Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive34

User:Filll (III)
This user has accused me of being biased, selective reading of policy, disruptive editing (in a project page, in a projject in which I had only made 1 edit at the time), and religious recruiting (which I honestly don't even understand). He has also reverted good faith edits, claiming they violated NPOV, which is not grounds for reversion, "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate." at Help:Reverting. Furthermore, he has removed multiple tags, claiming that somehow asking for citations is a violation of NPOV. He has consistently failed to Assume good faith. I have asked this user multiple times to assume good faith, and he continues to not do so.

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design "Selective reading" at the end.

See User talk:Filll where I and another editor ask him to maintain good faith, and he claims that we don't understand policy.

See Objections to evolution revision history where he removes challenges to material, with no explanation, and reverts good faith edits without cause. He seems to have done so several times, to other editors, in this article.

See Talk:Objections to evolution "NPOV" where I am accused of religious recruiting.

This does not seem to be the first complaint regarding these issues with this user. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be much more easy for us to assess this situation if you provided the relevant sequences of diffs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it may be with edits such as this. Fill reverted a fact tag on the basis that consensus was needed before adding it, which is totally incorrect. Given that the proceeding reference makes no mention of the disputed statement, a reference should be found or the statement removed entirely. At any rate, I reverted that edit on the basis given above.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

, . GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted the same fact tag. Go for it dudes, why don't you write me up too.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's not a poor attitude, I don't know what is. Take it up with the mediation committee or request a third opinion as this is more of a content dispute. But removing fact/cn tags is not the way to go -- those statements are wholly unsourced and should either be cited or removed since they can provoke dispute.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, this edit makes more than enough sense to me. Being unnecessarily redundant or over-qualifying particular claims presents them as dubious or specious (ie not NPOV). --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, although that wasn't the same as removing fact tags throughout.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so where's the civility issue? This sounds like content dispute(s) or possibly a misunderstanding of WP:R to me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk:Objections to evolution he accuses me of "religious recruiting" (which doesn't even make sense). And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design he accuses me of being disruptive, several times, instead of assuming good faith. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide diffs to make our lives just a little easier. There's a lot of discussion to waddle through. Thanks,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 07:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the diffs are listed above. In see "NPOV" at the end. In  see "POV issues" where he refers to "people like you" and "Selective reading" where I am called disruptive. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been seeing alot of content disputes and people with very different agendas (my assumptions of good faith notwithstanding), and there's alot of headbutting going on. What is a fact? What is falsifiability? Several of you seem to be up to your ears in a content dispute that doesn't seem very fun. That seems to have lead at least two people to file more-or-less frivolous complaints against Filll (above). So what's up with this one? Filll says you have a religious agenda, Filll says you are disruptive, and Filll says you are pushing a POV as if you're writing a tract. If he believes, in good faith, that you are, then he's entitled to say so (and it appears that this is the case). Is his tone less-than-complementary? Yes. Is he showing a lack of patience? Perhaps. But I'm still at a loss as to how "people like you" can't be interpreted as it seems to be meant: people on your side of your content dispute, who say the things that you say. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Frivolous? He called me a religious fanatic, with no basis whatsoever, and then he reverted fact templates! He has a history of doing so as well. I'm absolutely baffled by what you're saying. He can be uncivil if he believes it is true, in good faith?GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not read my comment correctly, and have jumped to some pretty odd conclusions. Please take the time to read what I said thoroughly. For example, saying "you are disruptive" is not an example of incivility, unless the accusation is made in bad faith. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that, by it's nature, made in bad faith? Isn't calling someone disruptive necessarily assuming that they are not acting in good faith? What am I misunderstanding? GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You called him uncivil. How is it any different? Try reading WP:POT. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you referring to? And are you saying that I did the same to him? GusChiggins21 (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not by its nature, but in this case it is. Cheeser1, the assumption that such qualifications are made in good faith is lost as soon as, when challenged, no explanation is provided. Further, even if one has genuine feelings like this, it is not civil to voice them repeatedly at every opportunity. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'll ask you both to refer to WP:CIVIL and WP:POT, which you don't seem to understand. Everyone on this alert board but you, all of the third, fourth, fifth opinions, they all seem to point this back to you as a simple content dispute that you've conflated into some massive ball of incivility by Filll. It's just not the case. If you want to use this alert board, you're going to have to live with it when your complaints have no merit, not drag it out into accusing everyone but yourself of being wrong about the issue. If you've already decided that Filll has been uncivil, and you already know how wrong it is, and you have no intention of assuming good fiath or working past that issue, then what are you doing here?? --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not claim that people do not understand policy each time you draw a different conclusion. If several people come here and say that they feel offended by a user, respect that. If a policy allows this, than perhaps the policy needs adjustment, or the policy is less relevant than you thought. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is all just as ridiculous as the attempts by other editors above (Are they really different editors?) to brand me as some sort of ill-behaving malcontent. One editor cannot just declare that 100 other editors and a year of work is all nonsense, on his personal say so, and get his way, without building consensus. One editor with no sources cannot just remove sourced material, and get it to stick, with no discussion or conversation or agreement. One editor cannot just act unilaterally, and if anyone opposes him or tries to get him to slow down, declare that those opposing him or trying to slow him down are acting in an uncivil manner. This is completely silly.--Filll (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have legitimate concerns about sockpuppetry, you should see WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist
This editor has engaged in a pattern of uncivil behavior and personal attacks. diff diff diff diff Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I might caution User:ScienceApologist to consider how his typed words might be interpreted, that is that it might be possible for them to be interpreted as being judgmental of the editor vs. the material, I do not really see a blatant personal attack here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no personal attacks, only perhaps an attack on pseudoscience. His tone is perhaps insistent or frustrated, but not uncivil as I read it. Are there any personal remarks or more incivil comments you could direct us to? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought calling someone a disruptive agenda-driven editor, to cite one of the examples I've already given, (also seen here), would qualify as a personal attack, but that's just my opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that calling someone a disruptive agenda-driven editor would more than qualify as a personal attack. But I followed your old links and your new ones, and I am not seeing that in the difs.  I am seeing disagreement, and I am seeing some words that could be seen as judgmental.  That's wrong, and I have cautioned the editor about that.  This editor does need to be more careful in how he uses his words, and I left what I hoped to be a positively worded caution to him on his Talk Page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to find that in the diff I provided, just search for the word 'disruptive' and you'll find his reply to Anthon01's RfC comment, where he says: "I don't trust disruptive agenda-driven editors to Wikilawyer." Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! Whenever I loaded the page, I only saw the difs that were near the top of the page .... I never saw the ones lower down.  My apologies.  Still, I don't see this as a personal attack.  The strongest word here may have been the "wikilawyer" comment, but I am not sure that this was directed at any particular editor.  Nonetheless, this seems to be covered under "petty" issues on WP"CIVIL.  I feel like I am dominating the conversation here, and would like to make sure that if this is a more severe issue than I am seeing that someone will say something. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you've lost me. Just above you said that "calling someone a disruptive agenda-driven editor would more than qualify as a personal attack". Now you say "I don't see this as a personal attack.".  I'm out of energy for this conversation for now. Dlabtot (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He gives the identical reply to perfectblue in the same edit. I see now, and I suppose it should be noted, the he is under an ArbCom restriction for previous incivility. But if you placed a caution, perhaps that will suffice. Dlabtot (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if rather than cautioning him, you cheered his behavior, it's possible you've done more harm than good. Dlabtot (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now Dlabtot, I think you are the one who may be implying bad faith. I cautioned him about his use of language, as I mentioned to him that this needed to be addressed.  After reading what he was editing about, I supported his editing, not his use of language.  The issue here is a lack of civility (which I don't support), not the content of his editing (which, frankly, I do upon reflection).  In short, Science Apologist may have been right, but that is not an excuse for using the language he did.


 * As for your other accusation here, you seemed to imply that you or another editor were called a disruptive agenda driven editor. Those certainly were the words used.  I think there is a difference between someone in frustration making a statement about "editors in general", and making a direct statement toward a specific editor(s).  I am seeing more the latter.  It still isn't the preferred response, and I have left a note as such.
 * I've already shown you where he specifically directed that comment at perfectblue and Anthon01. I can only present the evidence; it's up to you to acknowledge it. Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, I do find that it helps to avoid confrontation when trying to offer correction, which is why I left the note that I did (which you linked to). I find that opening these debates with stern warnings and lectures tend to not have the desired effect in most cases.  I in no way encouraged this user to continue incivility.  My encouragement was to continue editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion is moot; the issues I've raised here are being evaluated at Arbitration Enforcement, and they will be resolved there. Since ScienceApologist was under ArbCom restrictions for prior incivility, I should have posted there in the first place, not here, so I'm placing the NWQA tag on this section.  Thank you for your efforts. Dlabtot (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that it depends on context, and I'm having trouble contextualizing it - not to mention it's hard to pick through one diff that contains several comments (sorry for not seeing them all). I would echo the concerns that the tone may not be as good as possible, but that I'm not sure there's any systematic incivility (nor any blatant or acute instances). --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the matter has been taken up elsewhere. I think this alert was unnecessary. Dlabtot (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, after coming back to this after the initial discussion, and seeing the other restrictions, I think the borderline problems, which aren't normally an etiquette concern, are worth taking up based on this previous ruling, but of course not here but at that new discussion. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Loodog
I'm usually the one here answering concerns, but I was hoping to get a little help with a hostile/uncivil user who's been making a point of treating me as though I am a vandal / troll / disruptive editor, instead of what I am (a long standing contributor). I believe the sequences of events will speak for themselves:

Mainspace at Physical attractiveness:
 * 1)  deletes a perfectly well sourced, and in my opinion relevant, piece of information based on an assumption that it "belongs somewhere else" - although it was not moved anywhere
 * 2)  I restore the deletion
 * 3)  edit war begins
 * 4)  edit war ends when I cite the appropriate consensus-building policy
 * 5)  I take the initiative to find compromise and moved the content in question into its own section, which was mutually agreeable

Talk at Talk:Physical attractiveness:
 * 1)  discussion finally begins on the talk page with a reiteration of his edit summary
 * 2)  I address his concerns about how it fits in the section by recommending he move it instead of deleting / edit warring over it
 * 3)  decides, unilaterally, that the content has "no place in [that] article"
 * 4) discussion ensues, including sarcasm, a complete misunderstanding of consensus building, and an inappropriate personal sexual remark
 * 5)  reiterates unilateral judgement that it "has no place in [that] article"
 * 6) desipte unilateralism, he then files a "motion to [do what he wants]", then an RFC, and then an RfM


 * 1) I repeatedly explain that I am assuming good faith and want to go through the consensus-building process
 * 2)  I address his challenge to the agreed-upon move of the content into a new section, a challenge he made to make a point about how I allegedly can also act unilaterally (although since we agreed that it didn't fit the section it was in, my actions were not unilateral)
 * 3)  accuses me of "blocking consensus" by not capitulating to his deletion
 * 4)  asserts that his opinion is paramount because he has "done lots of work on [that article]", going so far as to label my inclusion (or rather, my opposing deletion) of (at least arguably) relevant content as "adversely affect[ing the] readability and usability of [W]ikipedia."
 * 5)  prompts me to "give it a rest" despite his filing an RfC and leading the conversation directly into a discussion of my intent and apparent negative impact on Wikipedia

User talk at User talk:Loodog:
 * 1)  personal attack / unfounded "trolling" accusation
 * 2)  refusing a mature request to settle the incivility
 * 3)  threatening to report me to the ANI for asking him not to make personal attacks / unfounded accusations of trolling
 * 4)  polite courtesy notification of this WQA post

Being a regular here, I have probably been a bit too longwinded in laying this all out, but lots of diffs are usually what help me sort through others' complaints and I'm hoping that what I like to see in a WQA post is also what's going to help any of you who want to give your opinion. Thanks in advance. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To third-party mediators, I have no problem with Cheeser and now believe him to be a well-intentioned editor, but since the content issue that started all this has been resolved, I would like nothing more than a divorce. I would like to let any personal issues drop and would appreciate never being contacted again by Cheeser except for content issues on articles.


 * Cheeser and I are strangers who don't know each other who interact on the internet. We are therefore under no obligation to end things on good terms, especially when efforts to do so have only inflamed the situation.  Thank you.--Loodog (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid Wikipedia is written by consensus, as was made clear. It is a collaborative process that requires you to accept the input of others, graciously at that. You cannot "divorce" someone, nor can you deny your obligation to be civil. Content issues are not the only issues for which one is required to answer. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this all went wrong when the decision was made to restore the deletion rather than discussing it on the talk page at that point. Continuously citing consensus policy while ignoring important supplements to that policy, such as WP:BRD, leads to the heated discussion/debates that occurred above.  While incivility (and this word gets thrown about so much, especially by those who engage in ad hominem arguments themselves) has no place in said discussion/debate, it is important in this case to note that two other editors chimed in on the relevant talk page.  One even mentioned his impression of Cheeser1's written tone as being "angry", an impression I agree with.


 * Many of the summaries of your presented diffs, misstate/oversimplify what actually happened. For example, the "refusing a mature request to settle the incivility" summary on diff number two under Loodog's talk page may have seemed reasonable to you, but when one actually reads your "request for a mature apology" one will note the clear implication of immaturity or childishness on the part of Loodog.  That does not help things at all, especially when dealing with an already upset editor.  Loodog's statement makes it clear that he is finished with this issue, even if you are not, Cheeser1.  At this point it seems as if you just want someone to step in say "You're right, he's wrong."


 * Disengage, forget about it, and move on to continue being the long standing, positive contributor that you are. I refer to your own words in another Wikiquette alert earlier this month: "[One's] contributions and opinions are valued, but so are others' - even if they're wrong, misinformed, or stubborn sometimes."  That was good advice and you should probably heed it even if you are on the wrong side of it this time around.  When confronted with perceived incivility, simply disengage and allow yourself some time to cool off.    Cheers, --  Simple  Paradox   00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, could you please explain why I, the user who did not make personal attacks or uncivil comments, needs to cool off? He was hostile, acted against consensus, and labeled me as a troll and blight on Wikipedia. My asking him to stop and/or affirm that he won't violate polices/guidelines in the future, when dismissed as a non-issue, that's exactly what this alert board is for. Why does it seem that you are affirming his (false) assertion that he need not take responsibility for the incivility and hostility he has exhibited? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also note that you've decontextualized what I said: it was directed to the uncivil party, not the complaining party. In fact, it was in reference to digging up months' old blocks in order to discredit someone in an unrelated content dispute. It had/has no bearing whatsoever on the general function of this board: to notify volunteers about civility violations (which have clearly occurred) and seek outside opinion as to how to best handle the offending editor. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lobojo
This user seems to be very angry at my suggestion that a certain source is unreliable. I have objected to using Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict because it is a non-scholarly work published by AIPAC and criticized for lacking footnotes and a bibliography. He has responded that I am "suggesting that we reject a source since they are zionist or neoconservative" and that "This is a disgusting and nauesating suggestion," "This suggestion is simply obscene," and "This is an obscene suggestion that would seem antisemitic if it were ever put into effect." See Reliable sources/Noticeboard. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 04:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the civility issue. If you can't settle the issue of the reliability of the source between you, perhaps an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The choice of words is not the best and I would recommend User:Lobojo tone it down but it seems essentially a content dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dlabtot, though I would extend caution to Lobojo and Elland. This seems to be a content dispute, and I think both sides got a little heated.  Deep breath, read the points of the other person.  Find a point of agreement before resuming your respective stances. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SpinyMcSpleen
This user continues to add judgmental tones in edit summaries and is biting other users. Apparently has no desire to assume good faith. He is apparently trying to edit war over mutliple articles with users he does agree with reverting other's edits as "rubbish" and telling others to "get a life". He has placed a message on his talk page specifically asking other users not to post any messages there unless they are an administrator. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He appears to be quite terse, however I wouldn't jump to conclusions about malevolence or hostility - he does appear to be tidying and fixing things up in an attempt to contribute positively. As for his talk page, he cannot decide who posts there, however he can choose to ignore comments by anyone who isn't an administrator (at his own peril, perhaps). I have left a brief note. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did add a note before. However he removed it and added this comment. I assume by Mr. N he is referring to me, which is why I came here. --Nn123645 (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Depending on his response, further action may be a good idea. I think we should wait and see if he responds here and/or at his talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently he responded by blanking the page and leaving another comment. --Nn123645 (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since he requested that only admins contact him, I left a message on his talk page. He hasn't blanked that one yet.  But keep in mind that users ARE allowed to blank their own talk pages, and doing so can be taken as a sign that they've read and understand whatever it is they deleted.  I would advise not bothering him further - it's his choice if he wants to respond here or not, but if aberrant behavior continues, you can feel free to take further steps in the dispute resolution process. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice
I've tried everything possible to be as civil and friendly with IronAngelAlice as I possibly could. I've tried every possible resolution that I could think of to work with rather than against her/him on articles here at wikipedia. I even went so far as to award the half-barnstar, barnstar, in hopes that we could cooperate together on an article and come to consensus and understanding. User_talk:IronAngelAlice.

For those who are not aware, I previously posted problems with this same user on the ANI page, not knowing that I skipped steps in the dispute resolution process. This was a mistake that I made, but editors there noted and explained the steps in the Dispute Process to me, and I thought that the matter between IAA and myself were resolved, and I declared the matter closed on the page. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=180575112) If you look at the work that I tried to do with IronAngelAlice after this, you will see nothing short of utmost Assume good faith edits.

Today, on the Talk:Fetus IronAngelAlice is continuing with personal attacks on myself, assuming Bad-Faith on my part, and purposely mischaracterizing my edits to the David Reardon page. Additionally, the user is accusing another of "canvassing" myself, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Additionally, I must insist that none of my edits were to the David Reardon page were "disruptive" or "POV". For this user to mis-characterize my actions and expand any content dispute that we have to other pages breaches wikiquette. Specifically, the user is engaging in personal attacks and assuming Bad Faith where there is none Assume good faith. It is my understanding that this notice board is a lower level phase of the dispute resolution process, and my complaint should go here, rather than at the ANI page. I really want to work with the user rather than against them, but I feel that outside intervention is now called for. I ask that I get assistance here. I wish to resolve whatever issue exists between IAA and myself and not have this blow up any further. I've gone out of my way to follow policy and resolve our differences, but I fear that I have been unsuccessful and that it's time for help. That's what I am asking for here. Help. Thanks in advance. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * I'll throw this out for consideration here:

1. User_talk:IronAngelAlice, I think that I understand why you are taking the stance that you are, but as an outsider, it seems like you came on a bit strong in your post, rather blatantly accusing of POV pushing. Personally, I wouldn't have opened with that. Go back and take a look at what you wrote, and just think about another way to word this without changing what you feel or think.

2. I think that User:Orangemarlin took a good approach: let the pictures stay until something more "real" can be found. I agree that in scientific depictions, artistry is often times not a substitute for photography (or similar).

3. Ghostmonkey57, could you explain why the particular pictures are so important? Would you be willing to see them replace if a more "real" photograph/sonogram, etc could be found? LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely ok with replacing the drawings with sonograms. I firmly believe that if we take that route, we should use the most up to date medical technology and use 3D/4D sonograms rather than the outdated 2D sonograms. My reasons for this are simple.

1. 3D/4D sonograms constitute the latest in medical technology. 2. 2D sonograms are very difficult for a lay person to read/understand. 3. 3D/4D sonograms are much easier for a lay person to read/understand.

I mentioned this in the talk page further up, but the consensus seemed to be heading toward keeping the drawings. Which I have no problem with either. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * To be clear, the wikiquette alert extends much further than the Talk:Fetus comment. I am not the only wikipedia editor to have these problems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=172875647 Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * And it continues. Now IAA is referring to my requests for help and dispute resolution as "bullying" User_talk:IronAngelAlice. This really has gone to far, and the personal attacks and assaults on my character are hurtful and beyond the pale. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Yes, I do feel bullied. When we have substantive content disagreements, GM makes it a point to create a Wikialert for me. It is becoming tiresome.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This wikialert was made only after the personal attacks and mischaracterization of my edits. Out of the blue, for no reason and with no evidence, IAA accused me of participating in "Canvassing" with Ferrylodge, then accused me of "POV" and "Disruptive" edits to the David Reardon page. All of this was after I made repeated steps to get along with and work with IAA. Further, this is only the 2nd wikialert that I have ever generated on wikipedia. The first was with the same user on the ANI page, and I *Thought* we had resolved any conflict between us. IAA apparently decided that the conflict was not resolved, and chose to mischaracterize my edits and engage in baseless and hurtful accusations against myself. As I stated, I am not the first user on wikipedia to have experienced this behavior. Some users have even been driven away by it. (See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrew_c#For_the_record) I would like nothing better than to completely resolve any issue that remains between IAA and myself. I've extended the hand of friendship on more than one occasion. I'll extend it once again, but I'd be a fool to continually have that hand slapped away and be spit on by the user. IAA I offer to end this once and for all, but you need to agree to do so. You're accusations were hurtful and misrepresented me, but I offer to forgive and forget if you are willing. The ball is in your court. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I've read what I can through this messy dispute, and I see nothing meriting a complaint on this board. Alice has been very clear in her intention to improve the quality of images in the article, unless I've missed something. Jumping to an alert board every time there's a disagreement could be construed as "bullying" or at least as inappropriate, especially when this board is about civility, and Alice seems to be well-intentioned and civil. She appears to be dealing with other administrative complaints (although there seem to be problems on all sides), but I think this report was unneeded. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Cheeser1 to an extent. I think I understand the mutual frustration that comes from trying to edit what might be among the more contentious articles on this entire site. While I still feel that User talk:IronAngelAlice may have comes across a little strong with some accusations (I think there were other ways this could have been said and still saying what you meant), I am concerned that this forum is being used as an attempt to cut through edit problems (versus civility issues -- which as I noted, are mild at best). LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheeser, LonelyBeacon, I feel that something has been missed in my complaint. This isn't about the Fetus article at all. There is no content dispute. As I said on the talk page, I am ok with the images being replaced with sonograms, and I am ok with the images staying. Either way I don't care. So the content dispute is out the window. I am referring to IAA mischaracterizing my edits, claiming that I was participating in canvassing, and accusing me of POV. All of these accusations were brought from the David Reardon page to the Fetus page. All of these things are assumptions and accusations of bad-faith. Again, The dispute between us is NOT about a content dispute. I believe that IAA has issues with me that I want to resolve, I've tried everything that I know of to do so.


 * Accusing me of "bullying" calling my edits "illogical" Talk:David_Reardon [quote]I certainly can. Chris Mooney already published it. Why are you doing this? It's completely illogical.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[/quote] Accusing me of "POV", Accusing me of participating in "Canvassing", all of these things are un-civil.


 * To show you how adamant I am about ending this dispute, I'll even agree to quit editing the Fetus and David Reardon articles if that would make peace. However, I feel that even that wouldn't be enough and IAA would continue to bring our dispute to other pages. I've offered to her several times to end the dispute, if she won't do so, where am I supposed to go for help?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57


 * Like the instructions for this page say, you have to show us the incivility. You haven't provided diffs that demonstrate such false accusations (assuming they are false - don't forget, you do have a POV, we all do). There's enough administrative action going on here I don't know what to suggest next. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

{outdent} Perhaps my language was strong, however, on one occasion when I disagreed with GM's edits he threatened to block me (which in retrospect would save me about 20 mins everday, but nontheless isn't very nice): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IronAngelAlice/Archive_Jan_2008#Warnings

When it was pointed out that his threat was malformed by an outside party, he took it to an administration board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive345#IronAngelAlice and no one could find incidents of abuse of NPOV or vandalism on my count.

To be very clear, I have never accused GhostMonkey of canvassing. I expressed concern that Ferrylodge may be attempting to canvass GM because they are editing the same pages and have the same POV. This is an issue with Ferrylodge, not with GM. Also, it should be made clear that GM has made many edits to the David Reardon that were reverted multiple times by other editors as well as myself. And there has been much rehashing the same issues (over-and-over again) on the David Reardon Talk page. This all gets to be a little tiring of course, and though I may have used strong language when I said I felt GM was "bullying me," it was an accurate assessment of how I felt at the time. if anyone has advice for me on what to do about this matter, please let me know.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Voxveritatis
Can an adminstrator please review the comments and activity of this user. He has made continued harassing comments to me and about my wikipedia editing for the past several months. Even though I have not edited the page he considers to be his own (which I created, he continues to make harassing remarks on the talk and discussion pages.) He is editing what he claims to be his own page and only using wikipedia for this purpose. Please review.
 * --Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an administrator's noticeboard. Refer to the description of this page, which is up at the top. Since he is engaged in a nasty COI dispute about an article of which he is the subject, I would strongly suggest that you let him burn himself out, because once the article is deleted and salted (as I believe it will be), he will probably go about his business off Wikipedia. If you would like some advice on how to handle him: ignore it. It seems clear, at first glance at least, that he's not here to contribute constructively. If he's going to be rude to you, ignore it and get on with things. You have a huge drawn out dispute with him on talk pages, but that's a two way street. All it takes is one ignored comment and the conversation is over. There's some advice at the relevant policy page regarding what to do with users who are uncivil. Sometimes ignoring them really is the best answer. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance with B who has made ignorant and racist accusations of "white power" on edits relating to the Puerto Rican Day Parade. As a Puerto Rican, not only I find his accusation racist but they are certainly uncivil. I have asked him (he has used unregistered IP addresses also; please see article history) to discuss on article Talk page any difference or arguments he might have to no success. Any help will be truly appreciated. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per this edit you made, forums are not considered reliable sources, regardless if they are from a white supremest web-site or not.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I welcome anyone to review this, as any of my other administrative actions. I originally resolved a 3RR report by warning XLR8TION  and the other user, feeling that blocking would not be constructive since they appeared to be talking it out.  I now believe my prior decision was incorrect. Since that time, XLR8TION has resumed the edit warring that prompted the report and has been continually readding a link to a white power message board - http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php/puerto-ricans-133236p6.html.  For obvious reasons, I have removed this link twice.  His claim that I am the IP users is nonsense - a quick whois reveals that two of them are from New York and one is from Florida.  Anyone who knows me knows that I hail from Virginia Tech. --B (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, extremist sources such as that white-nationalist web-site are not allowed unless they are about the article itself. In this case, it isn't and was removed per policy. Another citation was tagged for VC and will be removed in a few days if no third-party, reliable source is found to verify its credibility.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Invalid report. B was removing an unreliable source, and from his edit summaries, it seems he made note of that. I have blocked XLR8TION for edit warring, personal attacks and incivility. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Spamming
Hello I am new user and I am trying to clean up the science sections. There is one site in particular that I need help with. They are a several page made for adsense site that has spammed the wikipedia so many times I cant even list them here.

Biologicalworld.com has spammed wikipedia like no tomorrow. Not much information is given except for "protocols" which are not referenced, and cannot be trusted from a site of that quality.

check: Links from Wikipedia

The following have been spammed and some cleaned up. Can we get a bot to help as I am tired...

and many more Sciencetalks (talk)
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmid
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protease
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_enzyme
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petri_dish
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_domain
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trypsin
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligonucleotide
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_electron_microscope
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agar_plate
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_phosphate
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disulfide_bond
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturation_(biochemistry)
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_ligase
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_type
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tissue_culture
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_electron_microscopy
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter_gene
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_blot
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_engineering
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_end/blunt_end
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taq_polymerase
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_domain
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coomassie
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_state
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Hamster_Ovary_cell
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptidase
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visking_tubing
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptavidin
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtiter_plate
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcloning
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_exchange_chromatography
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_cycler
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_serum_albumin
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate_buffered_saline
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutathione_S-transferase
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEPES
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ortholog
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteases
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_out
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_bovine_serum
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteolytic_enzyme
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_end
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatant
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABTS
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conserved_sequence

Any help/ideas? Where can we report this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencetalks (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a WQA issue, please take it (in whole) to WP:ANI. The site will most likely be blacklisted, or a bot will come in to remove all of the spam links.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein
This user and I have had disagreements over two or three articles and have tried to resolve thisissue on the articles' talk pages as well as on our own. His incessant stubborness and refusal to listen to my complaints about his edits is not so much the problem, but it is his abrasive, frustrating and insulting replies which are (See a few of the most recent examples here: ). He reported me for accidentally breaking the 3RR once, about a month or so ago, and I feel I should respond in kind in terms of his childish insults towards myself. If there is anything good I wish to come out of this, it is merely that Wiki admins be aware of some of this user's unacceptable behaviour. Thank you. Epf (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to look over this just yet, but keep in mind that this is not an administrative noticeboard. Also, I don't know how much good you're doing if you've decided to "respond in kind" to something you seem to consider petty. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I thought this was a notice board to seek advice on future actions when dealing with incivility or personal attacks. If this is not the correct place to do so, then I'd ask if you could direct me to the proper location. I do not consider this that "petty" since it involves personal insults, but I merely responded by posting this issue here since I thought it was appropriate. Thanks for what help you can offer anyway. Epf (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct that it is such a noticeboard, but it is not staffed by administrators. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth a shot trying to resolve this here, provided there's good faith on both sides. Looking at the diffs, it seems that you're both being pretty uncivil with one another. I think a good first step would be just stopping that behaviour, unilaterally if necessary.  Do you think that's possible?
 * I'll leave a note on User: Slrubenstein's talk page to the same effect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The examples of rude behavior on my part - which I admit to and regret - are from the last few days. Over the last several months, however, I have been patient and courteous with Epf. He has made POV-pushing edits to Ethnic group and one racist edit to Franz Boas and in each case I bent over backwards to address his view, explain my view, and explain the larger context for the issue. However, he has always responded to me with an utter absense of good faith and utter disrespect, and has reverted every edit of mine. My conclusion is simple and unavoidable: he has no respect for anyone who has a different view than his, and is a POV pusher. He is relatively ignorant of social theory and anthropological research but has contempt for anyone who knows more than he does. I can try to be courteous, but this will not resolve the underlying issue: he is a POV-pushing troll. That said, I did make a final attempt to be conciliatory here. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the conversation here is a very positive first step, and I hope that it will lead to an improved editing relationship. I hope especially that you can both honour your commitment to refrain from incivility (and it's important for you to realize, User:Epf, that you've been uncivil as well - the problem isn't all on User:Slrubenstein's end, and it would be nice if you'd acknowledge your incivility in the same way that he's acknowledged his.  The content disputes are beyond the mandate of this board, but if you're at an impasse I'd strongly encourage the use of WP:THIRD and/or WP:RFC to try to make progress on them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been a witness to most of this problem, and while it certainly takes two to tango (in the sense that both Slrubenstein and Epf have edit warred and both have been incivil up to a point, especially lately - but I've seen worse), I will say that Slrubenstein has struck me as being the more reasonable of the two, and the one who has provided cites every time his position was challenged, whereas Epf's position came across as being his own, and not based on any particular body of literature. Also, I have seen Epf remove cited and sourced material which Slrubenstein introduced, on the pretense that Epf didn't seem to believe the sources supplied backed the information (which sources he admitted he didn't check). As far as I can tell, this looks like it might be better suited to some other DR avenue such as RfC, as there are both behavior and content issues to be sorted out, in my opinion.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ramdrake. I suspect Epf will respond that at Wikipedia credentials do not matter. The bottom line is, he refuses to comply with WP:AGF to the extent that he does not even read what I write &mdash; as an example, see this edit where I actually provided the AGF link: his first response was that he does not have to assume good faith and then he insisted that I never provided him with the AGF link here and here.

He has admitted to the fact that the point of view he wants expressed in articles is his own: "The other point of view you're ignoring would be, umm, mine (I figured that would be obvious for you), but that is regarding other issues we had". He is a POV-warrior, and while I appreciate Ramdrake's comments I doubt they will make any difference to Epf. Even his response to my note of conciliation on his talk page is poisoned. Think about this sentence carefully: "You make some valid points I was already aware of but there is still some matters you continue to somewhat ignore." He admits I make good points - but only ones of which he was already aware ... in effect he is suggesting that none of my "good points" have any bearing on our current conflict, because he already knew these "good points." He is simply unwilling to accept anything I may have to say that he does not already believe; if he agrees with me, it is only because he already thought of it himself. Is this really assuming good faith, being respectful, and willing to cooperate with others? He makes no acknowledgment that I made any good points he had not already known. In short, he is saying that the time I took to explain my edits was a waste of time. Just think about it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see if User:Epf provides a response to all of this. If so, hopefully we can continue trying to hash this out; failing that, you probably do need to go the WP:RFC/U route (for which you'll need a co-certifier - perhaps User:Ramdrake would be willing?).  But for now I'd rather see what Epf has to say, especially since he/she was the original initiator of this alert. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes patience runs thin, in particular after making extensive efforts to address behaviors of users such as Epf. I have been in those situations myself, and keeping cool and polite when there is no change on the user's behavior is sometimes an impossibility. I would wait and see what Epf has to say. An RFC/U may be the way to go, despite being time consuming... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't have any direct experience with the conflict in question, I'll say that I've found Slrubenstein to be an above-average editor on the religion pages. Leadwind (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Alphus Omegus
This user and I are having a disagreement on the Ctrl+Alt+Del talk page. The user first submitted some information and sources that have previously been determined, by two separate administrators, to be in violation of WP:V and WP:BLP. This information has been removed numerous times in the past, and thus I reverted the information once again, as no new sources or evidence were presented to support the claims that violated WP:BLP. I then explained to the user on their talk page why I had reverted their edits, and suggested familiarizing themselves with the existing discussion, to avoid rehashing old issues. The user responded on my talk page, and in the talk section of the article by challenging my credibility and intentions. I have attempted to discuss this issue as calmly as possible, despite the fact that the user now insists on what I believe to be personal attacks, instead of discussing the content of the page. I have suggested a truce until we can get some third party interaction here, to hopefully prevent further argument on the talk page of the article.Thrindel (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the onus is on User:Alphus Omegus to bring up your alleged conflict-of-interest at WP:COIN if she or he think it's a problem. If it isn't, he or she should stop talking about it and get on with improving the encyclopedia. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left a note at the ongoing discussion at the article's talk page here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your help.Thrindel (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just notified this user. Up until then, it doesn't appear that he was notified (although I could have missed something). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mais oui!
I'm somewhat stressed and upset by User:Mais oui!'s actions and comments which have taken place in the last 24 hours without warning and feel the need to get some input on his (and perhap my own) behavoir. I should make clear from the start though that this gentleman has been blocked before for 3RR and agressive behavoir (I have not).

The issue ultimately stems (as I understand) from Mais oui!'s political stance on the relationship with Scotland and the United Kingdom. His edit history invariably shows the removing of stubs, categories, and mentions of the UK (often in place of Europe) without discussion or explicitly open edit summaries on hundreds and hundreds of articles. Its a major problem, but one that I've not been involved with or made aware of before now.

That said, my problems seem to be with him removing WP:UKGEO Wikiproject banners from talk pages, again without discussing them on the talk page, or contacting the Wikiproject itself. Examples being here, here, here (which I interpret as a breach of WP:POINT), amongst others, such as this.

Having tried to restore the banner here, I felt I should pass comment about my concerns of ownership on Scotland here (which in retrospect was worded poorly). This seems to have enraged Mais Oui, who posted a huge transcluded civility template on my talk page and began reverting my contributions.

I asked him (most pleasantly, in a calm and controlled way) to discuss his grievance with maturity and civility here, here, and here. Please note Mais Oui's edit summaries, as I feel them to be uncalled for, dare I say (at risk of being ticked off), even spiteful and misguided. I was upset by Mais Ouis comments and made this clear here.

Now I feel unwelcome, dismayed and disappointed. I'm not a perfect editor, and made that explict here, but I feel Mais Oui has gone too far with his comments, and makes out that being a regular and involved contributor to Wikipedia is somehow socially unacceptable and an undesirable characteristic.

I feel that Mais Oui, with his actions and edit summaries, is not giving users the dignity they deserve; behaving like a cyber-bully, owning articles and projects and being spiteful to any and all who don't agree with him, or try to give him feedback. As it stands now, with two years service to Wikipedia, and an excellent relationship with the editting community, I feel at a low point that this type of thing goes on and hope it is dealt with seriously. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about this, but I might say you need to escalate this to the ANI. Disrupting a Wikiproject systematically, with a zealous nationalist POV, that's a bit beyond the scope of this board because we're getting into content issues and large-scale changes to Wikipedia. While his actions are certainly not civil - making rude personal remarks beyond any reasonable scope - I believe the more serious issue at hand needs to be addressed. While his actions may not be such, they seem to amount to large scale vandalism of the UKGeo project, which is very troubling. Like I said, I would suggest taking this up to the ANI, but maybe you should wait for another person to weigh in. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to follow up on this. Is there anything that has happened since you filed this report? Has the improper behavior stopped, remained the same, gotten worse? Have you escalated this to the ANI or elsewhere? I'd like to help clear this up if we can. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not cared to follow this editors actions since, but don't believe I need to as such given the diffs provided already outlining the incivility. Certainly he's changed a few of my edits since and his edit history still consists of downplaying the UK in "Scottish articles" (which is fine, so long as it civil and within Wiki principles). I'm sure however he's aware of this report as I said I would seek advice on tackling this.


 * Per your input, I haven't escalated this yet until obtaining input from another contributor. I wouldn't be happy with "brushing this under the carpet" as I feel too aggrieved about the number of principles broken in this case, especially as Mais oui has done this before with other users. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've left a note. Hopefully the editor will take some constructive advice. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Calton and Neutralhomer
I've noticed my watchlist lighting up with some acrimony between the two users

For some reason they are edit warring over some old bot messages on. Joyous and cheerful edit summaries distil the essence of the holiday spirit:
 * Calton: Not your call, Mr. Stalky McStalkerson. Say, didn't you just get in trouble for abusing TWINKLE?
 * Neutralhomer: Welcome to December...and who are you calling "Stalky"?
 * Calton: That would be you, Mr. Poor-Impulse-Control. Hey, whatever happened to your pious promise to stop the stalking and blind reversions? Was that taken away, too?
 * Neutralhomer: just stop vandalising pages Calton. Hey I lost TWINKLE for 96 hours, you got two blocks and pouted for 2 months.

There's also been some nastiness on their respective talk pages. . Both editors have a history of interpersonal conflict, and both have received blocks for incivility and/or personal attacks. I don't know the full story of these two, but I do know that a) it can't be good; and b) it's not going to get better if the two are left to snipe at each other. Both editors have been here for a long time and for thousands of edits, and both ought to know better by now. I don't know if they need to be directed to mediation, to RfC, to AN/I for a short block&mdash;or just to be told by a neutral third party to calm down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's alot of hostility. I've left a note at the talk page in question, and a copy here so that they can keep their responses off someone else's talk page:
 * Rather than contact you both individually, I'll just interject right here. Old messages are routinely cleared from user talk pages, and it is clear that this is what happened. Reverting such a deletion is not appropriate, but what's far more inappropriate is edit-warring and slinging insults at each other in edit summaries. There appears to be a great deal of hostility between the two of you, and you both should seriously consider cooling it before you are both blocked. You should both know better than to waste your time and energy bickering (especially over something this petty). The both of you need to stop fighting with each other and behave like positive, grown-up contributors to Wikipedia. Because this is someone else's talk page you're fussing about, I'll direct your responses to a copy of this message I've left at the WQA. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait. reading the page history, has been edit warring over that page alot. is his newest opponent,apparently. I dunno if that helps,I was just commenting. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

User:208.104.45.20
This user appears to have a persistant IP address, as he usually is posting relevant contributions on pages specifically related to linguistics. However, he has a complete disregard for the rules of Wikipedia and major civility issues. Today alone, please see here and here. This has been going on at a low level for months, from light edit warring to deleting talk page messages to outright personal attacks and profanity. How should we proceed with dealing with him. CSZero (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Corrected links. If you are linking with a regular URL as you did above, one bracket is sufficient; text description is separated with a space rather than with | . For easier reference, .  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Is it possible to wikilink (versus URL) to static version numbers?  It looks much neater.  I ask because somebody already came through and reverted his response to me and my response to him, so putting in the current, dynamic version isn't too useful. CSZero (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous versions of pages cannot be wiki-linked (nor can diffs). Just use the URL of the page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

ReluctantPhilosopher's dominance on page "Sonia Gandhi"
A user ReluctantPhilosopher is repeatedly deleting articles on page "Sonia Gandhi" giving reasons like "Poorly structured" or "Non grammatical". We had various times requested him to modify the section to help us, but he simply deletes the sections. I think he is deleting it just because he does not agree with it and is giving some adhoc reason for the same. Anyone, please help us here. Inder315 (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For easier access: and . Comments forthcoming.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This looks like a content dispute. Could you please provide diffs of incivility? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that is blanking considerable portions of text at Sonia Gandhi under the pretense that it is unsourced, unstructured and very poorly written, per edits like this. But the evidence clearly shows that the user is blanking considerable portions of sourced, structured and fairly well written text which has been reverted by various editors.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * After reviewing more of the edits, the prior version from is a bit... lacking. A minor POV stance that can be easily corrected, but not through repeated blankings or mass deletions of valid sources.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Crossposted from Seicer's talk page) Would you mind doing a little homework before you go about admonishing responsible editors? The person has been adding completely non-notable pieces of everyday news to the article and seriously damaging its quality. I was entirely justified in reverting his edits to an article which had just beginning to have some decent shape. The person has been repeatedly abusing me on my talk page, calling me "slave of sonia gandhi" and a "congress party worker", edits that I have had to deletle every time. What does that say about his wikiquiette? Inder315, Mimic2 and Nkulkarn are probably sockpuppets of the same person. I've got to say I am really dissappointed at your attitude. Amit@Talk 08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The user is bluntly refusing to acknowledge the error of his edits. He is removing mass amounts of sourced, structured and fairly well written material, contrary to his edit summary. He has not gained consensus or even discussed his edits before reverting. At least discuss the proposed changes, what could be in error, and do it in a way so that your edit isn't strongly POV. It would be nice if he could assume good faith and tone down the comments.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The edits I removed were NOT NOTABLE as per WP:Notability. It's perplexing Seicer is asking me to assume good faith and engage in discussion with a person who has called me names in the past. I can't understand how he describes material like "now it will be interesting to see what sonia says" as well written. I maintain that I was entirely justfied in removing the content without discussion. My edit history is impeccable and I invite other editors to examine for themselves the portion I "repeatedly" deleted, and comment on how encyclopaedic and well written it is. The "mediators" are in grave error which they refuse to acknowledge  Amit @  Talk  16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not my comment, but thanks for attributing another user to me. The accusations can stop now, but if your conscious has not fully cleared, you can take it to WP:SSP. Your poor civility is showing.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid WP:N has nothing to do with article content. Notability policies/guidelines refer to what we can have an article about, not what kind of content we put into the article. Also, in addition to assuming good faith, you should at least make sure you're accusing the right person of being out to get you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seicer" —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing this case myself, here's my take: This is obviously a heated content dispute that has started to get personal on both sides, which means that everyone should step away and cool off for a little while. As I usually do in such cases, I'll try to address both sides in turn:

ReluctantPhilosopher: Per consensus policy, if you make a large-scale edit that is quickly reverted, regardless of the policy that you're citing, it is up to you to avoid getting into a revert war by bringing the discussion to the relevant talk page. Wikipedia content is achieved through community consensus, which by its very nature means you cannot decide unilaterally what is notable and what is not. Not even us admins can do that - when it comes to controversial edits, we have to go through the same procedures as non-admins in terms of discussing why content should be added or removed. To insist that people accept your version of the article is to exert ownership over the article, and it works at cross-purposes to WP's intent. Please, after allowing for some time for all parties to cool off, engage in open discussion about the article's content on its talk page, and remain focused on the content, not your fellow editors. Also, remember that poorly-written content does not necessarily have to be deleted outright - it can always be improved. The question is whether a well-written form of the content is suitable for Wikipedia at all.

Mimic2, Inder315, Seicer: Likewise, you should also be willing to engage in consensus-building discussion rather than simply fighting ReluctantPhilosopher. It is true that the sections he removed were, in several cases at least, poorly written and (at least to my eye) in violation of WP:BLP and/or WP:NPOV. I'm not qualified to pass judgement on the content itself, but I can say that it did not appear to conform to WP's standards for this type of content. I think that, as part of your consensus-building discussion, you should discuss ways to improve that content should the decision be to keep it in any form. In the meantime, please refrain from engaging in attack threads such as "ReluctantPhilosopher's creditbility (sic)" - it doesn't help, and only serves to inflame other users. It is an assumption (however justified it might be) of bad faith, and there are more appropriate ways to request comment on the matter.

Thank you. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, KieferSkunk, for offering a more balanced perspective on the issue. The reason I didn't discuss those changes on the talk page were: (1) I didn't think those edits were serious enough to be discussed as they were in blatant violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:Notability, and (2)I was fairly certain arguing with those guys was going to be futile. In any case, I accept your advice of "cooling off" and will let the article stay in whatever state it is now. Or perhaps other editors could improve it. Thanks.  Amit @  Talk  17:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are other, more appropriate methods, but essentially page blanking and applying false edit summaries to deceive editors is not the best method. If the content is so disputed, I suggested seeking consensus or even discussing the proposed changes beforehand, but you reverted to a rather POV state -- much what you were trying to avoid. Want to cool off? Discuss the changes first and at least let other editors know what the issue you present is.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Seicer, my comments apply to you too. Everyone needs to cool off, or you'll just keep sniping at each other like you did just here. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you missed the part where Reluctant Philosopher came after Seicer on his talk page. Seicer has kept a cool head as far as I can tell. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a note on the talk page regarding the issue, but it is probably a misunderstanding, not noting that after I made the revert based upon the edit summary (not so much weight on the content), I was attacked for the edit on my talk page and then labeled a sockpuppeter. Definately not assuming good faith on the part of User:ReluctantPhilosopher (who has a confusing .sig).  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is appalling. I NEVER called Seicer the sockpuppetteer, nor did I attribute that old hostile comment (sonia ganshi fan...) to him. I don't know what he is talking about.  Amit @  Talk  02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Chesser noted it above as well, but perhaps this edit summary will assist. If that was not directed towards me, then it was generally misunderstood by others and could have been reworded to reference the editor in question, not attributed under my reply. If it was in error, then you have my apologies, but please revise the post to clarify who you are attributing the socking to prevent further confusion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just said that, and  were probably sockpuppets of the same user, but not you. and I attributed that comment to nkulkarn, not you, as was clear from the diff. And now you know how upset "responsible" editors feel when they are, apparently, "attacked". Amit  @  Talk  02:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to see we are on the same page again :-) Have you reported it to WP:SSP? The edit contribs aren't all too encouraging but he hasn't edited since the 26th of December, so I would give it a few days to see if he reemerges. Looking over the edit summaries of those you listed above, they are rather similar but nothing is definite until a check has been done for good measure.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Haven't reported it yet, but may consider doing so. Looking at the contribus it is obvious that all three accounts have contributed mostly to sonia gandhi page, and occasionally to Manmohan Singh. Thanks!  Amit @  Talk  03:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You should be sure to sign in while editing Wikipedia. Forgetting to sign in confuses other editors (we have User:ReluctantPhilosopher posting with signature "Amit@Talk" but not logged in, so we get an IP address too). It's difficult to keep track of who's who, and also compromises your privacy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for getting into a healthy discussion. Also very good points have come up like "Wikipedia content is achieved through community consensus, which by its very nature means you cannot decide unilaterally what is notable and what is not.  Not even us admins can do that".

About sockpuppets, if someone thinks (just because I have added mostly to two pages Sonia Gandhi and Manmohansingh) that three accounts belong to me, he is welcome to do so. But it is not the fact. Also I have modified the two articles mainly because those are the two most prominent leaders in Indian Politics. Also, nowhere wikipedia policy states that one has to modify these many articles to prove that you are a authentic editor. Regarding the edit history, I am sure that editing only 2 articles is better than removing large sections giving some reason and assuming that the thinking is fact. Inder315 (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I missed some statements here by User:ReluctantPhilosopher. He says "I didn't think those edits were serious enough to be discussed as they were in blatant violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:Notability, and (2)I was fairly certain arguing with those guys was going to be futile". Now what does it mean by "I didn't think"? It is very clear now that even admins can not pass such messages. Secondly, what makes him think that "I was fairly certain arguing with those guys was going to be futile"? He does not want to argue, that is fine. But he has no right to judge us like this. Will it be acceptable by him if I say "I would have started a discussion, but looking at his past comments, it could have turn violent". I request User:ReluctantPhilosopher to be more open. Inder315 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:ReluctantPhilosopher cool time is over in 2 days. He is going to "fix" the sections "Critism" giving reason "The section "Questions are being asked now .... all wins are due to sonia agandhi and all losses due to party memebers" and several sententces in the section "Notice by the election commision of India" read like a political commentary and have no place in an encyclopedia, besides they violate WP:BLP".

One new excuse has come up for deleting sections. If the reason this time is "political commentary", then we would need to delete 80% of the article given the fact that she is a political leader. How about deleting sections like "Leader of Opposition", "2004 elections", "UPA Chairperson" giving the same reason? Are they not "political commentary", as my scholar friend thinks? Also, about the statement "have no place in an encyclopedia, besides they violate WP:BLP" How many times I would need to repeat that "Wikipedia content is achieved through community consensus, which by its very nature means you cannot decide unilaterally what is notable and what is not. Not even us admins can do that" He is exactly doing this. How can an individual say what should have place in wikipedia or not?

I request some senior contributors of wikipedia to jump in the discussion against this dominance and help wikipedia users who deserve to have a neutral source of information.
 * I appeal to the mediators here to please see my comments on Talk:Sonia Gandhi and decide for themselves whether they are valid or not. Also please look at the contributions of, and  and decide for themselves if they are sockpuppets. It's an open and shut case. Thanks  Amit  @  Talk  14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You have declared that it is an open and shut case. Then why are you asking others to decide themselves. You have developed the habit of considering your "opinion" as "fact" and you have started giving judgements also (like owner of wikipedia). Also, I saw your comments in the discussion secion of Sonia Gandhi. It is strange you consider someone elses contribution as "Political Commentry" just because you do not agree with it. If you do not like the facts, you have option not to visit the article. All the best. Inder315 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who has invited others to see what is political commentary and what is biographical information. Why are you so afraid of neutral editors finding out the truth.  Amit @  Talk  18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Will someone please help me out here with this difficult editor? Imagine adding everything ever said about George W. Bush in newspapers to the article on hime - it would be sourced alright, but wouldn't be biographical. Can someone please examine the nature of the content in dispute and end it once and for all. And as far as credentials are concerned, the edit histories speak for themselves. Thanks.  Amit @  Talk  18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please consider opening an Request For Comment or a Third Opinion. Those are the proper places to request help with content disputes. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KieferSkunk. I will do it instantly. And Thanks Mr. Amit for calling me a difficult editor. Good that everyone knows who is difficult. It is actually you who gives different execuse everytime for deleting a section which is a fact and you do not like it. Looking at your contributions, it is clear that you are a fan of Sonia Gandhi. Fine. You can start a blog, start an orkut community or any webpage for that matter. But please keep wikipedia free from your praising. Inder315 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not take every opportunity to lash out at someone with whom you have a content dispute. Both of you are clearly on opposing sides of a dispute related to the content of an article, but it's pretty obvious that this is yet another shot you're taking at him, poorly disguised as a thank you and conclusion to this discussion. If you're going to report someone to the civility alert board for what seems to be far more of a content dispute, you should at least tone down your lashing out at him, no matter how justified you feel you might be in the content dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RFCU, =  =  = .  Blnguyen   ( bananabucket ) 05:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, so it's proven they're soocks? How do we proceed from here?  Amit @  Talk  06:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Settle your dispute through the appropriate channels. If he continues to use sockpuppets to inappropriately argue with a "consensus" or file frivolous complaints, that's an issue completely outside the content dispute (and is not an etiquette problem either). As far as this alert board is concerned though, this one is a wash. Clearly, the issue is not settled, but we're not getting anywhere here because it's not an issue for here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okily dokily neighbour  Amit @  Talk  13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)