Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive97

Uncivil comments by Xebulon


Uncivil comment Other examples of uncivil behaviour: , I think somebody must stop it. Quantum666 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think somebody should finally stop Quantum666 who has a vast record of abuses for which he was punshed multiple times already. This awkward and baseless appeal by Quantum666 shows that he is unfit to edit Wikipedia. Please block Quantum666 for 30 days as stipulated by Wiki rules. Xebulon (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The user Xebulon is obviously edit warring. Along with continuous edit-warring, the user never stops to make incivil comments. When he himself seems to be a sock or at the very least a meatpuppet of one of the banned users, he continues to accuse other editors. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all user Xebulon hasn't made any uncivil comment. Second, why shouldn't he? When user Quantum666 and Tuscumbia continue to vandalize Armenia-related articles. For example, user Quantum666 wrote, he(Garegin Njdeh) seizure of Western Armenia from Turkey and its unification with Soviet Armenia in the place of, the liberation of Western Armenia from Turkish occupation and its unification with Soviet Armenia.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.43.163 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 January 2011
 * The second and third diff both show a lack of civility.
 * This cultural edit-warring needs to stop. I'll see if I can get someone more experienced to look into it. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At an article talk page, "comment on content, not on the contributor". If an editor can't make their comment without referring to another editor, they need to consider whether they should be making it at all.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the edit-warring continues, I suggest bringing it up at WP:ANI to get advise from editors experienced with cultural disputes. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Racism and homophobia


Personal attacks and unacceptable behavior, after my participation in the article White Argentine.

First, beyond user's hostility, left on my talk page 2 january 2011 (you simply don't deserve any good); he goes on to say racist comments, sayin: If you were an African-American or so, I would understand your actions, but being yourself a White European makes your attitude towards the Whites living in the Americas more and more un-understandable. Although seemingly harmless comment, saying that if "I am African American" is understandable my animosity against white. What it means? This is a racial bias and unacceptable behavior, used to discredit the position of a user. and after, this message made by one IP that edits the article White Argentine. Is some one who know I am Italian, because he translated this message to Italian. He also read the discussion, because he know I am an Antropologist. Even if he makes a couple of orthography errors. (sonno = sleep / sono = are) --GiovBag (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * (All Italian Antropologist are Homosexual)


 * You are supposed to notify the person you are reporting. I have now done so. Fainites barley scribs 09:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Concerning my comment on GiovBag's talk page, I sustain my thinking on the matter. If I have violated some WP's policy, do what you consider it is proper to do in such a case. On the vandalism on both his user and talk pages, I think it is quite inadeccuate but I don't know who might have done it. He probably annoyed someone else with his edits in some of the articles on White people.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This comment is entirely unacceptable, not to say stupid. This is not a war between races, and suggesting a racial motivation, even in the subjunctive, reveals a very peculiar world view. I strongly suggest to refrain from such comments in the future. I also strongly suggest you stop stereotyping people based on their potential "race" or ethnicity, although that, of course, is up to you. Finally, as for not wishing somebody well, if you don't want to, don't do it. Making a big production out of it in uncivil and childish. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. On the IP, there's not enough here to just assume the IP is the same editor. I have warned the IP separately. If it stops - fine. If it carries on - it can be blocked. If it seems appropriate, checkuser can be sought. Fainites barley scribs 22:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Incivil comments by Ashot Arzumanyan


The User:Ashot Arzumanyan has to be warned against incivility. Please see his comment here : ''Regardless of who your opponent is and how stupid his arguments are, please try to be as much polite as possible. This will be a pure benefit to your argumentation''. Tuscumbia ( talk ) 15:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am surprised to see this message here without preliminary notice and discussion. Whatsoever, is it uncivil to call for politeness regardless of anything?? I do not think so, but am open for reasonable criticism (if it is at all appropriate in this case). --  Ashot  ( talk ) 16:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the thread above, we have an admin calling a specific editor's comment "stupid": Ashot's comment was very generic and not incivil. Calling a specific editor "stupid" would be incivil, but the "bulk" of his message is good advice, really. I think this is a bit of an "overreaction" to file a WQA based on the one comment. Are there other "examples" of "incivility"? Because this diff is not an example of it. Doc   talk  16:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ashot, discussion on what? About you being incivil? Do we have to discuss anything so that you understand you're not supposed to be incivil? Will you not be civil without discussion? I did give you a notice
 * Doc9871, so you're saying calling someone stupid is admissible in Wikipedia? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 16:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, calling someone stupid is not "admissible". Generically calling any potential editors' edits "stupid" is not incivil. I don't see him addressing anyone in particular with that comment - do you? Doc   talk  16:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, his comments are related to me because of the AN report I had filed. The user Aram-van has been edit-warring and is a party to an SPI. He's been adding his comments on talk pages questioning my judgement, etc. Hence, the "advice" of Ashot Arzumanyan on his talk page in reference to me. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 16:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why taking upon yourself? Why wouldn't you ask me first? --  Ashot  ( talk ) 17:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be twisting the issue, Ashot. We both know it was addressed to me. Why else would you ask for "preliminary notice" and accept "reasonable criticism"? I'm not asking anyone to ban you or anything. I just think you should be warned so that next time you comment about editors, you assume good faith. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ban me? or anything? Hmm... My comment was a pure good faith assumption towards Aram-van. I don't see any room for you in there. You have really overreacted. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right, I would ask administrators to ban you at a different board if the comment was severe enough. This section is just to get you warned, not banned. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's going to happen. You two seem to have quite a thing going at the Talk:Heyvali (village) page. You both make comments that could be "construed" as "incivil". Tuscumbia, with this response one could easily construe you were referring to Ashot and that his responses routinely "make no sense". That's not very nice, now is it? Running to WQA for the diff you cite is not warranted, IMHO. Keep working out your issues as you have been, and if there's a pattern of incivility you can demonstrate, then a WQA is worth filing. Doc   talk  18:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'm not sure what you want to say by posting that diff. Isn't it obvious what it refers to? And no, Ashot Arzumanyan's argument does not make sense, but it's not stupid. It's just his opinion. I never call anyone stupid in Wikipedia because unlike him I respect all editors regardless of their edits. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He did not call you "stupid". You can read it anyway you want, but it's not there. To say your argument is stupid is no worse than you just now saying he doesn't respect other editors (without evidence). Tell you what: you don't want to listen to my take on it, so I'll just let others comment here. Don't be surprised if what I'm saying rings true, though. I see no reason to warn this editor for incivility based on the diff you provided. Period. Doc   talk  18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, look. He was incivil (in my opinion) and I opted to go through mediator to warn him so that he does not make the same kind of mistake again. Period. I never asked to ban or block him. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Tuscumbia - "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough...". This isn't even remotely close. Carefully read that policy, as well as WP:AGF. Doc   talk  17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doc9871.

Tuscumbia, please take a look at WP:BOOMERANG. WP:CIVIL states, "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, be understanding (people do say things when they get upset) rather than judgmental, and do not respond in kind. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue."

This is more of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-related disputing like Wikiquette_alerts above. The large-scale, cultural dispute needs to be taken to ANI where editors experienced with cultural-disputes can decide what to do. I'm sure some Arbcom restrictions can be applied. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ronz, trust me, there was nothing retaliatory on my part. I just wanted for him to understand that calling anyone's comments "stupid" is not nice. That's all. Whether he does or not, it's really up to him. Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why there are talk pages... I am really sorry for you took it upon yourself. If you simply have a look at that notice in a week or so with a fresh eye, you would probably notice that there is nothing to point out that you should take it upon yourself. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 19:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you understand and that we're on the same page. Resolved. Thank you! Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are things done like that, man? As far as I read over, it is you who was not understanding the matter. Probably saying you are sorry for taking our time would be more civil way to close this discussion. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not sorry at all. That's why this board exists. You commented on "stupidity" of an editor, referring to me, but maybe not. And as mentioned above, I pursued this report to have a mediator make a warning. But I'm not insisting that you meant what you meant. It's totally dependent on an editor's conscience. I said I am glad you understand in reference to understanding that kind of remarks about an editor are not nice. Not sure what you're trying to do here now. It's been enough of exchange on this page. Are we all clear? Tuscumbia  ( talk ) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would be great if you reread this discussion and come out with more understanding of what is what. --  Ashot  ( talk ) 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dr. Persi's uncivil behaviour


Uncivil behaviour of Dr.Pesi in using "asfghanestan" instead of "Afghanistan"  in his talk page on 10 January 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artacoana (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 January 2011
 * Looks like a typo to me. Trivial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well putting it between quotation marks. Do you still believe it's a typo or intentional ? --Artacoana (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide some edit diffs? I'm just not seeing how this is a wikiquette issue and I tend to agree with Andy that it appears to be an issue of typos. Also, you need to alert the user to this notice. --132 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like a typo to me given the rest of the edit, which repeats the typo. Dr Persi also has a typo in 'father'. I'll notify him. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow to find this here, hidden, only to be informed of it by user Dougweller, is disappointing to say the least. 1 ) I am, as those of you who know me and read the pages I created, particularly my medical pages, notorious for making spelling errors, particularly because I often type fast and am prone to making errors. I often go back and correct those, if this is a public page, but since the comment that Artacoanna has quoted is in my own page, I did not feel the need to proof read. In fact let me give you a bit of history and you may better understand why Artacoana would feel the need to complain here instead of simply asking me. The issue really has started since I brought to Artacoana's attention that the change he/she made to the page "Avicenna" and the source she/he has cited are not related; in other words, I realized that he/she made a claim in the page, that was not supported or even mentioned in her source. Naturally, I reverted her/his edit citing my explanation and even leaving a "mediation" request in the Avicenna page's discussion section. You can go back and read our conversations in our discussion pages and you will see I have been nothing short of professional with him/her as I try to be with pretty much every individual in here or in real life. Just to give you a sense of how this author (Artacoana) treats me I am going to cite one of his/her statements which you can find on my page:

Are you trying to threaten me?! AliWiki believes that Avicenna was a Shia so he MUST be a PERSIAN (like most of today's Persians of Iran)! And you insist on this ethnicity of Persian. Well, let me tell you that Wikipedia is not the Iranian books where your regime can fabricate the fact. It's very clear that you're trying to steal the cultural heritage of the region (only because the region is not within your political borders or the people have different religion). Do whatever you want, tell admins. I have sufficient references.--Artacoana (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In just one response, she/he has judged my religion, has made a (racial) assumption (whether right or wrong) about Aliwiki, has generalized the Iranian people, has put words in my mouth ("you insist..."), has insulted me by equating me with the Iranian regim's agendas, not to mention bringing in personal views and biases to beging with, and has accused me ("it is very clear that you are trying to STEAL the cultural heritage..."), and lastly clearly ignored what I had originally brought up which was the fact that regardless of his/her message, he/she should always cite a source that backs his/her claims (Dougweller here can attest to that, as we have had quite a discussion on this). That is all! I have not in any way made a point of pushing one POV over another, neither have I in any form of response to Artacoana, breached the rules of conducts as set forth by common sense and wikipedia.

2) I was not able to respond earlier as I just returned from a 24 hour shift at work and having read things, if I may make a personal note of what I see, I would have to say that I believe that people often view the world, through their own eyes, and see others in the context of how they perceive themselves. In other words, if you believe that everybody is a theif, it is most likely because you either are a theif or have the potential for it. So when he/she accuses me of pushing a POV clearly ignoring my message and points, Artacoana is really in some ways revealing her/his own personal issues and reflecting them on me.

Lastly and 3) I am not a muslim, I am not in any way supporting one user over another, and I am not even fully Persian. To have to even state this here is sad, but it begs exposure to shed light on some of the assumptions mades. I just wish that Artacoana would have told me if this error "bothered" her/him so much instead of making a claim of my "lack of civility here." In some ways, I am even tempted to think that this might be a strategy by Artacoana to divert attention on me, since most admins and authors who revised the "Avicenna" article agreed with me and prevented him/her from pushing her/his own agenda, and that there is still considerable amount of unsupported, unsourced data in that article initiated and well concealed by Artacoana which he/she pushes for. That is all! Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is some more of Artacoana's quotes that by her standards are "uncivil":

dPersi! if you open your eyes, you will find the following: -He was born in Afšana, a village near Bukhara. His father, who had moved in from Balḵ (BALKH, Afghanistan, NOT IRAN) a few years previously, Sorry he is not born in your counrty and neither of his parents originates from your country. This fake ethnicity won't be here for long! The time will solve everything. I have sent an email to Britannica. This won't take long, I promise you Pesi!--Artacoana (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You can find this quote on his page. Notice any problems in this? "dPersi" instead of Dr. Persi? "Sorry he is not born in your country", "This fake ethnicity" refering to "Persian" for Avicenna which Goodman and E. Iranica both support, and lastly he ends by saying "I promise you pesi"...Pesi? Sounds a lot like a denigrating phrase... Dr. Persi (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Brendanology's comments
I hate to stir up drama, but Brendanology's comment at WP:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians (2nd nomination) (permalink here) is going too far. He makes a direct personal attack on me, telling me to "get a life". Now, being 20 years old, I'm far above such childish insults, and I would not normally bother to report this here. However, this topic (longevity-related articles) is currently going through arbitration, and his inflammatory comments are generating far more heat than light, which is extraordinarily unhelpful in what is an already heated situation. On his talkpage, he has refused to retract his statement; I think he needs an outside voice to remind him that WP:NPA applies to him as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 08:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And while I'm here, I suppose I should mention his repeated name-calling at David in DC's talkpage. David in DC is also involved in the ongoing arbitration, and Brendanology seems intent on labeling him a cabalist and telling him to behave, despite repeated requests not to. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 08:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded directly on my talk page. I fully agree with the template BNL put on my page about all this. But I'm going to move it. It's my hope that these acts will tamp things down. David in DC (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle asserts that I'm "crap", elaborates that I'm "scum"


Sayerslle said I'm a "crap Wikipedia editor." So, I told him that such language would not work well for him.. He responded by deleting my warning from his talk page, with this in an edit summary: "removed bad faith additions from scum".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Glanced at the edits provided. At face value they do seem like pretty blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. Suggest a WP:CIVILity warning be posted by admin and that any future behavior result in block. NickCT (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * i was warned about 'name-calling', the 'crap editor' comment, by someone who then name-called -'crapmeister - himself. i call that bad-faith. i didn't realise it was illegal to remove edits like that, bad-faith edits, and the messages from editors that pain me. i call 'scum', back-biters, hypocrites, it was used in an edit summary to my own talk page, i wouldnt use the word in a namespace talk page, - what is this Stalinist russia?  get me banned then anythingyouwant. i've finished on all sarah palin related articles which are censored pages. WP should worry more about that i think, tho' i do understand the desirability of civility and regret any lapses.  i am leaving sarah palin to the POV crowd and expect my blood pressure will fall. Sayerslle (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I never called you a "crapmeister" (though another editor did rather than quote you directly).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this? Primary school? He said he would support you in any manner to get the 'crapmeister silenced'. i guess that is what this is. but i am so disgusted by the sarah palin articles that there is no need as i am leaving those censored pages. you two are linked and so i decided to delete your monikers from my talk page because it was unwelcome to me to see them there. yeaterday the other editor was saying 'name calling is never good..good luck' etc..why should I listen to editors like you two, breathtaking hypocrisy no?, take lessons in civility and etiquette from such? thats all i have to say. if I'm banned, i'm banned. good day to you , sir.Sayerslle (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: you're not "banned" or even "blocked". Whether you leave it in an edit summary or on a talk page, whether it's your talk page or not it's still the same insult and treated the same. Neither party should engage in childish name-calling because it really doesn't foster a "mature" work environment. So no "crapmeister" and no "scum" - we're all just trying to edit the encyclopedia. Like adults. Doc   talk  17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and like I said, I am leaving the article-area, Sarah Palin, that seemed to bring about my exasperation and sweariness. thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I just go an attack from Sayerslle on my Talk page with the accusation that they can tell what "side" I'm on in the Palin discussion because of coments I made on the ANI board. I find that offensive in the extreme, a violation of AGF, and totally inappropriate in a collegial and consensus-building environment.  Especially from someone I have never had any dealings with in any forum.    Corvus cornix  talk  19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not terribly cool, but I don't see any serious personal attacks there. But I'm now a bit concerned with the other two of three edits he made between his visits to this board. This article you created, Sayerslle: if these massive content edits are not possible copyright violations, they are certainly original research; and neither are allowed (though the former is far worse). Where are the sources for these edits, please? "Speeches" are what they seemed to be based on: are they published? We must properly cite material we wish to include here. Doc   talk  19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They're not speeches -- it's a TV program. The Private Life of a Masterpiece -- see the 12/25/2010 entry at the bottom of the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad :> There are three citations and a hell of a lot of text put in "in chunks". Red flags should naturally go up with material this "detailed". Doc   talk  19:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh gawd, this is at the 'kind of transcript ' stage, and when I've done that i would edit it to be less 'transcript' like - i did similar with botticellis 'mystical nativity' fully acknowledging my using the T.v programme - it is info when all is said and done, can the BBC copyright that Romuald founded a monastery in the 11th century..the narration says ..romuald founded a monastery in the 11th century.. the article says  romuald founded a monastery in the 11th century - perhaps the article talk page is better for this conversation. i've always wanted to understand copyright  anyhow. how much of a programme can you quote. Contributors etc. An editor whose opinion i would value actually for advice about this, an art specialist, is called Johnbod, get his opinion on the Botticelli article and copyright too Sayerslle (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear ya: I think this guideline section is a good place to start. Art articles aren't under any other standards or exemptions that I'm aware of; but I'm often wrong. At any rate it's a different issue from what brought you here and, as you correctly pointed out, belongs elsewhere. Back to civility? Addressing Corvus' issue before I rudely dismissed it is probably what will lead to closing this thread. Doc   talk  20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At an article talk page, "comment on content, not on the contributor". If an editor can't make their comment without referring to another editor, they need to consider whether they should be making it at all. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will read WP:PLAGIARISM. AS for Corvus complaint, I felt I was defending an admin I believe is in the right over an argument about OWNERSHIP tendencies,, but I had no business going to his talk page, he and I have never addressed each other and I was foolish to turn up like that at his talk page and address him like that. i don't know how much detail is required here, I felt a crowd were beginning to attack an admin I admired, thats that story. I will promise to never visit his talk page again.Sayerslle (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Boolyme


This user is making personal attacks on me from the last few days, giving me fake warnings and also threatening to create multiple accounts.

See        edit summary here  -    Managerarc    talk  17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That last edit summary of his you provided probably could use some RD#2 action. Totally uncalled for. Doc   talk  17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Boolyme has been blocked for disruption. If he continues after the block expires, take it to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Looks like what we have here is a failure to communicate." Doc   talk  18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Worth noting is that Boolyme has only made 140 edits, and didn't wake up until very recently; see [ Boolyme's contributions log] . Hey  Mid  (contribs) 18:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This fellow needs a "time out", esp. after his last post to my talk page... Doc   talk  18:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!---   Managerarc    talk  18:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Constant personal attacks and harassment by Andrei_nacu


User Andrei_nacu, and to some extent EraNavigator are making constant personal attacks on me, User:Daizus and others, resorting to harassment, making various unfounded accusations and labellings, canvasing and general disruptive behavior after being pointed out the obvious and dubious agenda.

User Andrei_nacu even resorted to reporting and labeling the entire project (formed by a very neutral and diverse group people with various backgrounds, origins, interests and beliefs). He went so far that even that report (and the associated thread) which is suppose to be neutral and to the point, is filled with false accusations, harassment and a myriad of personal attacks.

 
 * By Andrei_nacu: A blatant proof for the enjoyment over extending the conflict indefinetly and as well as personal attack:


 * severe personal attacks:

     
 * on a campaign (canvassing) to discredit and remove me:

   
 * and other personal attacks and unfounded claims ignoring all invitations to calm and collaboration (see below):

     
 * even more canvasing, tactics and personal attacks:


 * apologies (tactics?), unfortunately invalidated (including by the reply below) and followed by dozens of other personal attacks:


 * vandalism on a map, currently under discussion in NOR incident board:

- unknown source, sock puppetry (?) - țigan mândru means proud gipsy a very offensive remark, especially when addressed to a Romanian
 * also please review this very suspicious vandalism of User:Daizus page:

  
 * and personal attacks continue even after this report:


 * One blatant example by EraNavigator:

 
 * and other personal attacks and unfounded claims ignoring all invitations to calm and collaboration (see below)

        
 * An innumerable amount of attempts were done to calm the situation, bring dialogue, collaboration and stop the harassment:


 * A large amount of attempts to calm the situation has been done from the project level:
 * Clarifying the scope:

 
 * Clarifying the neutrality and position of the project


 * Invitations to the collaboration on various theories regarding Dacian language

  
 * Some of the invitations to use user space or project drafts space for high conflict articles, to avoid edit wars and prolong conflict

Seeking help to stop the harassment. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Codrin, plese enlighten me as to what dubious agenda am I following? I'm waiting for an answer to your unsustained accusation. Instead everything tells me you are pushing forward a Dacian-biased Protochronist view of the Ancient History of Dacia. Some of your samples (User_talk:Codrinb):


 * 1. 'I was just reading this blog about the large number of Dacian statues made by Romans (quoting from a well-known Dacomanic blog). Leonard Velcescu did a PhD in art on this subject and found over a hundred of them. One wonders why the Romans represented so many Dacians, and didn't do the same for Celts, Iberians, Illyrians, Thracians or Germanic tribes? One puzzling question, why are they not in chains?'


 * 2. 'Here is very long List of Dacian towns and Davae. Many of them also coincide with most major cities in Romania proving continuity'.


 * 3. 'You are trying to separated from being also anti-Romanian but is a very twisted way of thinking. Honestly, everyone will associate the two (Dacian and Romanian) whether you like it or not'.


 * Andrei (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am also seeking help to stop you from harassing and acussing me of having hidden presumably anti-Romanian and anti-Dacian agendas.

Andrei (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and uncivil behaviour by Mattun0211


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_Brigade

This editor does not have an NPOV as can be clearly seen from the comment below: "So, I have shown, I think in good faith, that there is a view that the Green Brigade is sectarian and that Celtic say in their charter, which I have reliably referenced, that they are anti-sectarian."

I have been able to deal with the user until now but I have recieved personal uncivil remarks and this is a user that has only signed up to wikipedia to edit this page! I have made significant contributions in other areas from Carlos the Jackal to the English Defence League I'm not an overenthusiastic contributor myself but joining purely to edit one page and abuse other users on that page trying to have a fair discussion takes the biscuit.

More examples of behaviour are:

general spamming of the talk page eg: "Omar, please see below for guidance on photobucket screenshots from chat sites. Whether you think the Herald article is rubbish is irrelevant. Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please read the wiki guidelines and make sure you understand them fully. Otherwise you are just wasting your time, which is a shame as its great to see such enthusiasm from a young lad."

"One last thing, would it be possible to get the uplifted hand announcing the final warning on Omar's talk page changed to a red hand on a white background rather than the other way round - only kidding" A reference to the Red Hand of Ulster from the flag (as if I was supposed to be offended by that?

"I appreciate travelling may stretch your dole money a bit, but you really should get out of Glasgow more and you will see that there really is more to the world than fanatical hatred of other groups. ... No really, there is."

these are direct quotes from the talk page. I don't think I'm getting any respect off a user that only joined wikipedia to edit this particular page! --Omar418 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Omar, the greatest thing that you can do here is to look past these insults. I agree that the remarks you cited should not have been made, but anyone who looks at your joint history will see that they were made in a context: the two of you got off on a bad foot, and neither is without blame. Now, both of you have a choice: escalate or tone down. I hope you'll choose the latter, "you" being plural of course. Now, given that you all seem to be of the European persuasion, I'll refer you to chapter and verse in a reading exercise from John Milton: "explain how the end of Book 9 of Paradise Lost would have guaranteed a bad ending, which was fortunately prevented by both Adam and Eve taking personal responsibility in Book 10." To refresh your memory: "Thus they in mutual accusation spent / The fruitless hours, but neither self-condemning, And of thir vain contest appeer'd no end." From mutual accusation to accepting responsibility and moving on, that's the way forward. Mattun takes back their ill-advised lashing out, Omar drops the etiquette complaint, we move on. Otherwise you'll keep on fighting and you'll both get blocked and I turn the Green Brigade article into an article about some environmental group. Soccer is for girls anyway. ;) Drmies (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you I've been dying for this to tone down for a while but this man's vendetta knows no bounds so I'm glad I can use this tool to show him theres people who wannt wiki to be more reliable than a tabloid. PS One of the beauties of Football is that you don't need to have testicles to play. I used to play inter-gender football when I was younger. --Omar418 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Profanity by Hammersoft on Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia


Profanity-laced tirade: --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which 'tirade' of course was directed at me, not him. This was preceded by him calling me "confused" and later "under some delusion". I made no insult to Walter, and even expressed that he was welcome to his opinion. Walter has been and remains concerned about the deletion of File:Narnia books.jpg, which was a user created montage of non-free media. I don't particularly care that Walter insults me. It's fine by me; he can insult me all he likes. But to then take me to task because I insult myself, especially after he's made a habit of insulting me? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. You used profanity. It has nothing to do with the object at whom it is directed. And saying you're confused isn't insulting. Saying you're delusion may be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Profanity isn't disallowed on WP. And it was self-defamation, and not directed at anyone else, so no personal attack. He certainly could have used less colorful language, but it's nothing that we'd expect any action about. --M ASEM  (t) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And accusing someone of "lying or intentionally misdirecting" ? Do you consider that civil too? How about referring to me and others as a "bunch of copyright vigilantes" ? How about "I have no respect for you, your poor logic, or the ethics you espouse." (btw, love the edit summary). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And at no time did I use profanity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And at no time were my comments on the talk page of a children's book series. Context is key here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And how about wiping out Δ's edit notice, calling it "annoying". Do you think that is civil? How about referring to Δ's warning to you about that as "vandalism" ? How about calling me "obtuse" --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't read the first part of this ad homimen attack until just now. I wiped it out when I was editing because it annoying and if you check on the talk page here, someone finds yours annoying as well. I was about to restore it when I saw that I was cited for vandalism. You'll see that in the revert of that I commented to that effect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Walter, what is your expected outcome in making this report? What do you want to see happen? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just reporting it. I don't expect or want anything in particular to happen. I've learned not to demand anything. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything actionable in Hammersoft's soliloquy, apart from the spelling error in "dysentery". Maybe the two of you should avoid each other for the next while if you are rubbing each other up the wrong way. --John (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Aleenf1


We are engaged in a editing war on the article 2011 Asian Winter Games (look at Aleenf1's talk page) and he called me a "troll" on Looie496's talk page. Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * User talk:Looie496. Please provide diffs and links next time. Thanks. Fainites barley scribs 20:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So you and Aleenf1 edit warred on 2011 Asian Winter Games. You went to ANI on the 14th, (page protected and ticked off for edit warring with no discussion on the talkpage). You put no less than 3 increasingly strong vandalism templates on his talkpage between the 14th and 16th. He reported you to AN3 at 16.06 on the 16th, (page protected). He called you a troll at 16.49 on the 16th. He also posted on the talkpage of 2011 Asian Winter Games, to which you have not yet replied. He reported you for alleged sockpuppets at 8.09 on the 17th, (case dismissed). So you came here to WQA at 20.07 on the 17th 16th. Is that about right? Fainites barley scribs 20:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment it looks like both of you are throwing everything you can at each other. He may have called you a troll, but you called him a vandal. Neither of you is getting anywhere by running to ANI, AN3, SPI, WQA. What you need to do is discuss it on the talkpage first. If that doesn't work, then try WP:DR. If one of you actually is a troll or a vandal it tends to become apparent when the other attempts civilised discussion.Fainites barley scribs 23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not quite I came here on the 16th. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also notice you have apologised to Aleenf and offered an olive branch and to discuss things on the talkpage. I also note that so far this appears to have been rejected by him.Fainites barley scribs 07:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "I don't think i want to proceed, since you obsessed me. Your reply make me more difficult, you are not BOLD, uncivil and OWN. I suggest you to read all the guidelines before complaining. Furthermore, WP is open wiki, you have to accept one who are non-native speaker of English and not go to complaining it. Sorry." quoting Aleenf1, he is being rude and uncivil for not wanting to co-operate. Intoronto1125 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message. Fainites barley scribs 00:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

User:brewcrewer's uncivil behaviour

 * Incident 1 In which I am declared an anti-Israeli sockmaster and my name is "funny".
 * Incident 2: In which I'm told my only purpose is "adding anything deragatory about Jews".
 * Incident 3: In which brewcrewer starts asking creepy questions about my ethnicity/religion.
 * Incident 4: Brewcrewer helpfully clarifies in this WQA that he thinks I'm anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic and that 99% of my edits are thus. Actual evidence? No.
 * Incident 4: Brewcrewer helpfully clarifies in this WQA that he thinks I'm anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic and that 99% of my edits are thus. Actual evidence? No.

Brewcrewer has had an odd fascination with me ever since I began editing. We are often at odds with each other on matters of editing, which is fine, but these personal attacks keep cropping up and I don't enjoy being slandered as a bigot. I'd hoped it was just a phase of his but it's getting a little old. Sol (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI. It should be noted User:Brewcrewer has been brought here before here 10/13/10 and here by me 12/30/10. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 1 is a pretty standard SPI request. #2 is questioing whether you're only going to be adding negative information about Jews. #3 is in response to your bringing up the ethnicity/religion issue during an Arb Enforcement discussion. Until the SPI is resolved, I don't see much we can do here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it has been resolved, with Templar98 found to be a puppet of someone or other and me cleared. The relevant comments are "Sol Goldstone is an SPA account. 1,000+ edits in the last 7 months since opening his account, no more then a handful were not of the anti-Israel nature." "Wikipedia is flush with SPA editors whose sole purpose is finding things wrong with Israel and/or Jews." The relevant policy would be NPA:"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."
 * 2:"Surely you'll move onto populating Category:Jewish scientists when you're finished. You wouldn't want to come across as an SPA intended on adding anything deragatory about Jews." brewcrewer. That's pretty clearly insinuating that I'm only interested in slandering Jews, for my gross crime of repopulating the "Jewish Terrorism" category. I understand that this is not a popular topic but we aren't immune to having religious extremists and this isn't something to forget because we wish it didn't happen. Sol (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have found Brewcrewer to be a belligerent and adversarial editor. They don't quite step over the line that would lead to sanctions, but they treat WP like a WP:BATTLEFIELD and do not embrace a collegial, cooperative approach to editing.    This etiquette alert will lead to nothing, but perhaps it will be another link in a chain that eventually leads to a sanction someday.  --Noleander (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Noleander, he definitely is an adversarial editor, often sarcastic and purposefully thick, replying to my statements with short comments like "I'm sorry, what is your point?", or asking for clarification when the problem is obvious. If you look at List of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets, 2011/List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011 you will see how he continues to move the page even when there is a discussion currently going on about the title which he has quit participating in. Today he created a page at 'List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, 2011' so that no one could undue his edits without having to go through the lengthy WP:RM process-clearly WP:GAME Passionless (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My comment: With great irony, three edits prior to opening this WQA, Sol Goldstone tracked me down (stalked me?) to a talk page where he delivered this broadside. Recently I filed an SPI raising concerns about sockpuppetry, so this may be retaliatory and thus in bad faith.

But to the underlying issue, I admit that I have concerns with the trend of Sol Goldstone's editing, in that they appear to be anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. I tried couching my concerns to him or anyone else in the most civil manner possible, but at the end of the day, this is something that any editor has a right to raise. If 99% of an editor's edits wind up being of the anti-Israel or anti-Jewish nature, Wikipedia has a problem. If I am incorrect and should be not raising these concerns at all, let me know and I will apologize right here right now. If I am correct, close this WQA. But please, let's leave the rest of this discussion for the opinions of neutral editors, not those with editing trends similar to Sol Goldstone and/or those that have brought previous nonsensical WQA reports against me. Best,-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I admire your resolve in standing by your previous statements. Now all you have to do is back up your serious accusations with evidence. These are grave insults. Back it up or stop. And I found Ghajar by following your suspicious pal, Oppurtunidaddy, one of the many new accounts that seems to follow you around. I saw you incorrectly filibustering 2 other editors and commented. Sol (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike brew 's brand of rabid pro-Israeli battle grounding, I don't think the diffs provided by Sol really offer much that is actionable or explicitly offensive.  We should try to avoid trivial arbitration. NickCT (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I'm sad to be one more voice chiming in here, but Brewcrewer appears to have a habit of accusing people of blockable offenses (socking with Sol Goldstone, stalking with me - this a. in the last three days, I haven't looked further back b. what I've become aware of without actually looking at Brew's contributions, so there may be more even in this brief period) in an attempt to get them to stop editing in his own personal subject area (the Middle East). WQA may not be the most appropriate venue to deal with this problem, but it's a start. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack and uncivil behaviour by User:Shah 88
I would like to report WP:CIVIL and WP:NICE violations on the User:Shah 88, he constantly refer to me with derogatory names such as "indon" or barbarian, as in Talk:2010 AFF Suzuki Cup. Although I already ask him nicely not to do so, but he insist as in his talkpage User talk:Shah 88. Some of anonymous personal attack on my talk page appear after dispute with him. (Gunkarta (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Actually if I were reporting this I would have escalated this to "Incidents" rather than just Wikiquett" doe to the relentless misbehaviour (which also includes 3RRR violations). Specific evidence of Shah 88's uncivil postings can be found [|here], [|here], and even in his [|edit summaries] despite warnings by editors to cease and desist. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For those not in the know, "Indon" is a very offensive term of abuse for Indonesians. Adding the word Barbarian just makes it a little worse. --Merbabu (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

personal attacks and uncivil comments by User:TimothyRias


See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics Kevin Baastalk 23:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

an example from the discussion: "[kevin baas] is a case in point, it is basically a troll. It appears [he] wanted nothing short than a flame war for his own entertainment. If not, he just has very poor people and motivational skills."

my grievances (the more applicable ones):


 * personal attacks
 * bad faith
 * incivility
 * discussing editors rather than content

and on a more personal note i brought up these grievances with him and asked him to stop and he refused to even apologize.

Kevin Baastalk 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(note: the following was posted after cyclopia commented, after i saw i'm supposed to give diffs:)

diffs: here's an example of what i'm talking about: 

i expressed my grievances and what not: 

declined: 

Kevin Baastalk 23:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the discussion and I have to say that TimothyRias is partially right: Kevin Baas is probably in good faith, so not technically a troll. But posting vague, hardly constructive complaints and then taking great offense at basically every criticism of his posting and calling a link to WP:SOFIXIT as a response "wildly out of proportion" is close to disruptive. Kevin, please learn the distinction between standard criticism (even if a bit blunt) and personal attacks and yes, it appears you have poor interpersonal skills (which is not an insult, but an observation: I have quite poor skills myself, but I try to learn at least). -- Cycl o pia talk  23:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * clearly there are some more distinctly left to be made. which is not an insult, just an observation. (to give but one example, as i've already made clear in that discussion, expecting me to fix all of wikkipeida is ofcourse wildly out of proportion.  there is nothing disruptive about saying say, it is simply a statement of fact.  certainly if such things aren't allowed than there are much bigger problems.)  i thought this was the place to get some kind of helpful mediation when people are violating social rules of wikipedia. (to put it somewhat plainly) i know what those rules are and i have stated them and i have given examples.  i guess that means i can't take criticism and can't simply accept being treated uncivily and having my person attacked when of course i should. Kevin Baastalk 00:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I have to side with Tim and Cyclopia here. You come in WP:MATH and basically says "Math articles suck", and not much else. This is pretty much a textbook case of trolling. Even though you might not have meant it that way, that's how it comes across. Compare "wikipedia is a great source of info for just about anything, with one exception: mathematics[...] [It is] as if there are a number of people who are actively making it worse." with something like "I browsed several maths article (examples) and I found them to be very dense and hard to understand, is there a way to make maths articles more accessible?" Likewise, you're very quick to jump on the WP:WIKILAWYERING train, as examplified by your reply ("i don't know who you're talking about, unless "OP" refers to "original poster", which is pretty transparent, i.e. you might as well use the person's name. it doesn't make it any less of a personal attack, which is strictly prohibited.) to an innocuous statement that's as far removed from a personal attack as it gets ("As for the discussion at hand, the OP's original comment was certainly not the best way to approach this issue.") So yeah, in a nutshell, be less abrasive / more constructive, learn to collaborate with people who don't agree with you, and if you want others to WP:AGF with you, you need to WP:AGF of others as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * i acknowledge that the way i started came off a bit brash. and i regret that.  but two wrongs don't make a right.  certaintly you don't mean to condone his behavior?  but that is what you are effectively doing.  as to "wikilawyering" well i am just saying i would like to be treated like a human being and if there's something wrong with that; if you find that objectionable, well then i have clearly come to the wrong place.  i told him what i didn't like and asked him to stop before elevating, and for having done this diligence you accuse me of being petty.  i have held my tongue and for quite some time and continue to do so.  i have also been accused of not being able to take criticism.  but you look at the very section of the talk page that i refer you to and you can clearly see from my interactions with others that that is not the case. in spite of timothy's attacks, bad faith, and incivility, which you apparenlty dont have a problem with, i am having much more productive discussion which people who are being much more civil and polite and -- if i may -- much more mature.  in fact, that such interaction leads to more productive behavior is precisely why we (and society in general) have such rules!  so go on condoning that behavior and i will go on finding more fruitful discussion with people who don't behave that way. (oh, and i have gone out of my way to assume good faith, holding my tongue quite a bit, where others lacked such restraint.)  Kevin Baastalk 00:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * you don't mean to condone his behavior? : Yes I mean exactly that. Usually I wouldn't but what you did was very easy to understand as trolling, and your conduct in the discussion was overly tiresome. So he is entirely justified.
 * no. that is never justified.
 * i would like to be treated like a human being : And everyone did that. If you don't understand the difference between taking criticism and being treated inhumanely, that's your problem, sorry. Grow a skin.
 * no they did not. i do understand the difference.  apparently you do not.  fortunately there are others on the talk page in question who do.  maybe one day you will too.
 * you can clearly see from my interactions with others that that is not the case. : Yes it is. You look like, from that interactions, that you are utterly unable to take criticism.
 * and he doesn't even look! wow.   utterly pointless.
 * oh, and i have gone out of my way to assume good faith : I don't dare to image what happened if you didn't, then. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * you need not imagine, only to see what other parties have said where i could just have easily said the same thing and be far more justified in doing so but choose not to. from what you said, from what you condone, suffice it to say i do not have high esteem for your moral reasoning ability.  and i really don't like talking to you.  you certainly don't make for a very good mediator.  frankly, you don't sound like a very nice person, either. i think it would be more constructive if you let someone else take the wheel. Kevin Baastalk 01:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to mediate. You're wrong in this case, that's it. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * oh, if only the world were ever so clear and simple! "but beware, most of all, of convictions, for they are worse enemies to truth than even lies!" - paraphasing Nietzsche (the aphorism, by the way, is an allusion to the fact that a lie can be discovered and corrected whereas a conviction, by definition, cannot.) anycase i'm well aware of your opinion.  you stated it plainly right away befer even looking at all the facts, and the ones you have aren't even correct.  so forgive me if i don't give it much weight.   Kevin Baastalk 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) oh, and the most ironic part of all this is that i am one of very few people who is actually engaging in constructive discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics with others and yet i'm the one with "bad people skills" and "bad motivational skills"! if that's "bad people skills" and "bad motivational skills", then i'll take it any day over the alternative.  Kevin Baastalk 00:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * oh geez, and i just noticed, you're not even looking at the right person's comments! Timothy, not RobHar! I posted the diffs! Robhar is the one i'm having the constructive discussion with!  Kevin Baastalk 01:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * frankly, you don't sound like a very nice person, either. - And now it is you engaging in personal attacks (even if mild ones). Cool. And I don't get the "right person's comments": I am talking of you and only you. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * hey, i said i was being frank. and i'm just saying how you are coming off to me right now.  so i am only _now_ engaging in personal attacks?  i thought you said before that i was just vicious, that you'd hate to see me not being polite!  well now you have seen me not being polite.  scary, right?  okay.  well i am talking of timothy.  you were talking before about robhar, who i dont have a problem with.  i'm sorry if i confused you but posted this notice was not my invitation for you to start saying mean things about me and only me.  the intention was really for people to look at what other people have said to me, and in particular timothy (not rob, who i don't have a problem with).  so now that we've cleared that up...  well, i don't think there's much left to say.  except it would be nice if somebody else with a more constructive approach, who actually has an interest in considering the diffs i presented, would "take the wheel", as it were, as this clearly isn't going anywhere. Kevin Baastalk 01:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Read WP:BOOMERANG. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * why should i read anything when you don't even look at my diffs? when you don't even care that you're demonstrably wrong about e.g. how i responded to other criticism (e.g. i responded to robhar's criticism with "you make some good points", certainly not indicative of "thin skin".).  sorry, you're not even listening anymore (if you ever were) so if it had any relevance it would be accidental, anyways. and due to your failure to get the facts straight - or care - you've lost all credibility with me.  Kevin Baastalk 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * though i might just out of curiousity. oh... curiosity.  not good for cats. Kevin Baastalk 01:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WHAT?!? oh please.  you are incorrigible.  you're not even listening. Kevin Baastalk 02:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This report is out of proportion to the comment made by TimothyRias. I noticed this report after reading WT:WikiProject Mathematics, and I saw that the discussion there got a little tense. However, that tenseness seemed justified to me, given the lack of information provided in what amounts to a complaint that the vast majority of mathematics articles are poor. Of course there are many mathematics articles which are not accessible to general readers (due to the nature of the topic), but there was no case made about such a problem in an article which we may hope could be made significantly more accessible. People who robustly report a claimed problem without providing details should expect some robust replies. The report that "he refused to even apologize" is not a correct summary of the reply. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, how basically one remark can be blown completely out of proportion. In my defense, if you consider the plaintiff's open post of the thread at WT:MATH — which consisted of a generic complaint without any particular constructive input and a blanket insult to the community he was addressing — and his consecutive behavior, which consisted mostly of aggressively attacking responses that did not agree with him, the conclusion that this poster was in fact trolling seemed by far the most logical.

My response was to another user (user:WhatamIdoing) that commented, that the WP Math community is generally not amenable to this type of criticism. My response to him was that, the response of the community is hardly surprising, given the general tone with it is brought, for which I brought up the present thread's starting post. I probably should have just not said anything at all.

I, however, contrary to the plaintiff's claim, did offer to apologize, on the condition that he do so as well for issuing a blanket insult to the community. Instead of doing so, he instead decided to go straight here.TimothyRias (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tim, perhaps you should have just not said anything at all. That's what I decided to do when, shortly after my comment, I noticed this and this and this, looking more like Usenet trolling than like Wiki-collaboration—highly inappropriate. Of course you could have known that offering an apology on some condition usually doesn't work, but, on the other hand, sometimes even an unconditional apology fails to register. Anyway, I think that coming here was not a very good idea. DVdm (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully support Kevin on this issue, with some further clarification. The problem is a cultural one over at WikiProject Mathematics. They are collectively a VERY arrogant group. A bunch of prima donnas they are. Kevin brought up a legitimate issue in a civil manner, and since it calls into question the activity of the WP mathematicians he has inevitably gotten this response. He is not a troll AT ALL. He brought up a valid criticism, and the some of the people which he has indirectly criticized are not mature enough to engage civilly or too myopic to see that his point is 100% correct.Greg Bard (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This sort of attack on a group of editors is not at all helpful. The context for Gregbard's comments can be seen here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that thread, read it, and learned from it that there is a useful site called MathOverflow. For reasons that should be obvious I decided not to post to that thread. I don't know why I am posting to the present thread. Maybe bad judgement. Hans Adler 13:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, in the broader perspective, both User:Kevin Baas and User:Gregbard have been in conflict with WikiProject Mathematics, over their pushing of OR into mathematical articles. And they have both (in different ways) reacted to this situation, not by taking the trouble to go to the literature and craft some additions to the articles that would take the content forward, but by being combative. Kevin, in particular, assumes that a bluffer has to be taken seriously, when that is not the case. The fact that provocation sometimes succeeds in provoking reaction is hardly surprising. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey charles. i see you haven't changed a bit.  still the same --- er ---  well, let's just say you haven't gotten any more civil.  or humble, for that matter.  or any less condescending.  i was hoping to see some improvement.  Kevin Baastalk 19:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and why i'm here, tim, you should know that there's no such thing as a conditional apology. a conditional apology is just not an apology. among other things wrong with all that.  maybe in time you'll start to realize them.  i really don't have the patience to explain. frankly, i'm already too disgusted with all of the behavior i'm seeing. Kevin Baastalk 19:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the aim of course, was to bring attention to people with cooler heads to a situation where ettiquette was clearly failing before it spiraled out of control. obvioulsy i came to the wrong place.  (or in any case didn't get the right people.)  ettiquete _here_ is even _more_ abysmal.  oh, the irony.  Kevin Baastalk 19:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apology would be completely non-conditional and heart-felt, if you would give me reason think that you were acting out of good faith, by apologizing and saying that you had no intention of insulting the community. Your refusal to do so, however, only asserts that your insult to the community was in fact intentional, which makes my original assertion of your motivation correct and leaves me with no reason to apologize to you.TimothyRias (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Kevin (and this is a sincere question) do you think that your own behaviour here and on WT:MATH is civil?

Friendly warning?
Greetings. Could someone politely advise User 194.238.70.70 that calling someone a "moron" isn't really acceptable? I've posted some information on Civility and Trivia sections (to help with the point in question) on their Talk Page. Many thanks. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lycos
Could someone please look into Talk:Lycos and in particular the comments by Allamericansuperwhizkid, Fairykillersuccessful, Inspectorgeneral333, and Gaius Valabius (who may or may not be socks)? The thread starts out with comments not appropriate for talk pages and quickly devolves into personal attacks. I have tried to inform the editors of WP:TALK and got WP:PA for my pains. --Macrakis (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've closed the discussions as off-topic and warned Gaius for personal attacks. I'll keep an eye out to see if it continues. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) Those people are obviously nutters... doesn't matter whether they're sock puppets, they're definitely meat puppets as I understand the term. An alternative possible term is schizo loonies. See no reason to block them, they should just be told not to carry on their insane crusade on the talk page. On the other hand... In fact, letting them contribute could bring some enjoyment to the rest of us as long as they're kept away from articles. Anyone know who this alleged super paedophile is? Sounds amusing. Egg Centric (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ... seriously, I already had to warn one of them. I won't template you but drop the "schizo loonies" bit, okay, Egg? And no, we're not here to get amusement from people attacking other editors. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the thread appears to be one sock puppet talking to another and making very serious (and groundless) accusations, is there a process by which the whole conversation can be deleted (but not expunged)? Or, we could just keep the original non-sock comment. I'm not opposed to people making complaints on that page - it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, but if a user has a gripe with the company, fine. Wikipedia isn't here to make any company or individual look good. But the abusive nature of this one, plus the fact that someone coming to the page for the first time would see an apparent "conversation" where it was really one user responding to himself, it rises above simple WP:FORUMing. JRP (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to people using Talk pages to complain about the article subject, since it doesn't help us fix the article. That said, keeping the conversations hidden should be fine for now. They'll eventually be archived as the page length grows. We can remove off-topic conversations from the Talk page, especially abusive ones, but that tends to attract screams of "censorship!!11!1one" and more drama. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I think a lot more people think like me than care to admit it ;) Egg Centric (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Harassment by User:Jehochman
User Jehochman has continued to attack and harass me with a mischaracterization of my current views based on a 7.5 year old off-Wikipedia email rant made in 2003 when I was upset because of getting documented death threats from a pro-Iraq war/pro-Israel individual. He has brought this up several times on the talk page, plus other venues, including a WP:ANI complaint, which he was chided for. Please advise me if I should bring this to WP:ANI and/or Requests for comment/User conduct, especially since he is an administrator who is supposed to set an example not engage in harassment activity. Or feel free to take relevant steps if you are an administrator who thinks it can and should be handled from here. (Note: Since I'm banned from User:Jehochman's talk page, I have posted notice of this on the relevant talk page.) [Note: Another editor just brought the final issue to WP:ANI, and I alerted them to this, so now it's really getting confusing!!]


 * User:Jehochman was uncivil when I first complained he had reverted to the old name of an article without consulting anyone on on the talk page - getting a reprimand from another article for his hostility.See this and two previous diffs.
 * User:Jehochman brought his complaints to WP:ANI and was soundly told both by other editors to stop it. As the closer wrote: An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV". Especially as within this topic any ANI thread is likely to be unpleasantly conflictual. Yes, we could continue talking here until the cows come home and accuse each other of POV-pushing... but let's not.
 * User:Jehochman tried to get me to stop editing the article at this diff with my response.
 * User:Jehochman brought this issue up again in this current threat at Disruptive editing talk page and I replied:
 * Read WP:Harass. Bringing up old incidents on wikipedia over and over is bad enough. Bringing up old incidents from 7.5 years ago OFF wikipedia is really absurd. Find current evidence on wikipedia, not off-wikipedia internet researching of some strong POV I have (as I have found abundant evidence of yours here) and use that. Or do you think opposition research on Wikipedia is fine and dandy and oppose the outing policy?
 * He then deleted the comments here and here, only referring to the holidays, not my concrete complaint.

As the article history shows, I have done many constructive edits on this article in the last couple weeks. However, User:Jehochman's constant harassment - and his refusal to answer another editor with similar concerns about his edits - remakes it difficult for me to work to improve the article. Any help appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Jehochman In an edit summary at this diff threatened me and other editors with “a trip to ArbCom” if we disputed or reverted his edit. He failed to respond on the talk page when at this diff I complained about the threat and asked him why he did not follow established WP:Dispute resolution processes.
 * User:Jehochman again brought up the issue to which another editor and I politely replied “please focus on the issues at hand.” All three comments at this diff.
 * User: Jehochman in response created [responded to] here a straw poll on the talk page demanding I share my current views, meanwhile mischaracterizing them, which was removed by another editor at this diff. But which another editor reinstated and is in this section. [Later note: because User:Jehochman was first person to respond at the edit summary labeled "Straw poll" I mistakenly thought he created it; easy to do when one is under constant attack!]


 * I can't find anything useful in the diffs you provided to support your concerns. A good read of the essay currently under development at Activist may be helpful.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Essays do not trump policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Essays describe the behavior of editors who put up no diffs at WQA of policy violations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That particular essay describes little but the mindset of those who created it, and are unwilling to accept that others see things differently - see its talk page for evidence of why it is a spectacularly bad example of the very thing it purports to condemn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And how is your post related to Jehochmans' or Carolmooredc's editing behavior? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was you that attempted to cite the essay as relevant. Given the controversy around it, I felt this was giving inappropriate weight to a work-in-progress which incidentally has nothing to do with Carolmooredc's Wikiquette alert concerning the misuse of an article talk page (unless you were suggesting that this misuse was carried out by an 'activist', in which case surely it should be him/her that would need to read it). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not surprising that various editors who'd like to use Wikipedia for advocacy would dispute an essay that identifies their behavior as a problem. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm not surprised at AndyTheGrump's characterization, after I most clearly stated that it was an "an essay currently under development". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Response from Jehochman
CarolmoorDC has been heavily involved in editing articles on anti-semitism, Israel, and Judaism. She is self-described activist who has apparently imported real life battles into Wikipedia. I am involved in these discussions, acting in the capacity of an ordinary editor, not as an administrator. Please see: All editors should be reminded that it is not outing when an editor disclosed that they edit under their own name, and self-discloses their off-wiki activities. Every editor should be aware of what topics they have problems writing neutrally about, and stay away from them. They should especially avoid disputed editing of those topics, actively having a conflict of interest, or creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such editing damages the reputation of Wikipedia. When an editor fails to self-regulate, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the problem.
 * She has talked about, "Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews)..."
 * Discussion from July 2010
 * Current page naming dispute at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media

I consider her filing here to be retaliatory and thus, bad faith. Jehochman Talk 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As for civility, CarolmooreDC, did you once say,
 * "Sharon would love to have Hamas killing American troops, just like he's delighted to see them killing Jews, since it makes his facist goals of "leibenstraum" and grabbing the rest of Israel that much easier by inflaming the public."?
 * Can you explain why you shouldn't be banned from all topics related to Israel and Judaism? We already have enough problems in those areas without radical ideologues joining the battle. Jehochman Talk 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic here is your harassment after multiple editors have rejected your claims, as I evidence above. [Later note: And the Sharon comment was from a 2003 off-wikipedia email, 3 years before I started editing here. Not relevant as the WP:ANI I refer to above found.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, the topic at WQA (as any DR forum) is the behavior of all involved. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you still think that "Sharon would love to have Hamas killing American troops, just like he's delighted to see them killing Jews"? Do you still think that "Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews)" is a priority? Coming to Wikipedia to push an activist agenda is not acceptable.  No matter how superficially polite you are, no matter how well you've learned to use wiki-process to intimidate and stifle your perceived opponents, it is still not acceptable. Jehochman Talk 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a bit weird to say the least, Jehochman, why are you spamming comments made 7 1/2 years ago all over wikipedia? You were previously told at ANI that you should open an RfC/user to bring a case, yet instead you use the talk pages of articles and indeed a WQA thread that tries to address your problematic behavior continue pasting excerpts. un☯mi 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like my concerns to be addressed on the merits. Why are we allowing a self-avowed activist to repeatedly spin articles according to her world view?  This is not right. I don't like to jump to WP:RFC/U if a simple discussion might lead to a proper resolution.  I also want to get feedback from uninvolved editors.  At the moment there is very little uninvolved feedback here.  You commented previously, so your thoughts (while potentially valid) are not adding any fresh perspectives. Jehochman Talk 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, Unomi, Jehochman did not bring this WQA, but he does need to defend himself, since Carolmoore did not bring an RFC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he needs to defend the actions that were cited as reason to open the WQA, the proper way to do that is surely not to continue in the same vein? Jehochmans defence above seems to be consist of stating he is doing it in the interest of wikipedia in order to expose "having a conflict of interest, or creating the appearance of a conflict of interest", yet previously at ANI he was told to open an RfC/U if he felt he had a case - he is likely also aware of the existence of WP:COIN (which is exactly about this), so why is he doing the same thing he was told at ANI not to do? un</b><b style="color:#669">☯</b><b style="color:#569">m</b><b style="color:#469">i</b></i> 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ANI thread admin said, nothing actionable here, try WP:RFC. I prefer not to start RFC/U's if at all possible because they take a lot of time that could be better spent other ways. Your suggestion of WP:COIN is a good one. I will try that next time there is a problem, and only if that fails would I escalate to RFC/U.  I did not start the current thread, so don't criticize me for responding to an attack on my character!  It is not harassment to raise concerns about apparent violations of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to belabor the point but the ANI admin said: An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV"., I don't think that was an invitation to repeat the same behavior on an article talk page in the form of a strawpoll, though I suppose we may want to ask the admin in question for clarification. I think the easiest way to close this thread asap is if you acknowledge that your actions were inappropriate and I would also recommend that you in the future rely on evidence of inappropriate editing in the form of actual diffs of such editing rather than referring to very old off-wiki comments. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#651">u</b><b style="color:#550">n</b><b style="color:#450">☯</b><b style="color:#350">m</b><b style="color:#250">i</b></i> 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've presented links and diffs and would like my concerns to be addressed. CarolMooreDC has filed a frivolous and retaliator complaint against me. I didn't start this thread -- she did. I didn't start the straw poll you mentioned.  Somebody else did.  Please don't try to blame me for something started by another editor. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable for the editors of an article to discuss the question of who has been disrupting the progress of that article.  It is not an inappropriate talk page topic. Jehochman Talk 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was under the impression that you started the strawpoll, I see now that it was . In general I find that talkpage discussions are at their most fruitful when they focus on edits rather than editors. It is getting a bit late here, I will look at the diffs you have mentioned and comment after some sleep. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#697">u</b><b style="color:#596">n</b><b style="color:#496">☯</b><b style="color:#396">m</b><b style="color:#296">i</b></i> 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FUI, at WP:dispute resolution wikiettiquette alerts is mentioned as a move to be taken before WP:RFC and in fact I ask if a WP:Rfc is appropriate at the top of this complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(←) "Furthermore, it is not unreasonable for the editors of an article to discuss the question of who has been disrupting the progress of that article. It is not an inappropriate talk page topic." I disagree. The guideline "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." seems a very good one here. An editor's contributions may be criticised -- discussion of their behaviour should be taken elsewhere. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you looked over the article and talk page in question or any of the diffs, or are you just reciting the general principle? Jehochman Talk 19:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reminding people of general principles and asking them to evaluate their own conduct in the context of established guidelines is often a way forward. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In general we comment on content, not contributors. But there are exceptions such as cases of conflict of interest or sock puppetry.  The present issue has been from the start a matter of WP:COI or WP:ADVOCACY that has manifest because the user is making WP:NPOV-questionable edits that happen to line up with their highly public advocacy.  We are not required to ignore obvious problems that impact the editing of our articles.  I'd like my concerns to be addressed on the merits.  If you think CarolMooreDC's editing complies with WP:NPOV and WP:COI, please say so, but please do look into the matter.  Please don't be dismissive of my concerns.  Resolving this will require looking at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media.  Jehochman Talk 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am neither dismissing nor endorsing your concerns, and I am not saying that CarolMooreDC's editing does, or does not, comply with WP:NPOV and WP:COI. What I am saying that an article talk page is not the place to make comments about an editor.  If you think that an editor's contributions to an article are WP:NPOV-questionable, then it should be possible to explain your concerns on the article talk page with reference to those edits.  It is not necessary to discuss the editor on that page.  For the situations you describe where it might be appropriate to comment on an editor as such, we have boards such as those you already link to.    Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It should be sufficient to answer concerns wherever they are raised, or else an uninvolved editor should feel free to move a thread to a more appropriate place (and leave a link).  My point is that the concerns need to be addressed.  Constantly trying to stiffle concerns with "wrong venue" objections is not productive.  Part of the purpose of the discussion was to try to determine what the next step should be, what the most appropriate venue would be. Thank you for your feedback.  I've posted my concerns to WP:COIN. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.


 * (ec) I think that you should have considered moving the "straw poll" to a more appropriate place yourself. Who is trying to stifle your concerns?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not. As an involved party it would be inviting much criticism for me to move something that way.  I didn't start the straw poll; somebody else did. It wasn't up to me to move it.  Jehochman Talk 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you thought it should have been moved? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the location where I would have started the discussion. Kenilworth, do you have any idea how frustrating it is to spend weeks trying to talk sense to somebody, and they just keep going on and on and on, impervious to any feedback?  I just want the problem resolved.  I want concerns to be addressed, and I don't care whether that happens here, there or some place else.  Would somebody please look into the substance of the matter and stop the endless wikilawyering.  Jehochman Talk 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you need to initiate the discussion in the correct forum. If you want to resolve an issue about an editor's bias, start a discussion in RFC/U or ANI.  If you want a content issue resolved in an article, start an RFC.   You are wasting everyones time by discussing matters in the wrong forum.   --Noleander (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you, sir, but I'm being sent in circles. Wherever I go with my concerns, various editors pop up and object to the forum, or say to go some place else.  Everybody just keeps passing the buck. Jehochman Talk 21:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Jehochman
Anyone who reads Jehochman allegations (two of which refer to same 2003 email) can see there is "no contemporaneous there, there" which is why he must resort to harassment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize that accusing another editor of harassment without evidence is, well, harassment, no? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The contemporareous evidence can be viewed at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media. A user simply needs to read that page to see the style of your editing.  As for article space, your contributions are often tendentious, repeatedly attempting to legitimize the false and anti-semitic slander that Jews control the media. Moreover, you have never retracted your 2003 remarks.  Once you say something bigoted, you own that position until you renounce it. Given the alignment between your stated fringe position and your current editing, what are we to conclude? Jehochman Talk 16:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * USer:SandyGeorge: please note that the subject of this complaint IS documented harassment by User:Jehochman.
 * User:Jehochman: I doubt anyone but someone with your own strong POV will find those edits problematic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What strong POV do I have? That saying "Jews control the media" is an anti-semitic lie?  This is a well documented fact in scholarly literature.  Jehochman Talk 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * J, I suggest you disengage for the moment and let the facts speak for themselves. Carol, WQA will look at the behavior of all involved, including yourself. WP:BOOMERANGs can be nasty. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Jehochman's incendiary comment on "antisemitic lie" (i.e., the use of "canard" in the article): Please note that at both this NPOV discussion to take canard out of the title and  this Jehochman requested move to change the name of the article to include “canard,” numerous editors rejected canard as the primary description of the allegations. That Jehochman nevertheless moved out of the lead evidence that myth and conspiracy theory are used more frequently and by more academic and journalistic WP:RS than canard is one of the subjects of  this talk page thread where another editor agrees with me. ''Jehochman did not respond with wiki policy arguments but launched a personal attack on me on the talk page - thus my complaint here.
 * User:HandThatFeeds: Thanks for the reminder. I believe my on wikipedia behavior has been exemplary, considering the constant attacks for something said in the heat of the moment off wikipedia 7.5 years ago. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Crossposting this in hopes that it helps.Original post, tweaked below

Carol, to facilitate communication, you may post to my talk page hereafter. I'd prefer to de-escalate this conflict and resolve concerns directly. You are welcome to ask me about my conflicts. I do not have any conflict of interest in this area. I am not employed or obligated to anybody regarding this topic. I've got nothing to gain or lose in the outcome. COI is a difficult question because there's no easy way to know where to draw the line. My request to you would be twofold: (1) Disavow any past comments you made that you don't currently support. If you do that, I promise not to raise them again, and will correct anybody else who tries to do so. (2) Avoid making edits that look like you are trying to move the coverage to be more positive or more negative to align with your off-wiki advocacy activities. The guiding principle is that when other good faith editors start to object to your editing, step back and ask yourself "Am I helping or hindering the process?" What's especially odd is that you and I probably would agree about a good many things, yet here we are having a big, unproductive disagreement. Jehochman Talk 18:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am glad I can come to your talk page with my concerns.
 * Please specify the wikipedia policy that says I have to disavow comments made off wikipedia 7.5 years ago or otherwise explain in detail my current POV? I have been thinking of rewriting that email in line with what I would have written if I had not been so upset/ticked off by death threats, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to link to that from wikipedia.
 * Since I also have current comments of yours I could quote that I think are very POV and problematic, please tell me if there is a wikipedia policy where I can ask you to change those?
 * You write: COI is a difficult question because there's no easy way to know where to draw the line. That would depend on the specifics.
 * The most recent objections to my editing (leading to the Straw poll which I do note above was created by someone else) were regarding the same questions both I and User:Noleander had. He was not attacked and our concerns were not answered. So I don't see a process of discussion of issues at the talk page yet at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's not wikilawyer here. There's no policy requiring you to disavow your previous statements, but it'd go a long way towards showing good faith. The entire point here is for both of you to calm down, stop sniping and edit cooperatively, not nitpick policies. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, you argument gets across really strange. You are talking as if being an Anti-Semite would be disallowed on Wikipedia. As if it's policy to completely suppress such views here. Why don't you just point out when a user edits disruptive ? Without commenting on his views, just for balanced and neutral articles ? I don't like such views but just trying to suppress them did never work. 217.235.16.127 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am not accusing anyone of anti-Semitism. 217.235.16.127 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a regular account? If so, please login and claim your edits.  Thank you.  Yes, being an Anti-Semite and editing articles about Jewish topics in a way that overtly or subtly violates WP:NPOV would be a big problem on Wikipedia.  Being Anti-Russian and editing articles about Russia that way would be equally problematic.  We have enough trouble with these articles that we don't need editors who come here with a publicly disclosed positions that cast strong suspicions over whether their edits comply with WP:NPOV.  Jehochman Talk 20:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No I got no account. I know that there can be a COI, that was not my point. But you are getting across as if just the POV would be disallowed, which it isn't as long as it doesn't lead to unbalanced articles. There might well be a problem but I think you should focus on the edits and not the POV of the user. 217.235.16.127 (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cited diffs above. The user's edits all point to weakening the historically accurate claim that "Jews control the media" was a malicious lie started by anti-semites.  CarolMooreDC's editing of the topic generally aims to legitimize the claim, contrary to what the majority of mainstream sources say.  She is quite tenacious and posts so many talk page comments that she tends to overwhelm the discussion and frustrates the formation of any consensus that disagrees with her own view.  That's my concern in a nutshell, and I'd really like some uninvolved editors to take a look and address the matter on the merits.  Jehochman Talk 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Racism is one of the few things not tolerated on Wikipedia. People can be (and have been) banned for being racists, regardless of their edits. Usually their behavior gets them blocked first, but ethnic conflicts are a raw nerve and result in close scrutiny with little wiggle room. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, most racists will attack other users (indirectly) by just stating their views. Just wanted to say that suppressing such views completely is not an effective way to deal with them. Cheers! 217.235.16.127 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — 217.235.16.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's often the only way to deal with them on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for collegial, cooperative edting. Racism is not just detrimental, but has a chilling effect on other editors. There's no point tolerating it, and allowing other editors to be intimidated. But, this is getting off-topic. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I aqm not an expert on this sort of thiing (and have never been her before) but when an edds (admin or otehrwise) launches a series of ANI and otehr attacks on a single user over POV issues (at least one of which has been turned down) it does look a bit like harrisment. Perhaps it might help if Jehochman agreed to disiengage from this and allow oterh admins to deal with hte problom.Slatersteven (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to get another admin or editor to step up to the plate and review the matter in depth. Nobody has come forward yet. All I've been getting are suggestions to take my concerns to some other venue.  You might say I've been given the run around.  My ANI report wasn't rejected on the merits; I was advised to take my concerns elsewhere. Jehochman Talk 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is the harassment and screaming of antisemitism because Jehochman doesn't want to work cooperatively on editing a difficult article. In fact, his only edits to the article are related to making "canard" prominent in it. I, however, have tripled the history section and fixed a bunch of real WPL:BLP issues. He has not had one complaint about any of that. And I have not been attacking him or anyone else, just defending myself constantly. I believe any neutral editor looking at the history of the article will agree with me. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Jews control the media" is a false statement, a canard, an anti-semitic lie originating from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent. It is not a debatable claim or allegation.  My grave concern is that your editing is essentially violating WP:NPOV by suggesting that Jews might actually control the media.  They don't.  This is a lie that was used to dispossess people of their property and their lives.  It is a horrific thing that Wikipedia might be used to perpetuate this myth in any form or fashion. It's a pure fabrication, just as evil as Holocaust denial. Jehochman Talk 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is all diverging from the scope of this board. It really begins to look like an Arbitration issue.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a mediation would be great, usually a better first step. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Carol and I seem to be able to get along well enough when we focus on content. If we reach disagreements about content we can use WP:RFC or WP:M to resolve them. At least we can try. I don't feel like this issue is quite ripe for arbitration, though that might eventually change. Jehochman Talk 22:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgive me but that is not what I see. I see accusation of COI (and you have I bleives launched a COI investigation against carol) and harresment. Ther are accusations of racism and anit-semitism flyigng about. That is a very serious accusation. I have susgested that for 7 days the pair of you leave each oteh alone. If what you say is true and that this is a temporay disagrement then would not a colling down period be the answer?Slatersteven (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The only problem we have is every time I say something Jehochman and a couple other editors disagree with they go ballistic and try to kick me out of the article. Noleander doesn't have that problem. Don't even get me started on the Sexism problem on wikipedia, including false allegations of antisemitism and racism against me. It's absurd. Maybe the whole article should be locked for a week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't solve the underlying problem here. And unless you have evidence of sexism, don't throw it out there carelessly. Look, it doesn't help your case that you're throwing out accusations every time someone comments here. Disengage, let some folks review what's going on here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem here is Jehochman's statement ""Jews control the media" is a false statement, a canard, an anti-semitic lie originating from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent. It is not a debatable claim or allegation. That's a political position, not a given. A few decades ago, it was a credible claim, and US Presidents Nixon and Carter, along with Rev. Billy Graham, are on record as agreeing with it. It's comparable to "Republican control of talk radio" today. In this discussion, that statement is being used to Jehochman to stifle disagreement. We have to look at the merits of the claim; it can't merely be dismissed because some people don't like it. --John Nagle (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, no, it is a given. It's a racially charged epithet, and not comparable to claims of political bias in the media. The "Jews control the media" canard is a more recent version of "Jews control the banks" anti-Semetic claims. There are no merits to this, at all. Claims of political bias are charges that people of a certain political persuasion are giving favorable reports of their preferred political bent, while giving negative reports of the other side. That's wholly different to claiming a racial group is controlling and manipulating the media as a whole. The former is politics, the latter is racism. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view
Cross-posted from WP:COIN

I've been trying to follow this mess, which has been spread over multiple notice boards and discussion pages. From what I can see, Carol has a strong POV which sometimes causes problems, but does not appear to fit a COI. If her edits become disruptive, that can be dealt with on its own. Jehochman also has a strong POV, which seems to be more in keeping with Wikipedia's policies, but has a very aggressive attitude which tends to undermine his own efforts. It does not fall into the realm of harassment but it's certainly borderline with WP:CIVIL at this point. Both editors need to reign in their emotions, edit collaboratively and allow third parties to intervene without going into these multi-page back-and-forth arguments over who is being more mean to whom. And, of course, any actual anti-Semitic edits will be reverted and result in sanctions; but, not all edits critical of Israel are anti-Semitic. This is going to be a touchy area, but this constant barrage of argument isn't helping anyone. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing I can disagree with here. If Users:Jehochman, Spaceclerk and Brewcrewer could just focus on content and not attack me (and to a lesser extent others with more subtle innuendo) when they don't have a policy backed argument to defend their edits or deal with community consensus (for noticeboards) disagreeing with their POV, everything would be fine. All you have to do is look at the edits and talk page since last Friday to see what the problems are. It's not an interpersonal thing between me and Jehochman but a political issue of trying to keep high quality WP:RS information (including academic views that conflict with their favorite advocacy groups' views) out of the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at WP:WOLF, WP:TE, and finally WP:ADVOCACY. Otherwise, I consider this dispute to have reached the end of its usefulness (or well beyond), and I am going to do other things instead of carrying it on further.  Thank you, and good evening. Jehochman Talk 04:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I see Carol as pushing a POV and Jehochman the victim of civil POV pushing. This should be an open and shut case but like normal, people get all bent out of shape as soon as a POV pusher says "He/she is being uncivil". Block the pusher for a while and reset. Shot info (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

English Defence League, incivility between Alexandre8 and Multiculturalist


Lots of personal attacks flowing between them. Personally reminds me of small children squabbling. Alexandre8 has removed comments from the talk page. It'd be nice if someone could sort this out: I just try and keep an eye on the article on Watchlist! Heh. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Refactoring talk page comments like this (reverted) and this (re-revert with ironic summary to "feel free to revert" after this) unilaterally and part and parcel of what an edit war is. (there is even an WP:VANDALISM warning on this) that is certainly grounds for some sort of "talking to" if not temp. block even. Multiculturalist ' s username also suggests some pov in this article, though that alone is not grounds for action. A brief overview of this article and talk page edits indicate he hasnt been uncivil as much. Although id be interested in seeing which edit/s Tom Morris wa talking about. Off the bat, id reccomend some sanction for Alexandre8 for gross violation of etiquette and possibly a warning on Multiculturalist pending Tom Morris ' s confirmation of incivility (and depending on the degree thereof)(Lihaas (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).
 * User:Snowded seems to be joining in on this - I trust he knows better than to revert a deletion of a personal attack :). Collect (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you check my comments on Alexandre8's talk page Collect you will see I worked to get this one resolved before it got out of control and I note you didn't bother to notify me that you were making comments here. Otherwise I don't know why this was raised here.  Alexandre removed the comments and apologized, bringing it here after that had happened is a mistake, its the sort of thing that could inflame things. -- Snowded  TALK  11:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just reporting what was going on. I'm not interested in getting involved further in sorting out personal disputes. I've got new pages to patrol and pending changes to check. ;-) —Tom Morris (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * butyou must have some reason otherwise it could be WP:BOOMERANGLihaas (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a reason: I looked at the talk page and the user talk pages and saw "woah! AGF! Incivility, much?". So I duly reported it here. I'm not a participating party, so I don't think BOOMERANG applies. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have resolved itself as amicably as it could have been. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)}}
 * apparently non admin gestures mean NOTHINGLihaas (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hullwebs
This is an occasional editor, who may be acting in good faith but resolutely refuses to engage in discussion either on his talk page or on article talk pages. He/she has created an article, Selcovia, of highly dubious provenance and which is proposed for deletion, but keeps removing the deletion notice without any explanation (here, here, here). As I say, he may be acting in ignorance rather than any other motivation, but should anything else be done to engage with him? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a hoax to me. But not a Wikiquette issue?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there's this and other similar stuff - mostly allegedly sourced to Britannica - unless it's the same guy. Not really a wikiquette issue. More pointing the way to policies on sourcing/copyvio etc.Fainites barley scribs 21:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If not a hoax, then perhaps Fringe theories/Noticeboard is the place to go? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith at Talk:Homeopathy


I'm involved in a discussion with an editor trying to change the article's lede. I'll readily admit that I don't think their suggestions are very good, still I'm trying to stay civil and explain what is wrong with their suggestions. HkFnsNGA has an enormous output, so it's quite hard to follow the discussion and voice objections before they change the article, causing me (and other editors) to revert them, which they seem to see as an indication of bad faith. I've tried to stay calm, but I think I need some outside opinions on whether I'm being unreasonable in my explanations and requests on this talk page. I'd also like someone uninvolved in that discussion to tell HkFnsNGA it isn't appropriate to accuse me of hypocrisy, extensive nitpicking and acting in bad faith. Thanks in advance for the time you'll have to spend reading at least some of the discussion. Six words (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made changes in accordance with all of the numerous comments of User:Six words and other editors on the talk pages, which has taken much time.
 * User:Six words stated that WP:MOS does not have to be followed when I replaced "ipse dixit axiom" in the third lede sentence with WP:Use plain English wording, so that a laypersoncan does not get scared off by the third sentence of the article, before any definition has been given of the topic. He reverted my plain English edit back to "ipse dixit axiom".
 * User:Six words insists that the simple topic not be defined in the first sentence, in violation of MOS. His argument is that MOS does not have to be followed, even it it easily can.  His replacement sentence makes homeopathy so vaguely "defined" as to appear to be something, when it is only selling water to people as a "remedy".
 * User:Six words claims that (other than the definition in the first sentence, these changes are "major" so need his approval to make, even though they were all made in to accommodate comments by other editors on the talk page.
 * I responded to all talk page points by other editors (including User:Six words here, and incorporated every suggestion by other editors.
 * User:Six words then reverted all of my tiny edits responding to other editor comments by setting up a straw man argument. He changed my second sentence in the lede to one roughly the same, but subtly different.  He then used his own subtle difference to argue that because of the slight change he made to the second sentence, my next slight change must be reverted.  He then used this to change my next edit, and so on like dominos.  A straw man argument is not made in good faith.
 * Here is the summary of the edits in question, and here  and here  are the talk page discussion of the small changes I made, and of the definition. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the proposed definition here, evolved word for word through a very long talk page discussion, every suggestion or complaint by all editors (including those by User:Six words were incorporated.HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The substance of my small edits are discussed here and here, and these have been developed in response to User:Six words own numerous complaints that I should not have called "nit picking", except that after I incorporated these, he reverted my responses to his own comments.
 * The discussion hinges on whether homeopathy should be defined to show how it is uniquely defined as a pseudoscience, as mentioned here.
 * I should not have used the loaded word "hypocrisy" to refer to reverting an edit in which dilution was not required under an edit summary that "dilutions not required" (a quote from Six words on the talk page about his revert), after which he put in a (non) defintion to replace the first lede definition sentence I had with one that only mentioned "highy diluted", or after I made the many modifications he suggested on talk, only to have him revert them after my work. He made a huge number of complaints, and I incorporated each one and made changes accordingly, only to have him revert the changes I made.  I should not have called it "nit picking" and then "hypocricy".  HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I actually said was that the manual of style gives us some leeway (e.g. in respect to the lede's length and that the first sentence needs to be a comprehensive definition of the article's subject - I don't think that's possible in this case and since the article is very long three sentences aren't too much) and that WP:Plain English is an essay. --Six words (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that HkFnsNGA has apologized for the attacks, I'd say that the incident is closed -the rest is a content dispute which is not relevant here. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My main point was actually about HkFnsNGA accusing me of bad faith and I don't see him retract this, neither here nor on the homeopathy talk, so I'd like to keep this open if you don't mind. --Six words (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, sorry, had a better look at the talk page. HkFnsNGA, just to be sure, could you link diffs for the "dominos edits" you talk about above? In any case yes, judging from the discussion, it seems a pretty honest content dispute with Six words being supported by another editor, and HkFnsNGA shouldn't be so quick in stopping to assume good faith. That you can't immediately understand the rationale behind another editors' edits doesn' mean they are in bad faith. I see little proof of bad faith here (but again I'd like to be sure to see the editorial pattern of Six Words you complain of) -- Cycl o pia talk  00:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Straw man arguments are here[].  My edit, responding to extensive discussion of other editors on talk, was this -
 * (2) 'In 1796, German physician Hahnemann stated the first of his principles of homeopathy. (accurately describes that the principles of homeopathy only began to be proposed in 1796)
 * (3) The principles were not verified, but were to be accepted on Hahnemann’s word. (Replaces not plain English “ipse dixit axiom”, states all principles are ipse dixit, not just similars)
 * (4)  The first principle is “the law of similars” which says that if a substance causes a healthy person to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness, then the substance can be used as a cure for a person who already exhibits the symptoms. (more simple law of similars definition)
 * (5) Hahnemann believed that at each step of the dilution, the “remedy” must be shaken by forcefully striking it on an elastic body, which he called the3 principle of “succussion”. (isolated definition of succussion)
 * (6) The principle of “potentization” is that a remedy is made more potent with each step of the dilution process. (very simple definition of potentization)


 * Six words reverted my (2) saying "sentence number two is in no way better than the previous wording", and so he changed my wording to remove the word "principle" to this -
 * (2) Homeopathy was first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. (Homeopathy was not really stated until much later with its dilution process; It was not "proposed", it was stated ipse dixit. Only the law of similars was stated in 1796, without being verifiable as would a proposition)
 * (3) It is based on an ipse dixit[4] axiom[5] which he called the law of similars, which states that a substance which causes certain symptoms in healthy individuals can cure patients who already exhibit similar symptoms.
 * He then reverted my (3) because, after his "in no way better" change of my sentence (2), his change no longer contained the word "principle". His reason was "number three speaks of 'principles' when the previous sentence only mentioned one", referring to his own "previous" sentence, not mine.  By similar reasoning, my (4), (5), and (6) contain the word "principle".  All were reverted, even though I did these edits responding to detailed comments of other editors about numerous problems, all of which Six words ignored.
 * That is a straw man arument for replacing (3), (4), (5), and (6), and etc. in prior times.
 * "Ipse dixit axiom" is not plain Enlish violating MOS for no good reason. After stating I MUST get consensus on his article to make an edit, Six words says he can revert my attempts to follow MOS with plain English because he wrote "MOS is just an essay", even though MOS has consensus.  That is one of the isses that ultimately caused me to use  "hypocrisy", which I sohuld not have done.  His revert leaves the MOS violating "ipse dixit axiom" in the beginning of what should be an "easy to read for laypersons" article.
 * By simply calling it a straw man argument, this is an accusation of bad faith, because all straw man arguments are in bad faith by definition of a straw man argument. I did not yet retract calling it a straw man argument because it is a straw man argument.
 * What is best for me to do in such a case according to Wiki, and I will do it. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * HkFnsNGA, I've read your take on the content dispute here and on the talk page, but what I'd like to see are diffs, not your interpretation of them. Can you provide them? In any case a straw man argument is not necessarily in bad faith -it is simply a logical fallacy. See straw man. -- Cycl o pia talk  02:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a "diff"? Here  is his revert, showing the differences, if thats what you are asking for.  HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are right that it is possible a straw man argument can initially be made in good faith by accident, but once the error in reasoning is pointed out, and the argument is still not retracted, it is intentional not to retract it, so then is inherently bad faith, in so far as it continued to be put forth. Once I pointed it out, Six words could have undone his revert, or otherwise explained it. He did not. Bad faith according to Oxford Dictionary online  is a refusal to confront facts. HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so you're still not accepting that two people can have different opinions on which wording is better without one of them acting in bad faith? I can tolerate a lot of things, but WP:AGF is a prerequisit for working together productively and trying to win your argument this way isn't acceptable. I've told you that I don't think your preferred wording has found consensus and even showed a way to gain consensus, wich is pretty much the standard way of successfully editing controversial articles, I think. Yet you prefer to brush this aside as a bad faith move, citing some imaginary straw men. I also don't see you retract your false reasoning for removing the first sentence (which has two references so per WP:V it is acceptable even if you think it's a false statement) over and over again, even though I pointed out your mistake . Even subtle changes in wording can lead to different meanings, which is why I oppose so many of your proposals - that's not bad faith editing, it is me trying to make sure any change to the article is actually a change for the better. --Six words (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

HkFnsNGA: Diffs are links of the kind you provided me. I have seen the diff with all the changes but I want proof of the sequential "domino" changes you talk about and their argumentation. Anyway, Six words is right: Unless clear evidence of the opposite comes out (and I want to see if there is, that's why I'm asking the diffs), this seems a normal content dispute. What you call "facts" can be opinions for others. What you think is an error in reasoning could not be for another person -perhaps because one of you is misunderstanding the other, for example. For example you said on the talk page: arguing "Dilution is not required", and reverting to "uses highly dilute" is classic bad faith. - This is not bad faith in my opinion, one thing is to say that X is a requirement, another is to say that X is commonly or even always used. So I can perfectly argue that X is not required but that it is used. So, as you can see, there are multiple facets for every argument, and be sure to try hard to understand them. In any case, even if you think someone is possibly in bad faith, better to shut your mouth about it unless the situation really is blatant to everyone, to keep a working collaborative environment. I hope you can agree with that.

What you both ought to do now is quite obvious, and I was through exactly the same situation once so I think I can give advice. Cool down, refrain from edit warring and agree, everyone, to work on the talk page only unless a consensual lede comes out (it seems some of you are already doing that). I would suggest you to focus your work sentence-by-sentence for now. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Also: If possible, call other editors in (inform a wikiproject for example). I see only three active editors discussing the issue, perhaps better if another couple jump in and help smooth things out. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * HkFnsNGA is currently producing an enormous amount of text on the talk page that makes it impossible for anyone but the most highly motivated editors to follow the discussion. Claiming consensus in such a situation is highly inappropriate, although due to lack of editing experience (especially at highly contentious articles) HkFnsNGA is probably not aware of this. "Summaries" of discussion only make the problem worse. They are of course not neutral summaries but one editor's opinion of the outcome of the discussion so far, so they must be read in addition to everything else. That wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so long.
 * I can't comment on the interpersonal problem because everything relevant is hidden within insane amounts of text. Hans Adler 15:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Hans Adler: the verbosity is not helping. That's why I asked for the relevant diffs, and I still wait for them. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since readers here may not be aware, my opinion is not an outside opinion. Rather, I tried to take part in the discussions, but I am currently neither willing nor able to spend an hour or more per day just to follow what's going on on the talk page. HkFnsNGA, while having basically the right approach and a good attitude, has neither the knowledge of the topic nor the experience with editing Wikipedia that would be required for successfully pushing changes in this way on what at times has been one of Wikipedia's most contentious article. Hans Adler 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If Six words' nonretraction of his straw man argument for his revert was unintentional, then I take back saying that he was editing in bad faith. Many of his comments are clearly made in good faith.
 * Cyclopia, how do you "inform a wikiproject"? It is not necessary here, as there seems to be a consensus developing, but I would like to know for future articles.  HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All of my comments were made in good faith and intentional; since in my eyes there's no straw man argument (remember that Brunton agreed with me) I think you're retracting your accusation under a false premise, but if you'll stick to WP:AGF from now on that's OK by me. I'm also less optimistic about reaching a consensus soon, after all you've again edited the article even though another editor disagreed. Anyway, I think there's nothing more to be said on this board so I thank both Cyclopia and Hans Adler for their input and unless anyone disagrees within the next hour or so I'll mark this resolved. --Six words (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do not understand that it was a straw man argument to revert sentence (3), then I accept that it is unintentional, so I should not have said "bad faith".
 * Without consensus, Brunton deleted important content from the existing lead, and you did not revert his deletion, althoug he did it without consensus. After I put the deleted content back in the lead, using plain English, you back his revert of my edits.  Again and again that my stylistic edits were reverted by you and Brunton as "major changes".    It is difficult when things like this happen to maintain an attitude that this is done in good faith.  HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well if two or more editors revert a single new editor this is an indication that is some kind of consensus -against the single editor. Again, HkFnsNGA, the problem is that what you see as merely stylistic could not be merely stylistic as you think. You seem to be a constructive guy, and personally I like most of the changes you made to the article (I don't dare going into the content dispute because I know little about the subject); but you have a bit of difficulty in understanding other editors' points of view. I suggest you to begin by suggesting smaller changes and discuss single small issues or sentences one by one, and get slowly consensus on the talk page. It is slow and a bit painstaking but it's the way to go. To inform a Wikiproject, it's simple: write on the wikiproject talk page. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's no consensus for your additions the logical consequence is to revert to a previous consensus version and take it to the talk page, discussing a new wording and waiting with changes to the article until a new consensus is established. That you don't have consensus for your additions should be clear when two or more editors revert you. --Six words (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two editors in an edit war prone article is a very small number. Oddly, the two editors who have been reverting my edits likely have the same POV as I do regarding homeopathy. I believe that I (used to) have the BENEFIT of being new to the article, because I had not read and re-read it.  I could tell where it was unnecessarily confusing and awkwardly worded or longwinded.  I also found the article lead "definition" and first defining paragraph to be a PC whitewashing of what homeopathy really is.  I have been gradually buying into and giong along with the whitewashing, and doing it myself.
 * But when Cyclopia wrote, "I know little about the subject", I changed back. Cycopia's remark best sums up my original point.  There are only about three sentences needed to know almost everything about the subject.  If the first sentence and first paragraph were properly worded to define homeopathy, without POV PC whitewashing, Cyclopedia might not have thought that.

'''Homeopathy is an alternative medicine and pseudoscience that typically treats ill patients with a placebo, taking a pharmaceutically active substance and repeatedly ritually diluting it, usually so much that it no longer has any effect, then calling it a “remedy”. Homeopathy is based two principles that are inconsistent with established chemistry, physics, and biology, stated without using any scientific method by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796 ; that a preparation believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness can cure a patient, and that each dilution followed by striking on an elastic body increases effectiveness, with this method striking believed to be of importance. Hahnemann recommended dilution levels as low as 1 part in 1060 (1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion), at which no molecule of the original substance remains, before the idea of the existence of molecules was widely accepted.'''
 * That's it, three sentences about reality and you no longer know little about the subject. There is not much else going on.
 * So when I came to the article I found the existing first definition sentence to be sidestepping the definition of what homeopathy really is. I found the first subject defining paragraph to be too long and a POV whitewashing of the reality about homeopathy.  02:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to discuss the content issue. Please bring that to the talk page (By the way, what is written in that lead is more or less exactly what I know/believe about homeopathy, but I don't understand how my opinion is relevant). -- Cycl o pia talk  02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right and I will, but reworded. I put it here first because it was your comment in this dicussion ("I know little about the subject") that knocked the sense back into me, and caused me to remember thinking, after I read the first sentence "definition", that a person reading it would not in any way know the definition of homeopathy.  Your comment that "I don't dare going into the content dispute because I know little about the subject' is backwards, as the content is already in the article, its just the style and presention of it that is in dispute.  Since you "know little about the subject", you are perfectly situated to have an opinioin as to how to present the content to a person who knows little of the subject, and you might want to weigh in on the "definition" discussion at some point, with an opinion as to which definition best helped you as a person with little information on the subject.   HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is where our opinions differ - I think you need to have at least some knowledge in a contested subject before discussing content. You should also be willing and able to write for the enemy and not trying to ‘set the record straight’ by deleting sourced material or changing it in a way the sources don't support, otherwise you'll produce a very POVy article and either don't know it or just don't care. Asking someone who doesn't know about the subject what they would like to read about it is not really helpful in getting a neutral description on it. --Six words (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have knowledge about homeopathy, and even participated in a debate in Hollywood with a a celebrity homeopath. I never made an edit that deleted content from the article.  I tried to add content from the article into a NPOV definition.  Cyclopedia appears to be an experienced editor, and should be able to compare two defining lead paragraphs as to which better defines homeopathy in terms of style and POV.  The first lede paragraph now is a whitewash.  I will move this discussion to the talk page. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes in my user page.
I want to report that IP user 95.250.7.29 was changing my user page. For the content of the changes I suspect of user GiovBag, (See history here) but I have no proof and -actually- it might have been anyone who had read my talk page or GiovBag's talk page.--Pablozeta (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there's nothing people on this board can do to help you. As you said, that IP could be anyone's and these two edits are really not enough to suggest that it's a certain user; unless proven otherwise, you should always assume good faith. To make sure this doesn't happen again, you could ask an administrator to semi-protect your user page - that way you can still edit it, but anons (IPs) can't. --Six words (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User: O Fenian


Editor has repeatedly been uncivil to various other editors to the point of trying to scare them away from wikipedia so he can monopolise articles
 * section on O Fenian where past issued have been tried for which apparently his blackmail/threats have previously cropped up.
 * Also tried olive branches here and on the talk page of the article, yet, most importantly, not a SINGLE message of his on that page has constructively tried to tackle the issue. He just keep resorting time and time again to threats and blackmails without even an attempt to discuss.
 * Please note his continual BAD FAITH EDITS DESPITE an ongoing discussion pertaining to its validity (Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011)
 * also note: ALL attempts at civil discussion with him are perpetually futile.Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011
 * Also note that all other editors on the aforementioned page HAVE resorted to discussion to resolve issues (issues that cropped up gain his blackmail that he still didnt even attempt to resolve. apparently "threatening to edit war once per 24 hours will be considered as simply gaming the system"
 * also note his own suggestion of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which i think every other editor here would/has already proved he adhres too(Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC));

Suggest WP:BOOMERANG be invoked. As I object to his policy violating edits Lihaas has abused me on mulitple talk pages. For example someone replying to my question about whether he will certify a requst for comment on Lihaas is "strongest possible case of a tag-team army". More incivil accusations here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

One administrator already made it clear he was not interested since then Lihaas has admin shopped and is now forum shopping here. I am sure this will begin to be resolved tomorrow when the request for comment for long-term disruptive editing is filed against Lihaas by myself. Since he refers to every attempt to get him to follow core Wikipedia policies as threats and blackmail there is little recourse left. O Fenian (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is quite amusing Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive627 is cited as evidence of threats and blackmail, since anyone reading it will see Lihaas in misrepresenting the contents of it. O Fenian (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thats rich. accusation of long term disruptive editing when ANOTHER EDITOR accused him of the tag-team on the RIRA/CIRA edits. when multiple editors seem to suggest he has this problem without event attempting to discuss vs. threatening/blackmailing and refusal to discuss (note- not the first time for me OR other editors) as his only resort. instead of improving articles he seems to resort to sulking.Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny how I see three edits to the talk page in question that are after the diff you cited as my alleged "refusal to discuss". Lihaas believes content policies do not apply to his edits, come tomorrow he will find that is not the case. O Fenian (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * what rot is this? linking to contribs READ THE EDIT, threats, blackmails, etc. NOT ONE DISCUSSION ON CONTENT.
 * and he accuses me of deceptively reading edits.Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm seconding this. His ultimatums, provocation, harassment, and general abuse of the Wikipedia process should not be tolerated.  If he wants to be a dictator, perhaps he should move to the third world. Trelane (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas wants to talk about other people's lack of etiquette, whilst he makes unfounded accusations that other editors are "tag teams" for offering to certify a request for comment. Now that is what I call uncivil. This is why I asked him to assume good faith earlier today when he made such an accusation. As HJ Mitchell has stated, such accusations are without merit. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that why ANOTHER editor accused you two of such? AGF is laughable when the ONLY retort is to attack and blackmail
 * is that why C of E, Trelane, me and others on the aforementioned talk page have disagreed with his blackmailing "consensus"?(Lihaas (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC));
 * olive branche offered, lets see the reaction..(despite the threats to collate data as if is hes trying to persue some legal case (see above, the case hes waiting to get vengeance with)(Lihaas (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

Well, I was asked to do a report and I'm going to make my comment here. O Fenian is good at quoting policy where it suits him and disregarding most others such as WP:IAR when it doesn't support his viewpoint and sometimes refuses to achnowlege a legitamate statement or question on something. as well as the fact he also does ignore certain statements and sometimes belittles policy where it suits him He is also known to make derogatary (and some could say offensive) comments about the former flag of a country. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And he's just proved that he will ignore peoples's statements on his talk page if he does not agree with them. Also that 193 question mark counter at the top of his talk page is also most suspicious as he said that if he revealed the reason for it's slow incrementation and not explaining what it's for that he "would only get in trouble with certain people". Interesting, WP:STALK? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet again an edit was an edit was reverted without ANY edit summary explanation, while he has not mentioned anything on the talk page either. it seems he contributes to talk AFTER reverting where another editor made a suggestion that i tried. An attempt to revert now would more than likely somehow lead to allegations of "edit warring" and blocks so i ask admins here to deal with this.
 * it seems his god-given right to scare off other editors comes first
 * he seems to have a real problem in doing anything with controversy and discussion (the premise for the talk facility to deal with controversy) as he cant do much without biting(Lihaas (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC));
 * Kindly also note a thirst for revenge: Requests for comment/Lihaas, where the first line on top says "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed." + Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents(Lihaas (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

My view
I personally found him rather exasperating to deal with and clearly selective but the former was more through lack of communication (and irritating assuming bad faith accusations, e.g. that Talk:Derry was clearly biased) and as for the latter, why shouldn't he be biased so long as he abides by policy? In my view he should try to talk to people a lot more. The above also looks politically motivated, but then again so are OF's "sins" so this is 6 and 2 3s and I refer everyone to this.

Or to put it another way: Yes, he's biased and annoying. But I don't think he damages anything and it better he's doing this on the internet. Egg Centric (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * the key point being that he should discuss instead of threatening, thats exactly what were trying to initiate. As you see above i did try an olive brach to suggest he does have knowledge but he refuses to use discussion. THAT is the dmaging [art.(Lihaas (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC));
 * Completely disagree. I think his bias has had a negative impact on articles. That isn't a conversation for this board though.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * wirh meEgg centric or me?(Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC));
 * I think he disagrees with Egg and is sharing your view, Lihass that the bias is damaging. Cptnono, I would indeed have said that something needs to be done but would it be worth moving this whole thread to WP:ANI and gauge further reaction there? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We tried Arbcom but it was rejected so thought something lesser would be a trial, then if it doesnt work to pursue further. But i wouldnt object if youd prefer that.Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it's the only way that it would get mainstream admin attention but you'd need to have a policy breach to have anything drastic done (although incivility does count as a policy breach as WP:CIV but WP:PA may help if there is a reason to use that) If you need some more evidence, maybe check the history of WP:IMOS for more. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well ultimately I lean very much towards your viewpoint, I just don't see the point in pursuing it. If you do, I'll endorse it. Egg Centric (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto
 * ive tried as well as Trelane. I think 3/4 editors have to mean something before the wiki project goes to shamistan ;)(Lihaas (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)).
 * Well, I'm not going to pursue it for the moment. However if he continues I may bring this up and press ahead with taking it further as we can't let incivility continue. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got his rude version of Lihaas' name here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

VascoAmaral edit summaries conduct
I would like to know if someone from Wikipedia could ask VascoAmaral to improve his conduct towards other users. He usually shouts, harshly criticizes other contributors' work and also flatters himself in his edit summaries. I think he is a good contributor, and I asked him myself to try to be politer, but he not only did not change his attitude, but now he even makes mentions to me when I have nothing to do with it and I even asked him to respect each other. But this is not a war between him and me. It is about the community, since he seems very disrespectful with others' work. I have seen that on his talk page people usually ask him to calm down, not to shout or not to be rude. I hope that if some experienced editor asks him politely to relax and take the neutral point of view to his edit summaries too, this issue could be solved. Thank you. Escorpión Canalla ( talk ) 13:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, VascoAmaral's edit summaries can be quite abrasive and often are used to mock other editor's contributions/language skills. Random recent examples here, here and here. I think perhaps the summaries are meant to be humorous, however they are coming off as somewhat cruel. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've notified VascoAmaral of this discussion. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip Jezebel. Now, i present "my defense": everything that has been stated above is completely true i admit it. However, user Canalla omits the fact that he once accused me of ONLY writing abusive and aggressive summaries, and once i confronted him to see if he really meant that, he declined to reply, urging me to "not bother him anymore", which i did. Incredible how he says "...not only he did not change his attitude..." and "...flatters himself...", then says he has nothing against me. He does not? Well he sure seems to. The last summary at Orihuela CF in which i mention him was just out of frustration (also please read the words, i insult him at no time in said summary) towards his silence - and aggressiveness, he also accused of wanting to know more than him about his favorite club when i said nothing of the sort! - nothing else.

I have, even though i have tried my hardest in more than 4 years of editing, ZERO patience for vandals who come here to ruin other people's work (yes i know everything can be reverted, even the worst vandalism, i just can't help my reactions), and sometimes, i stupidly accuse others of wrongdoings in my summaries because i am so FED UP with the real vandals and punks who have nothing better to "do". Jezebel, unlike Canalla, did find out a trait in my writings: some of them are aggressive and stupid (totally admit it) but some are humorous and not meant to be taken seriously. I have told Canalla and others i have been called a "cunt" and told to "fuck off" (see example of the latter here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Festus_Agu&diff=387812777&oldid=387812298), with little or no actions having been taken against the "perpetrators" (i do not mean just blocks, i meant simple warnings or discussions). When have i insulted anyone (i admit i have, but only VANDALS, not an excuse though)? Never! I have also been insulted/made fun of just for protecting pages when they were clearly being vandalized. Yes i know i am going against site policy, but i can't help my behaviour, maybe i should take a wiki-break as some have (politely) suggested.

The "Anglish" remarks: well, WP is a free world and everyone is allowed to edit in whatever language they choose in the site. However, i often wonder why do people write in a language they have zero grasp of, requiring large cleanups, and my summaries often reflect that frustration (but again, i have no business doing that). I also see that more than 50% of the editors here (speaking of registered ones!) write absolutely no summaries, leaving the question: are my (kind of) summaries better than NO summaries? At least i provide some insight into what i have just done.

All in all, i don't what else can be made except for this: i will try to (vastly!) improve on my summaries. If i can't, maybe it's time to leave WP for a few months (or permanently) or risk a block. My apologies to ECanalla, Jezebel and all who "wiki-suffered" with my actions (but not to vandals, let it be clear!), keep up the good work, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that you are feeling frustrated by the various encounters you have had when editing, especially with regard to repeated vandalism. That is completely understandable and the fact that you are aware of how you lash out somewhat in your edit summaries when frustrated bodes well for being able to change the behaviour. It's great (and helpful) that you include informative edit summaries, perhaps you could just tone down the all caps shouting and occasional insults? If you feel that you are becoming so frustrated that you need to vent, then logging off for a couple hours may be beneficial. The work you do with cleaning up and vetting the sports articles is really appreciated, taking the occasional short wikibreak when frustrations rise can help you avoid burn-out. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick and kind reply. See this example of some of my frustration at David de Gea, where an anon "user" turned, without any summaries, perfectly understandable English into gibberish (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/125.215.243.237)? Incredible! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, please note that sometimes, when i write CAPS it's because i want to stress a particular word, does not mean i am shouting (sometimes i do, i admit it). Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of edit summaries is to communicate the changes you have made to an article to other editors. As using all caps is commonly interpreted as shouting, it should be avoided. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hauskalainen


Hauskaleinen is really getting out of control. He is insulting other users on his talk page, the discussion pages of the two articles mentioned, and in his edit summaries. He is also blanking out large portions at Independent Payment Advisory Board without justification. Intermittentgardener (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have worked with user Hauskaleinen on death panel. Sometimes Hauskaleinen brings up great points and incorporates needed material. But I have grown increasingly frustrated by their manner of editing (it seems rash) and recent edits, and I was already at the point of getting outside editors involved. My concerns have been expressed on their talk page and at the last section on the talk page of death panel: Talk:Death_panel. Jesanj (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been increasingly worried about Hauskaleinen's manner of commenting, rash behavior, and overall incivility towards other editors. I have long expressed a desire to see a temporary topic ban, as Hauskaleinen seems incapable of editing in a constructive and collaboritave with other editors. He refuses to accept and wrong doing and lashes at any editors who attempt to point out errors and discuss his actions.  D u s t i *poke* 22:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be specific, recently Hauskaleinen has accused me of bad faith and then deletes sourced material. without discussing anything (the same talk page link). Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been editing the Death panel article for a couple of weeks now. When I arrived there, someone had flagged the article for POV (which I agreed it was) and I set about changing it. It was then that I came up against something that I have not seen for some time. A small cabal of editors working together to keep the article in a particular shape, and in particular to change the "death panel" story from being one about a crazy statement that Palin's parents or her disabled son would come to have to plead for their lives in front of a panel that might one day decide to cut them off and leave them to die. The article was being used to push a political agenda and to direct readers to articles that do not meet WP standards of trustworthiness. Making an accusation of the presence of a cabal is not one I make lightly. As with all such accusations it has to made by a careful analysis of the facts. The speed with which THREE supposedly independent editors came to this section and made this allegation against me is one example of the presence of this cabal. User:Intermittentgardener and User:Dusti are editors I have come across recently who have made accusations against me which fall into the pattern seen in the cabal and  editor Jesanj has sparred with me over edits for a much longer period, but also fits into the same pattern of editing as the others. I would ask anyone considering these allegations to just look at how quickly these accusations have been made. Two of them came within minutes of one another. ALL THREE supposedly independent editors have made the SAME ERROR in typing out my Username (I have counted it as being used SIX TIMES erroneously by three different editors.) There are other editors in the Cabal working on the articles I have been editing recently. I fully expect them to make comments here soon. The editors are working together with the aim of intimidating me which I am resisting. This complaint is part of a campaign of intimidation which I fully expect will be forthcoming.

Now let me turn to the etiquette issue. , yes, I did say that User:Intermittentgardener was being "incalcitrant" because of instead of answering the detailed justifications I had made for my edits he simply refused to answer them saying I was "incoherent" and then proceeded to undo all my edits again without justification. At least I had the courtesy to go into some detail about why I had made my changes and how those changes relate to Wikipedia policy. The allegation is simply without foundation, though be prepared for an onslaught against me from other editors. There seems to be quite a number of user accounts being used to subvert Wikipedia for covert political reasons.Hauskalainen (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I have your talk page on my watchlist, as I've edited it before and I'm too lazy to take it off, which is how I became aware of this tread and felt I should add my point of view. Second of all, I apologize for your username mistake, I generally don't copy and paste usernames and I looked above and typed it out. Third of all, don't you think if numerous editors (I'd have to go through your talk page and count) come to you telling you that you're doing something wrong... it's a possibility? I know at least one Sysop has officially warned you for your abrasive behavior. I think it's time to set pride to the side, sit back, and think. I strongly suggest that you do that, before this matter escalates. You're thinking everyone is against you and I disagree. I think there's a consensus here that there is an issue with your behavior - and we would like for you to take a serious look at it.  D u s t i *poke* 01:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of suckpuppetry going on at the moment but I do not intend to make a formal complaint because I know that it is very hard to prove. This is why I always use logic to argue with the puppets. When they get to know that I am serious they usually give up. I fully expected the puppets to get together to use sheer weight of numbers against me. The same thing has happened before and I am used to it. I edit at articles where there are strong views and POV pushing is very common. Death panel, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, socialized medicine and Universal health care to name but a few. When User:Intermittentgardener was unable or unwilling to reply to the very detailed arguments I made, his only reply was to say that my arguments were "incoherent". That is a point which I think will weigh heavily in my favor.  When people lose the argument on logic they turn to pages like this as the only way they think they can get at me. The Article Probation threats were part of this pattern. Ultimately though, that Article Probation is likely to be lifted, as Palin has no standing at the moment. She is not running for public office and she holds no public office. She is a private person just like me. (I almost said "you and me" but I don't know about you... you may have many shadows). Hauskalainen (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusing individuals of being sockpuppets is assuming bad faith. If you think I am a sockpuppet, or I hold socks on my account, please - feel free to file a complaint. You seriously need to think about what you are saying and what you are doing.  D u s t i *poke* 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part of "I do not intend to make a formal complaint because I know that it is very hard to prove" didn't you understand? On the other hand I (genuinely) did not understand the phrase "hold socks on my account" which you used. Maybe you can enlighten me. Hauskalainen (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When it comes to sockpuppet accusations, you should either put up or shut up - make a formal case, or leave it outside. If you repeat such accusations of bad faith without being prepared to justify them, there's a fair chance you'll end up blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think Hauskalainen's conclusions that a cabal exists and sockpuppets are out and about at the moment exemplify my concern. Instead of considering the possibility their behavior is inappropriate, they accuse others of acting in bad faith, concluding more firmly that bad-faith editors are behind all of this. Sigh... Unfortunately/fortunately I think the comments above illustrate my frustrations with (or the impossibility of?) working collaboratively with Hauskalainen. Jesanj (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be a very good idea for someone to read this before passing judgment.Hauskalainen (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann
Despite asking him to edit the article and not edit the editor the civility issues still continue. This person is suppose to be an admin. I will list the civility breaches with references. I will also add into the record I am responsible for creating much of the content on Pan-Africanism which is crystal clear for YEARS. I am being stalked despite being editing for years.


 * See list of attacks case 1 Please get off your high horse and stop abusing Wikipedia as a soap box for your ideological rambling
 * you come here, foaming at the mouth, calling racism. And then you have the nerve to complain about "civility"? Look, I am not interested in your arguments, and I do not need to address them. The only thing I am interested in are your references.case 2
 * I am not interested in your politics. If you want to discuss politics, get a blog.
 * Accused ofUser throwing a temper tantrum over how calling the pre-colonial period "pre-colonial" is "academic racism". Omg, Pre-Columbian Genuese bias! Pre-Islamic monotheist bias! Pre-Indo-European laryngealist bias! Pre-history literacy bias!
 * As long as you just try to argue by brandishing the race card and attacking people, you are not even making valid contributions.  There is no evidence of me attacking any editor or playing a race card. I reflected the statement issued by UNESCO
 * threats and intimidation threats If you are trying to actively push this or any other ideology, you will just end up banned as a disruptive pov-pusher.
 * Asked to stop civil violation Nonsense. See WP:NAME. We are going to name our articles according to whatever is the most prominent term used in academic literature. If there are any racists on this talkpage, it is probably the ones rambling about "the 1st people on the planet". Again i was repeating the opinion of a Eurocentric slant to African history supported by UNESCO and most African historians.
 * another case o instead of fixing your article, you'll just try to sabotage this one then?  accusing users of all kinds of things.. very uncivil guy.
 * Calling me a Troll. You, sir, in my opinon {sic} are a troll, as you make no valid contribution to articles and instead bicker with people on talkpages for no good reason. Please let me see you make some encyclopedic contribution before you expect me to argue with you any further.Now the history of the articles he is editing has me as the major contributor see the records do not go back to 2005 when I created the current structure of the page See next insult


 * Editor claims to be a seasoned editor on Pan-Africanism however why is this edit added after this comment? What inspired the creation of this page? proof of agenda, see recent changes what inspired these sudden edits ? sudden edits to LEDE

Now this user is an admin and has no trouble throwing unwarranted warnings my way, the civil conduct is there for a reason. Is there any justification why I need to put up with this behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 January 2011


 * Just noting that Dbachmann's actions were recently the subject of this discussion at WP:ANI. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dbachmann's first edits to Pan-Africanism were in February 2008. Seems seasoned to me. While I think that some of the comments could have been phrased better, I don't see any actions that are sanctionable. If you have a problem with the user, I would suggest calmly trying to discuss it on their user talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)