in that context.  In light of that, I think User:Antelan's interpretation of your meaning was reasonable, even if it turned out to be wrong.
 * I'd say that this particular flair-up looks a lot like much ado about nothing; I'd hope it would be easy for both of you to move past. Sarcasticidealist (talk)


 * Thanks for taking a look. It is likely we will get past it. My apologies if I misunderstood WP:CIVIL and the purpose of this page. Anthon01 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Non article related editor issues on article talk pages
I don't want to appear confrontational so I didn't make the editor's name the section header.
 * From Talk:Evan Montvel Cohen:

''...blocked for edit warring, nor been the subject of an RFC. But that’s my credentials. Anyeverbody has been blocked for edit warring, had other issues...|Aboutmovies 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)''

We're all entitled to our opinions, but bringing up past issues which do not have any bearing on current discussions, such as mentioning a block for edit warring when that isn't the issue at hand, is a probable violation of WP:CIVIL,(part of the comment did relate as it was made on a BLP article so I'm not including the whole thing). It also encourages a disruption caused by editors who take such comments personally and turn an article talk page into a personality conflict. Anynobody 02:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've left him a polite note at his talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The user and I have been having a conversation on the subject here. Additional comments are welcome. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also left a response. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this issue is best addressed with minimum comment by myself. As much as I want to help, I get the feeling it could just make things harder. However I really appreciate your help :) Anynobody 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The user in question has blanked the discussion from his talk page after I cautioned him that his actions are not appropriate or fair to other good-faith contributors. Perhaps in the future, someone will cite his obstinacy in this WQA complaint in an unrelated content dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they will, sooner or later everyone makes a mistake. When that inevitably does happen, such claims of a perfect record can (though they should not) then become somebody else's ammo, how ironic. However I think that in this case, the outside input from neutral editors combined with what I hope is progress I managed to make in the conversation which spawned the issue here have solved everything. Thanks again, I know how ungrateful people usually are about receiving feedback. :) Anynobody 05:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin
Stalking, open hostility to many users on all pages where he is active, disruptive edits, abuse, profanities, continuously trying to initiate editwars and get other users blocked on pages where he has contributed or discussed nothing, etc. etc. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs so that we can see exactly what's going on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny how Guido characterises OM's actions as "stalking"; Guido is the one who just shown up at articles on which OM is one of the primary editors. Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that 'shoot the messenger' is once again a most popular sport on Wikipedia. What's the point in having this page, then? Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Shoot the messenger? Nope.  Point it out when people are trying to abuse the system?  Looks so.  Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See ANI, now. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Where you got the same message. Please don't forum shop. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And we have another shooter, also holding the arrow at the wrong end. Following procedure here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, no shooting: Teresa is pointing out that you are venue-shopping in the hopes that your indefensible accusation will gain traction.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is obviously false (look at the history) and a clear violation of WP:AGF. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Issues here should not be simultaneously reported to other alert boards. It's forum-shopping by definition, and is not "procedure." --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Putting the same matter on different boards makes it difficult to resolve anything. Also, to the OP, after looking at the two diffs you provided, I can't see anything more than perhaps a personality conflict. I haven't read anything in your diffs that shows he's stalking you or being uncivil.DanielEng (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look? The issue reported on ANI is a different one. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. In both cases, you're still accusing the user of rather serious offenses, and based on the diffs you've provided, you're completely off the mark. Nobody's threatening or stalking you. You're going from one forum to another in the hopes someone will take action against the user and give you a better answer, but you're really not going to get anywhere with this. Maybe it's a personality conflict, maybe it's a language barrier, and maybe it's the holidays and everyone's tempers are short...in any case, maybe it'd be a good idea for you to step back, take a deep breath, and avoid interacting with this user for a while. DanielEng (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These are different offences that belong on different pages. A threat must be dealt with on ANI, not here. It's not my fault that this user chooses to escalate. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not offenses. They're comments that you're allowing to upset you needlessly. Looking at all the diffs again, it appears that they were on other people's Talk Pages--not yours--and you're choosing to interpret them to mean more than they do. Or else you are abusing the system and just making a frivolous complaint. Do you know what stalking really is? If the editor were following you around and leaving nasty comments on your Talk Page, that might qualify as Wikistalking, but it doesn't look as though that is happening.


 * This page, as it says, is an opportunity to get an objective third-person perspective on problems. Looking at this, as a complete stranger who has never worked with either you or OrangeMarlin, my perspective is that this WPA and the ANI are both pretty baseless. Nor do I see OrangeMarlin doing anything to 'escalate' this situation. Of course, you don't have to listen to me or any other editor, but it seems as though you're wasting your time with all this. I'm sure you'd rather be editing than engaging in a stressful debate that's not going to go anywhere, right? DanielEng (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I was doing. I was happily editing, when Orangemarlin came along, as he did before. End of happy editing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, let the matter drop, and go back to happy editing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll (II)
Explicit assumptions of bad faith and other hostile behaviour with regard to numerous users on several talk pages, including Objections_to_evolution, Homeopathy, Young Earth creationism and User talk:Filll. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs so that we can see exactly what's going on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know what I have done that is so egregious.--Filll (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding self-admitted pov-pushing by this user . Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have made a mistake with you diff. Guettarda (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The diff is correct, thank you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I confess that I don't see how the diff constitutes POV pushing. Could you clarify a little bit, User:Guido den Broeder? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By claiming that no references are needed because it is obvious from 'our articles across Wikipedia', in addition to twice reverting an edit on which, at that time, there was consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of hij niet begrijpt. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the difficulty here is linguistic, I suspect.--Filll (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding more personal attacks as we go. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That one does actually strike me as a little bit uncivil. Could somebody provide me with a little bit of background to the dispute, so I can see what's going on? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Look at WP:USERNAME. It's a valid concern, at least to some extent. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't speak Dutch, so if the user name translates to something offensive, then I agree that's a concern. But as I understand it, there are people in the Netherlands named Guido, so I think absent evidence to the contrary WP:AGF requires that we allow this.  Besides, if there is a problem, it's better dealt with at WP:Usernames for administrator attention than here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but surely if the worst infraction is a (misinformed) question about the use of (something mistaken for a) racist epithet, what kind of merit does this complaint really have? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I need some more diffs and quite a bit of context before I'd feel comfortable passing any kind of judgment on what's going on here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The name is Italian. Its only meaning is 'guide'. Not so rare that you wouldn't have people with this name in the USA, with so many citizens of Italian or Dutch descent. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (after numerous edit conflicts) * Objections_to_evolution: I wrote that the statement in the text that these objections were widespread was, to my knowledge, not correct. I waited for replies. Two users agreed, upon which I changed the text to reflect that this was primarily so in the USA. I get complimented for the new text. Along comes Filll, and reverts my edit. So I put a fact-tag instead. Along comes Orangemarlin, and removes the tag. Guettarda who is so very helpful here, also shows up as a creationist. No evidence for this wide spread is presented. Instead, Fill sends me a warning, starts a series of posts where he 'criticises' my English, quickly followed by several other users, and claims that no evidence is needed because all is obvious from 'our articles across Wikipedia'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're getting somewhere. As I understand it the problem is with [|this section].  I agree that you were being perfectly reasonable to request sources, and I agree that User:Filll's response was somewhat over the top.  I also think, though, that your accusation that he was here to push POV was a violation of WP:AGF.  If both of you had been more civil and kept cooler heads, I think that you would have found this dispute easier to resolve. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * again, after numerous edit conflicts Homeopathy: A good number of users is discussing a better wording for the sentence The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. Along comes Filll, and accuses everyone present of pov-pushing, crud, being jokers, etc. When we protest, he claims that we are biased. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry GdB, but that section of Homeopathy has been discussed a hundred times. And more than Filll, but myself, Adam Cuerden, Tim Vickers, ScienceApologist, and the list goes on, have reverted edits to that section.  The article is approaching a high degree of stability.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussed so many times, and still wrong and pov. Wow, are you doing a great job. But, obviously, that gives Filll the right to insult everyone over and over again. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What insults are you talking about? Once again, if you believe someone has insulted you, provide diffs to substantiate such a claim. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like these: Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Those aren't wholly insults. I guess calling a group of people "jokers" may be divulging into "incivility," but is pushing the definition. I don't see any insults -- just someone who is tired of having his comments criticized at every corner.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So, basically it boils down to you complaining about other editors who hold different viewpoints than that of your own. You haven't provided sufficient WP:DIFFs to state any instance of persistent incivility, vandalism, etc.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am complaining about the manner in which Filll elects to adress other editors who hold different viewpoints than his own. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is at least one other side to this. And we could trot out our own set of diffs to show that this is not only ridiculous, but that GDB is engaging in WP:DE and generally tendentious editing. However, I think everyone should just ignore this silly tempest in a teapot and allow people to actually be productive. This comes close to trolling, as far as I am concerned.--Filll (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not edited Homeopathy at all, so the above is another example of your insultive behaviour. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What "insultive behaviour" are you talking about? Once again, please provide evidence of such behavior; until you do, I am marking this as closed. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for demonstrating the complete uselessness of this page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with civility policy (and while you're at it, try reading WP:POT). Becoming hostile and despondent towards this alert board is not going to help the situation. I suggest you cool it and move on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Guido has been forum shopping around, presenting the same information at User talk:JzG. He pretty much gave up there after he received information that was not in his favour. I pretty much believe this case is dead: Guido is ignoring anyone who crosses his path and refuses to heed advice. Whether he is burnt out or not, is no standing in his arrogance or AGF vios.   Don't like our answers? Then please seek your assistance elsewhere, but with your continued arrogance here and elsewhere, and your continued forum shopping, you won't find much help.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I presented information because I was asked to do so. Thanks for adding to the fire, is the pile not high enough already? Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)