Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:18, 4 December 2007

Welcome to wikiquette assistance

Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks.

Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s).
No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead.

Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Shortcut

WP:WQA

Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.

Search the Wikiquette archives

Additional notes:

Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes.
Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process.
Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help.
The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict.
Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.

To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:TharkunColl

Stuck

– referred to RFC/U

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

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

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

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

I would like an independent party to review this editor's actions in the hopes that something can be done to ensure more smooth editing in future, for many people. --G2bambino (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I think there's already been a Wikiquette alert about this user for this behaviour. I'll dig through the archives and see what I can find - not that the previous alert and whatever conclusion may have come from it invalidates this one, but it could provide some useful context. Or it could convince us that this needs to go beyond here. Either way, let me see what I can find. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, here's the old alert: [1]. It looks like everybody involved just resolved to try to get along better, which would be great except that it doesn't seem to have worked. For what it's worth, User:TharkunColl does seem to be ignoring consensus on this central question. I'll let him know that this is how I see it.

(Full disclosure: I'm a Canadian who sort of halfheartedly supports a transition to some sort of republican system.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Sarcasticidealist. It does seem as if TharkunColl is getting somewhat tendencious on this issue. (Note: I'm referring to this discussion mainly). --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement of G2bambino's says all that needs to be said about his debating tactics: "In essence, he is convinced that a monarchy shared amongst sixteen countries is not only dominantly, but solely British, and the other countries which are under this shared crown are simply still colonies subordinate to the UK and its sovereign." It is a complete and under lie. I have always made it clear that the realms are absolutely sovereign, and retain the British monarchy of their own free choice. The problem is G2, who has developed a POV based on a selective reading of the evidence, and ignores evidence to the contrary (such as a recent statement by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth that the realms retain the British monarch). G2's POV has led him so far from reality that he cannot even see the supreme irony in accusing me of having a pro-UK agenda, whilst he himself is a staunch supporter of the UK's monarchy in Canada. If there is any genuine nationalist bias here it is G2's, who has convinced himself that the British monarchy does not reign in Canada. He has spread this POV to countless articles. He will use any possible technique to defend it, such as reporting his opponents at every opportunity, mind-numbingly long winded argumentation, claiming false consensus, ignoring consensus he doesn't like, and misrepresenting my arguments to others so as to cynically gain support from people who mostly oppose the monarchy. TharkunColl (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for further evidence of your stance; the talk pages and your edit history provide show of the generally negative reaction of other users to your claims, meaning your view is not supported by consensus.

For the benefit of those looking at this case, the following offer some further insight:

I allow the data to speak for itself. --G2bambino (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again you are bamboozling people with masses of irrelevant data. This is further evidence of your techniques. TharkunColl (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's allow others to decide what's "irrelevant" and what isn't, shall we? --G2bambino (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I did look through several of the linked pages, and they seem to support G2bambino's claims. I'd be happy to take a look at any diffs or links that you think would support your point too though. (Providing such would be much more productive than making unsupported assertions that someone else is bamboozling people). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with User:Bfigura. Besides that, the issue here isn't your position in the content dispute, but rather your tendencious editing and evasion of consensus.

We can't force you to change your behaviour. But this should be an early warning sign to you that it's not just editors with whom you're engaged in conflict disputes who find these things problematic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to harp on this, but, despite this alert being made, Thark is still causing issue that's either confounding or aggravating a number of people:

Talk:Commonwealth realm#Lock, where people are confused by his removal of cited material
Talk:Commonwealth realm monarchies#A further thought, where he is threatening reverts if a consensus doesn't match his wishes.

Should this go to a higher level? It's getting really out of hand. --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not threatened any reverts! Your vendetta against me is getting out of hand. TharkunColl (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer reviewers here. The rest of the commentary doesn't demonstrate much in the way of good faith, in my opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made it clear that if consensus moves an article against your wishes, you will create a new article under that name regardless of the consensus against it. It may not be a revert, but it is just as bad.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 16:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this behaviour is continuing, and suggestions he present his accusations and arguments before ArbCom or some other reviewing body have been dismissed, I'm considering filing an RfC/User for TharkunColl. Would that be the appropriate next step? --G2bambino (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC/U is generally the next step. Good luck with resolving the issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regertfully, Tharky has gone against consensus at talk: Commonwealth realm for all monarchy articles to be moved to Monarchy of X, by repeatedly reverting Monarchy of the United Kingdom. He also threaten to create a new article called British monarchy (the Monarchy of the UK articles' former name). I've tried to steer Tharky aways from these latest actions, but was unsuccessful - I feel he has a OWNERSHIP issue with monarchy articles relating to the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a consensus, merely two editors pushing their POV. But I really can't be bothered with all this any more. TharkunColl (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke; two editors plus eight others who all-together supported one of seven presented options. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --G2bambino (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten editors called for movement to Monarchy of X, I find Tharky's attitude regretful & apparently self-distructive. This (his actions) is so frustrating, so unproductive. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User:Angli Cado Primoris and List of female metal singers

User:Angli Cado Primoris has been repeatedly inserting the name of a non-notable into the List of female heavy metal singers. I have left information on his/her talk page explaining him/her that wikipedia has certain notability criteria for including musicians on it, but s/he has not responded and has continued to reinsert the non-notable into the list, and has not responded to my attempts to reason with him/her. Can somebody please help me straighten this out?Asarelah (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you've handled the situation well so far. I'll add my two cents to the user's talk page, but assuming we're dealing with a non-good faith spammer here, which seems likely at this point, you'll probably wind up having to take it to WP:AIN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S/he did it again. I'm going to go to WP:AIN. Asarelah (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably wise (alternatively, you could go to WP:RPP and seek to have the page protected, but if it's just one user doing the damage that might be overkill). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my mistake - you probably want to go to WP:AIV rather than WP:AIN. 23:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs)

Well, if s/he won't listen to me, maybe s/he will listen to an admin giving a warning. Who knows. Asarelah (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Awotter

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hoping someone can take a look and provide a little oversight and guidance. Thanks!

Warthog32 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has progressed beyond being a wikiquette issue. It also looks like a member of the mediation cabal has agreed to take on the case, so I'd suggest that you pursue that route and see what comes of that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hammersfan

I and others have been updating the route boxes of UK railway services, in my case reflecting the new existence of the London Overground. User:Hammersfan is blatantly reverting them en bloc, also losing other edits in the process, rather than discuss them with others. Similar reversions of others also making route boxes more accurate are at this diff and this diff. The point in having proper templates is to use them and improve the usability and readability of our content, not to retain old and incorrect versions that are more difficult to use and maintain. Review and comment please. --AlisonW (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Hammersfan's lack of discussion does seem like a breach of Wikipedia etiquette, I don't necessarily agree with AlisonW's assertions of "accuracy", "correctness" or "improvement", or her understanding of London Overground's status (which I have tried explaining on her talk page, but she hasn't responded to me). Nor does it appear that she has read relevant discussions about these succession boxes at WT:RAIL. So I want to make clear that Hammersfan should not necessarily be portrayed as the villain here. --RFBailey (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See responses at User_talk:RFBailey#London_Overground (I've only just seen your second comment so dupe my response here for completeness):

I disagree with you in part, and completely agree in another! If we are permitting the existence of 'London Underground' route boxes then 'London Overground' is an entirely accurate and logical extension of that practice; we *are* depicting services/routes in both cases. Where I agree with you is that splitting all the clearly national (ie not a part of TfL or similar body - eg. Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow underground, etc Metro services) to their constituent operating organisations is not necessarily the best way to go, though the use of the s-rail tamplate system provides for a far easier maintenance and less 'code' within each page having a route box. We're here to provide information to the general reader imho. --AlisonW (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of specific discussion on the London Overground, I've now added Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#London_Overground. --AlisonW (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Wwerawrocks

Stuck

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

Additional - one of his edits was when he was not logged in and he edited as User:69.123.30.159. It was in this edit that he called me an "idiot". This may have been a deliberate act to avoid connection with his WP ID. !! Justa Punk !! 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justa Punk - could you provide some diffs to these incidents? Also, what makes you so sure that User:69.123.30.159 and User:Wwerawrocks are one and the same? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the diffs; the user's edit history is short enough that I was able to find all the relevant bits myself. I've echoed your warning at his talk page; hopefully that will help cool things off. Let us know if the behaviour continues. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was about to point you here, where the obvious similarities in edit history and CAPSLOCK-malfunctions make it clear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would do a checkuser on this user, you'll find it comes back with the same IP. I'm sure of it. He just reverted an edit on the Fully Loaded page under that IP - I changed it back. That's not an continuation of the etiquette problem, but it shows this user is still around. Sorry about not providing the diffs. !! Justa Punk !! 07:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now taken this to WP:ANI as this user is (under his anon IP) continuing his edits against WP:OR and WP:V. !! Justa Punk !! 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think that was the right move. Marking this as stuck. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nubula

On the page for List of creatures in Primeval all users except for User:Nubula agree on alphabetizing the page, like most other lists are. I went ahead and alphabetized the page. However, despite being overruled in the vote, Nubula removed to alphabetizing and changed it back. Since then, Nubula has been reverting every edit I have done on the Primeval (TV series) articles, even though they may be constructive and helpful, as well as naming me a 'troll'. I have tried to declare peace and stop the arguement, only to result in more name-calling and such. When I updated the infoboxes, Nubula reverted and stated in the edit summary; It's quicker to revert everything you've done to try and fix it. There were only a few picture links that needed to be changed. This user does not seem to respect other editor's work, reverting it almost every time. Please help me. I want to be able to edit these articles without being attacked! ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) ^{review me! |my chatroom]} 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide diffs of the problematic behavior? I see disputes, but not personal attacks or the like. Showing us where those happened will help us assess things. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a diff where he reverted everything I had spent a fair chunk of my time doing. Here is an arguement where Nubula took priority over everyone else's opinion. Finally, here is the bursting point where he once again tried to ignore me. I wouldn't say it goes as far as personal attacks, but I must say that being called a troll (it's somewhere in the history - I just can't find it at the moment), being ignored and having all my hard work wasted is not acceptable, in my opinion. ----- Cuddly Panda (talk · contribs) ^{review me! |my chatroom]} 12:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For beginners, I've left a civility warning on his talk page, to begin with. We'll see how he responds to a warning of a blatant policy violation before we start trying to mediate the less clear-cut stuff. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IZAK

After a month of continued hostility, incivility, and religious slanders from User:IZAK, I am turning to this page for help. I have tried to deal with this problem in several different ways: discussion[2], calm confrontation[3], peace-making[4], civility reminders targeted to editors in general[5] , notes on talk pages[6] and simply ignoring bad behavior[7]. Nothing seems to work[8].

His latest attack accuses me of bad faith (intending to "hack and chop articles") simply for raising concerns about sourcing of an article (a 15K article with only two citations from the same non-academic source). Particularly offensive to him are suggestions that we rely on academic secondary sources such as historians and sociologists (a standard practice in departments of religion), and the suggestion that we seek help from other projects that might be able to provide specific kinds of expertise.

Though I am sure I am no saint, this kind of behavior seems way out of line. User:IZAK is one of the founders of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and it seems that he above all people should be acting in a manner that welcomes all points of view and favors none. To the contrary he has made it amply clear that he thinks there is only one legitimate point of view and academic or non-orthodox views are simply distortions. Furthermore, he is utterly convinced that his viewpoints are consistent with Wikipedia policy. I realize he is not an appointed representative of Wikipedia. However, his enormous contributions rightfully garner him considerable respect so a higher standard of "role model" ought to be applied. Egfrank (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Egfrank - could you provide us with some diffs to User:IZAK's hostility, incivility, and religious slanders? The diffs above don't show much of that, but I gather that's because they're links to your response to the behaviour rather than to the behaviour itself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this list of diffs together was not fun - I find each of these statements painful to revisit, but here they are:

Religious slander/bias:

Unfortunately, a lot of what I read on the Progressive Judaism page is nonsense (no offense) as it makes it sound that the Progressives are upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition" when it is just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews, that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh and that the mitzvot do not have to be observed by Jews.[9] - claiming that one has no other motive than eating pork is probably the height of Jewish insult - to a Jew this is equivalent to saying "You don't give a damn about Judaism or anything except your own self gratification". This statement is a blanket rejection of the religious commitment and self-concept of a significant number of Jews (approximately 1.7 million). These groups do indeed see themselves as living and teaching a Judaism that is consistent with Torah however strange that may seem to IZAK (mission statements for denominations around the globe are cited in the opening paragraph of Progressive Judaism).

I know about all these grandiose rationalizers, no doubt he probably had bacon and eggs for breakfast too as he was preparing for that speech.[10]. This statement was said about Eugene Borowitz - one of the leading theologians of the US Reform movement.

No! Firstly, what other kind of "Jewish reformers" are their besides "religious" ones? Secondly, the name could also imply that the "reformers" were "religious" when many of them were decidely anti being (traditionally) religious...it will by-pass the serious and very importnat reasons and consequnces behind many of those "reforms" -- Jesus and his followers tried to "reform" Judaism and look what happened there. Similarly, the Karaites tried to "reform" the Judaism of their day and look what happened to them. And, one cannot deny that the founders of Reform Judaism etc did do it and created a movement, so what is the point of whitewashing and airbrushing the ugly facts out of Jewish history [11]. The above was IZAK's response to the suggestion that we categorize the leaders of the Reform movement in Judaism (e.g. Israel Jacobson, Abraham Geiger, Leopold Zunz) as "Jewish religious reformers". While IZAK stops short of saying their motives were not religious, he also equates them with Christians and Karites (each of which created a separate religion).

The Reform has lost it's left wing to assimiliation and intermarriage (yes, to be frank, they have married Christians and have become "goyim" often by adopting the faith of their Christian spouses, it's all been proven by the National Jewish Population Surveys of 1990 and 200),[12] - when one Jew calls another a Jew a "goy" it is a major insult, as are insinuations that they do not value continued Jewish identity or have converted out en masse. Given the mention of a survey, this might simply appear to be a disputable claim, but the context says otherwise. The link was misleading: neither the wikipedia article nor the powerpoint presentation on the NJPS home page [13] broke down statistics by denominational affliation or made claims in that direction. More importantly, the claim was off-topic - the discussion was supposed to be about missing information in the description of the relationship between US conservative and reform Jewery. The nature and status of US reform was not under discussion. An editor who wished to rebut was in an awkward position, because a rebutting these highly predjudicial claims in situ would have taken the discussion off-topic.

Presently everyone wants to hire gay lady rabbis and support Hillary Clinton, and they call that "tikkun olam" or some such nonsense.[14]-This is from the same diff as the above accusation. Tikkun olam is a core value for Progressive (known in the US as Reform) Jews[15] - it is not to be treated lightly or dismissively or reduced to a political preference. Calling the desire to hire gay rabbis nonsense, I think, is arguably gay-bashing. Calling the desire to hire women rabbis nonsense, I think, is arguably sexist. At the very least it is insulting to the congregations that work very hard to find the right rabbi for their community.

On one hand it could be argued that each of the above statements represents a notable point of view and therefore is valid as part of Wikipedia discourse. This is certainly IZAK's position, as demonstrated in this post made to explain why User:Malik Shabazz's belief that there is an "orthodox bias" is an unjust personal attack:

But now that you have brought up this subject, and I know this may come as a surprize to you, but there really is only one Judaism in the absolute sense...Judaism has always been defined as that religion or way of life that submits to the Torah, the 613 Mitzvot as explicated in the Oral Torah and preserved in the Shulkhan Arukh and the Halakha. Whenever a movement has arisen in Jewish history that has wanted to change that status quo it is automatically defined as a breakaway movement from Judaism, regardless of how it self-describes itself...As for my statement that "Unfortunately, a lot of what I read on the Progressive Judaism page is nonsense (no offense) as it makes it sound that the Progressives are upholding a great Torah and rabbinic "tradition" when it is just a movement to rationalize why pork can be eaten by Jews, that God probably did not give the Torah to Mosheh and that the mitzvot do not have to be observed by Jews"-- I stand by it, but with the qualifier that it was part of a dialogue with a user in the context of debate and discussion and I was trying to make a point, and that this is not "my" critique but it's one of the oldest critiques of the entire Reform movement, that they wished to rationalize away all of Jewish observance and the rituals to free themselves of the guilt and restrictions of the Torah and its commandments so that they may eat forbidden foods, inter-mingle with gentiles in ways not sanctioned by Judaism theretofore prohibited by Jewish law, and even to open the road for mass apostasy and mass conversion to Christianity as happened in Western Europe and as is presently happening in the USA...

[16](Note: Malik has a user box claiming to be an alumni of JTS - the conservative rabbinic institute - telling such a person that it should come as a surprise shows a polite but profound disdain for Malik's training)

On the other hand, each of the diffs above presents this critique as if it were fact. A neutral user who truly was only documenting a notable POV would couch things in more moderated terms: "Orthodox believe...", "Some Jews claim...." and he or she would hardly use it to disparage a noted scholar and theologian. It is also my understanding that WP:NPOV means points of view stand side by side rather than one being selected as normative and in judgement over the rest. The blockquote above makes it quite clear that IZAK believes that there is one Judaism (the one that believes in the Shulchan Aruch, i.e. orthodoxy) that stands in justifiable judgement over all other flavors of Judaism.

As for other diffs - I'm exhausted at this point. I find this whole process of reviewing past arguments and searching for diffs painful. I didn't enjoy participating in these discussions in the first place and I don't enjoy revisiting them. But if you really need more, I'll go get them. Egfrank (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Egfrank - thanks for your effort. I agree that the above diffs are profoundly out of line, and I think you've handled things pretty well so far. I'll leave a note on User:IZAK's talk page expressing my opinion that he's crossing a line, and we'll see how he reactss - then we can take it from there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't stop - now he's adding his opinion of Reform Judaism to edit messages: Reform has abandoned all mitzvot so it makes no sense to have each one talk about it in the lead)[17]. Egfrank (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from IZAK

In close to five years on Wikipedia I have dealt fairly with editors from all sorts of POVs and walks of life, but when a new editor like User Egfrank (talk · contribs) comes along who is an avowed and blatant Reform/Progresssive Judaism point of view pusher, someone needs to confront her, as painful as she may think it is it is but the mirror-opposite of what she is doing herself, and seems that she has decided that that someone is now me. I am rather saddened that User Egfrank (talk · contribs) yet again goes outside of the usual discussions among Judaic editors, and seeks the input of people not familiar with the issues in order to attack me. If anything, she should thank me for giving her the time of day by responding in great detail to her posts and suggestions but instead she is misconstrueing my willingness to engage her in open debate and instead runs here and elswhere to sound false and misleading alarms. This is not constructive editorial behavior. 99% of what she quotes above is from lengthy discussions on talk pages where there is always much more of an informal give and take at work. If there are specific editorial disagreements in articles where she differs with me she is free to discuss them (in fact there are almost none, because I have never had a content dispute with her in the body of any article, which makes her complaints here even less plausible.) In sum, yes, I admit to having been open, honest and what diplomats call "frank" with Egrfrank in discussions, but it has not been directed against her personally. Unfortunately, she personalizes theological arguments about religious issues and she feels she is the "embodiment or defender of Reform/Progressive Judaism" which then makes it hard to speak up openly on the many of the real divisive issues within Jewish denominations. Her attitude harms the ability of other editors of being frank when they fear her personalised reactions rather than scholarly academic responses that would be more appropriate. At the same time, in the course of ongoing discussions, I do not believe that I have said anything that is new or is unusual from an Orthodox perspective, which adds balance to her POV campaign. Again, she is being too thin-skinned and running from pillar to post complaining, rather than dealing with specific issues at hand. IZAK (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point rebuttal by IZAK

Egfrank has a tendency to personalize debates. At no point did I make any personal attacks against Egfrank that could be called "hostility, incivility, and religious slanders" -- she cites no real facts that can be called a "slander" or anything of that nature.
Egfrank and one or two pro-Progressive Judaism POV editors did indeed recently hack and chop the Reform Judaism [18] article that has existed and been evolving for over six years. In acts of revisionistic fervor, she has almost single-handedly imposed the revised view that Progressive Judaism is the "true" Reform Judaism reducing the latter page to a pathetic skeleton of its former self and trying to depict it as a "disambiguation" page.
Egfrank claims: "Particularly offensive to him are suggestions that we rely on academic secondary sources such as historians and sociologists (a standard practice in departments of religion), and the suggestion that we seek help from other projects that might be able to provide specific kinds of expertise" when nothing could be further from the truth. And this reveals her mindset, that she will take on established articles in Judaism and aims to destroy them (as she did with the Reform Judaism article going against long discussions, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels), if she can find academics to agree with her point of view. This is about preserving the integrity about all articles relating to Judaism, where academics can be cited, but not at the cost of usurping the citations and sources of religious and Judaic authorities who are the core of the religion itself. There needs to be a balance at times, but religious sources cannot be dumped because 100 professors wrote a 1000 books. This is not a surprise except to someone who wishes to create a view of Judaism and religious subjects that do not match with reality.
This is such a pathetic personal attack that is simply false: "... he has made it amply clear that he thinks there is only one legitimate point of view and academic or non-orthodox views are simply distortions. Furthermore, he is utterly convinced that his viewpoints are consistent with Wikipedia policy. I realize he is not an appointed representative of Wikipedia. However, his enormous contributions rightfully garner him considerable respect so a higher standard of "role model" ought to be applied." If she is able to cite instances in my editing where what she imagines to be my interference in any way, then please do so. We all hold personal views, but as editors we also function in a WP:NPOV manner. Unfortunately, like many others, she thinks that "NPOV" must stand for "NO Point Of View" but that is not what NPOV means, it means that when we edit or write it must be in a "NEUTRAL Point of View" manner, and we are still free to have our personal opinions and express as much as we want on talk pages or in any informal discussions. Or does Egfrank wish to deny me freedom of speech as well so that her Progressive Judaism POV pushing can go unchecked?
It is 100% true and factual that Reform Judaism has dropped the requirements of keeping the Jewish dietary laws of Kashrut and that they do not object to the eating of pork, so her hysteria is mystifying. Instead she puts words in my mouth that I never said or intended with her own slander against me that I am accusing the Reform that "You don't give a damn about Judaism or anything except your own self gratification... This statement is a blanket rejection of the religious commitment and self-concept of a significant number of Jews (approximately 1.7 million)." And again she seems to talk and behave as if she is the one elected to talk and act on behalf of Progressive Jews on Wikipedia and if anyone stands in her way she will call them "slanderers" which is disgraceful.
It is not deniable that "Eugene Borowitz - one of the leading theologians of the US Reform movement" do not keep the Jewish dietary laws because Reform Judaism does not require it, so they PROBABLY all eat bacon and eggs at times, a very usual secular breakfast in America, if not then a ham sandwich or a pork chop at other times. Note, I said "probably" with good reason, but Egfrank does not note that.
Egfrank says: "The above was IZAK's response to the suggestion that we categorize the leaders of the Reform movement in Judaism (e.g. Israel Jacobson, Abraham Geiger, Leopold Zunz) as "Jewish religious reformers". While IZAK stops short of saying their motives were not religious, he also equates them with Christians and Karites (each of which created a separate religion)" was all part of discussion as to how to categorize certain people, it would be the equivalent to a content dispute so I don't even know why she mentions it here. Does she deny that Reform was a break with normative Judaism that had existed for thousands of years? Evidently she does, that is why she is talking about it as oh, just some innocuous "reform" rather than the major official "Reform" that is was. But again, there is nothing out of line here by me as far as "Wikiquette" goes, in her efforts to launch personal attacks against me.
Sorry, but it is not "me" that is "sexist" or "homophobic" (I have never personally insulted any gay people online or anywhere at any time, so she is attacking me personally again based on her own personalization of a theological argument!) but it is true that Orthodox Judaism rejects and denounces gay clergy, lady rabbis, and the Reform interpretation of "tikkun olam" all of which illustrates the point of how Egfrank cannot handle a rival POV from the Orthodox perspective, even when that view is expressed informally on a talk page related to that subject. Orthodox, Haredi and Hasidic Judaism cannot be remade or rejected in real life or on Wikipedia. And by the way, who said anything about "insulting to the congregations that work very hard to find the right rabbi for their community" when the discussion was not about them? Maybe everyone will learn something by tuning into these debates rather than having Egfrank foist her POV only in the body of articles, something which I have never done.
I am entitled to my beliefs as much as anyone else is entitled to theirs. Egfrank is entitled to believe that there are a thousand of anything. Since when have I questioned that? But she has no right to criticize the views someone expresses on a talk page trying to explain notions that are not from "me" but have been part of standard Judaism for over three thousand years. Again, this is a matter of content and has nothing to do with "civility" issues.
What does she mean when she says this?: "Note: Malik has a user box claiming to be an alumni of JTS - the conservative rabbinic institute - telling such a person that it should come as a surprise shows a polite but profound disdain for Malik's training." Does she think I look on every user box, and why does she think that I am saying the wrong things to him? This is the height of not assuming good faith.
This is another wild accusation: "The blockquote above makes it quite clear that IZAK believes that there is one Judaism (the one that believes in the Shulchan Aruch, i.e. orthodoxy) that stands in justifiable judgement over all other flavors of Judaism." Oh, and she has already told us here that she is "no saint" so what is she talking about? Is she questioning anyone's right to hold a view in a discussion? How would she expect anyone to explain their views if her wishes are that they have "no" views? This is the height of folly amd illogic.
Her final complaint is baselss and desperate: "This doesn't stop - now he's adding his opinion of Reform Judaism to edit messages: Reform has abandoned all mitzvot so it makes no sense to have each one talk about it in the lead) [19]" It is not "my" opinion when I removed a sentence about Reform's rejection of a Jewish law put into an article by another pro-Reform POV warrior that said: "The ritual had virtually been unchallenged within the religion until the nineteenth century advent of Reform Judaism" because once that is allowed then to be fair it would require that more statements be added such as "Orthodox and Conservative Judaism have still practiced and allowed it" or that "The early Christians who were Jews also abandoned it" so that it would create POV warring and my intention was to get the one-sided view about Reform's rejection of circumcision ourt of the lead, so that the other POVs wouldn't demand equal time creating chaos in the lead paragraph, which in any case should only describe and explain the subject and not what it isn't or who has rejected or attacked it.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK - thanks very much for your response. Confining this to a very narrow subset of what's going on - because that's all I'm familiar with - are you suggesting that there's context that can justify the sort of denominational attacks made above? All of what you say above may well be true, is it necessary to denigrate Progressive Judaism in its entirety in making your arguments?

I also fully acknowledge that I know next to nothing about Judaism, and I wouldn't claim to act as arbiter in any content disputes you may be having (although you suggest that there have been no such disputes - so what is at the root of your arguing with each other?). My only concern is that disputes be resolved within the limits of Wikiquette. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarcasticidealist: Thanks for looking into this. I have posted a more detailed rebuttal above. We have had, and still have many Judaic editors from all sorts of POVs, and those of us who have survived over the years have learned to live in peace with each other with a balanced editorial approach. But along has come User Egfrank (talk · contribs) with an aggressive agenda to write and promote her Progressive Judaism POV, see User:Egfrank/Workroom and User:Egfrank/Workroom/Workroom/Bible. Her pushiness in the course of the very lengthy debates, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels, and her open adherence to Progressive Judaism can be very frustrating and tiresome and only makes a mockery of her complaints against me. She has taken one or two sentences out of very lengthy near-essay responses that I have bothered to write to her on talk pages and has chosen to use that against me by twisting statements out of the contexts of larger discussions. She personalizes all comments that had not been directed at her but were part of controversial theological issues ironically often introduced by her, and then conflates them into global issues at which she takes umbrage. She induces frustration and anger (and I could quote a hundred things that User:Egfrank has written that would be openly offensive to Orthodox, Haredi and Hasidic Jews and Judaism -- but that is not my way to run and complain -- as I believe in thrashing the issues out where they belong), and when another editor wishes to make a point, she huffs and puffs and gets hot under the collar. I do not believe that her complaints have any merit whatsoever and she should focus on rebutting based on facts that would be more constructive for all concerned. IZAK (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous with the above edits, IZAK has called me "pathetic" for seeking out help [20]. I don't see how wikipedia can function properly if one user can insult another for seeking help.

And this edit in the Wikiquette alert section of his user page beginning "Hi all:..." I would read as saying that he believes that he has widespread support for his actions and has no respect for the concerns expressed about his actions (though maybe it is just saving face?). Perhaps I am too "tender", but I experience these two posts as an attempt at intimidation or isolation. Even if this was not the intent and IZAK is merely reporting to a loyal following, I can't imagine how they contribute to a warm and welcoming editing environment likely to encourage a plurality of points of view. Egfrank (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case perhaps you are being a little bit too "tender" (good choice of words). I think all "Hi all" means in this context is "Hi, anyone who might be reading this" which is not unreasonable given that he has no idea who might have followed the Wikiquette warning over to his talk page. Please do whatever you can to assume good faith throughout this process. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to assume good faith - which is why I put possible alternatives and described how I reacted to it rather than claiming that my reaction was someone's intent. And I am willing to accept that in this case I was being "too tender". But please also note that I have refrained from responding to any of the rather negative portrayal of myself above, even though I think it distorted and unfair. I challenge anyone to examine my edit history for evidence of that.

IZAK (and HG) have been accusing me of POV pushing since they discovered that, god-forfend, I use the word "Progressive" rather than "Reform" to describe various Jewish figures. Oh, and I expanded the content of the article Progressive Judaism.

Yes. I have an interest in Progressive Judaism - the modern day denominations and the various thinkers that have developed the thought of those denominations. I am interested in the history that lead to the creation of the modern Ashkenazi denominational scene. I have an interest in this topic because it is a field I know something about on both a personal and academic level and feel I can add value. I also have gone out of my way to use reliable sources and present as many sides of the picture as I know about - good and bad. In doing so, I have never insulted any orthodox position - certainly not intentionally. But I leave that to those who wish to review my edit history to decide. Egfrank (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on

Thank you both for your detailed responses. It's taken me a while to work through them, and I've had to put a fair bit of thought into how to proceed. There are obviously a lot of content disputes that are beyond my ability to help meaningfully with, and I hope you'll explore other means of conflict resolution as needed. As for the Wikiquette stuff, could I ask each of you to provide a brief (~3 or 4 items) but specific list of changes you'd like to see in the other person's behaviour? Nothing like "User:IZAK needs to stop pretending that Orthodox Judaism is the only real Judaism" or "User:Egfrank needs to stop misconstruing everything I say" - those are too general. Try to come up with things that the other person could agree to do without abandoning their position - for example "I would like User:IZAK to refrain from mentioning Progressive Judaism's deviation from X laws unless such deviations are directly applicable to the subject being discussed," or something similar. Your editing relationship is obviously in very poor shape, but you both seem to be good-faith editors, so let's try to repair it to the point that you can at least work with one another. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I belatedly noticed this thread. I think my own wiki-et discussion with Egfrank was archived. I'm wondering if maybe I could be added in here? Or should I just un-archive the other discussion to deal w/current issues? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HG - can you remember whenabouts that alert was? I'd like to track it down, for context. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can help - I seconded the alert. The situation goes as follows:

* I proposed that the Reform Judaism article be split up to allow its subsections growing room. The article was over the recommended WP:LENGTH recommendation and despite that several sections were missing quite a bit of important information.

* The proposal was made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Judaism and an announcement of the discussion was made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism to insure exposure. A week for discussion was suggested.

* Very quickly there seemed to be a consensus that several sections should be spun off into separate articles. However, since a week had been proposed for discussion, no action was taken. It should be noted that during this week User:HG never expressed any objection to the split.

* After that week User:Jheald spun off a section of Reform Judaism into the article German Reform movement (Judaism).

* Upon seeing the spin off, User:HG complained of a content fork.

* I felt this was legitimate but also felt the spin off was legitimate - the early German reform period was choked for space in Reform Judaism. To avoid a possible content fork, I deleted the spun off material from Reform Judaism.

* User:HG objected to this action and filed a Wikiquette alert. He also AfD'd the spun off article. When he discovered additional articles had also been spun off he filed additional AfD's. He seemed to feel the spin off predjudiced a debate about whether Reform Judaism or Progressive Judaism should be used to refer to a group of denominations that self-identify as Progressive Judaism but are more familiar to HG as "Reform Judaism" (and he would argue to the rest of the world as well).

* I seconded the alert, hoping at the time that some outside voices might help.

* User:IZAK suggested that AfD's might not be the best way to handle a content dispute and User:HG withdrew the AfD's. He has however continued to argue for an article named "Reform" that acts as an umbrella article. That is a content dispute however and I think out of the scope of this wikiquette.

The wikiquette link is [21]. Egfrank (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Egfrank is correct insofar as the context has passed. Plus, I do feel generally that Egfrank and I currently are managing to be pretty civil in our heated dispute(s). Still, my ongoing concerns are not unrelated to IZAK's. I'd like Egfrank to "stop misconstruing" what I say and stop personalizing the debate(s), though both are happening less often. Also, to stop lumping me with IZAK when (mis)characterizing viewpoints (unless he volunteers to be my sock, LOL). (For what it's worth, as I've told him, I also wish he'd tone down the intensity of his Talk comments.) I'd prefer to deal w/my concerns here but, I'm willing to pursue it on our Talk pages if need be. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egfrank's wishlist

Here is my wishlist:

I would like IZAK to refrain from making negative statements about the motivations of Jews unless (a) those motivations are relevant to the content of an article under discussion and (b) the statements are attributed to reliable, verifiable sources. For example,
- suppose there was an article named Progressive Jewish attitudes towards the eating of pork. It is OK to say "According to Rabbi Foobar, a notable Orthodox rabbi, Progressive Jews are just rationalizing the eating of pork". It is not OK to say, without qualification of the source, "Progressive Jews are just rationalizing the eating of pork".
I would like IZAK to refrain from making negative generalizations about the behavior or moral or ritual choices of Jews of any denomination unless (a) those generalizations are relevant to the content of an article under discussion and (b) the statements are attributed to reliable, verifiable sources. For example,
- Suppose we are writing an article on intermarriage together and Progressive Jewish intermarriage rates will be part of the article content. Then it would be appropriate to discuss the intermarriage rate using verifiable statistical sources - even if those sources attributed very high rates to Progressive Jews.
- Similarly, if the article covered the consequences of intermarriage, it would be appropriate to say "Study X shows that only 30% of intermarried couples raise their children as Jews". It would also be appropriate to say "Rabbi Foobar, a respected family counsellor in the Orthodox/Conservative/Reform/Reconstructionist/purple-polka-dotted community, reports that children of intermarried families often struggle with problem X". It is not appropriate to say any of the above statements without sources.
I would like IZAK to avoid making disparaging claims about denominations in edit summaries. They should instead be placed on talk pages where they can be discussed and rebutted if necessary. If the disparaging claim is the reason for the edit, then a simple "-see talk" can be used.
I would like IZAK to avoid disparaging appelletions of any individual or group, be it editors in Wikipedia, or theologians or rabbis respected by one or more denominations. Rather critiques should be limited to specific actions, behaviors, or attitudes and accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources. In the case of an editor, that would mean providing diffs of specific problematic edits. In the case of respected rabbi or theologian, that would mean using sources that conform to WP:V and WP:RS. If the charge is complex and it would take considerable time to gather the appropriate sources/diffs, then they may be omitted, but the claims should not be made unless IZAK is willing, upon request, to assemble the required diffs or sources. For example,
- if I or any other editor indeed personalize comments, I would like to have those claims attached to specific debates, at least upon request.
- if I or any other editor is POV pushing, then I would expect IZAK to be able to present information that shows that editor's behavior conforms to the Wikipedia definition of POV pushing behavior.
- if Borowitz is indeed grandiose and we are discussing an article where Borowitz's grandosity or lack there of is relevant, then I expect a cited source demonstrating that he fits the definition of grandiose, along with behavior illustrating that appelation.
If statements are a case of "one man's garbage is another man's treasure" - e.g. claims that someone is pathetic, hacking and chopping, etc. - then I would like IZAK to be silent on the editor and focus instead on the content. For example,
- It is OK to say, I feel this article lacks continuity and needs more narrative.
- It is not OK to say, "User X chopped the article into bits"
Important "counselling" exception: if IZAK feels negatively about X or their motivations or behavior and needs the feedback of person Y as a reality check and/or emotional support and/or suggestions of how best to handle the situation, it is appropriate to state his concerns to person Y.

I would, of course, expect myself to behave in a similar fashion. And I believe I have. Egfrank (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Egfrank. I think that's a very helpful start. Let's see what IZAK puts on his/her list, and then we can continue. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Egfrank, if I understand your wishlist correctly, you are asking IZAK to be NPOV in his personal opinions on talk pages. NPOV doesn't actually require that editors hold or express neutral personal opinions, only that the article proper (talk pages don't apply here) presents documentable points of view in a neutral tone. In other words, the narrative voice of the encyclopedia article should neither endorse nor reject any particular viewpoint, only state and attribute what the various viewpoints are. Do you have any examples of IZAK making article edits in a non-NPOV fashion? While IZAK's (and your or any editor's) personal opinions about particular Jewish movements are not really relevant to the article, they are not forbidden to be expressed on talk pages. Now if an editor is making any personal attacks against another particular editor (and I haven't seen evidence of that in IZAK's case here), we would surely want to correct that behavior. However, we don't need to correct each other's personal opinions. The best route is for all editors involved to try to keep the talk page discussion focused on how to best present what reliable sources say on the topic and refrain from debating personal opinions on the topic itself. --MPerel 00:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you sum it up nicely when you say The best route is for all editors involved to try to keep the talk page discussion focused on how to best present what reliable sources say on the topic and refrain from debating personal opinions on the topic itself. While you're quite right that there's no obligation to be WP:NPOV in your talk page edits, there is an obligation to edit in the way that best serves the encyclopedia. If I (a pretty devout atheist) started making legitimate edits to the Benedict XVI article, but over the course of justifying those edits on the talk page referred to God as "Benny's imaginary friend," that would be a clear breach of Wikiquette." Now, User:IZAK hasn't done anything nearly that extreme, as far as I'm able to tell. But I think the request that editors' personal religious views be left out of discussion to the extent that it's practical is a reasonable one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself agreeing with MPerel here. I'm not going to say IZAK has acted with perfect civility, but some of the statements in the wish list could be construed as statements about IZAK's general opinions and views regarding the content of articles rather than statements about etiquette or civility. The first few items appear to be claims that IZAK is engaging in original research and not sourcing or properly attributing certain content statements. I think that IZAK sometimes does this, and this can be a problem, but I do not understand how it is an etiquette problem. I agree with the need to distinguish actual personal attacks, which violate policy, from the expression of views an editor may find personally annoying and disagreeable, which don't. I particularly agree that because Wikipedia is not censored, viewpoints merely have to be "significant" (per WP:NPOV) and reliably sourced, they do not have to be what an editor considers "civil" or agreeable. I think MPerel expresses this very well. I don't believe that viewpoints critical of liberal religious theology etc. are insignificant in conservative religions generally or Orthodox Judaism in particular. I would suggest paring the wish list to focus only on actions aimed at other editors as distinct from article content and adding a diff or two for each item. I don't expect such a pared list to end up empty, but I think it important to separate IZAK's conduct from what one thinks of his views and his approach to article content. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading what I wrote above I can see why User:MPerel and User:Shirahadasha may be thinking that I am applying WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCES to the talk page. I should probably have added the following to each statement:

the claim is supported by reliable sources
-or- the claim is raised with the purpose of finding or evaluating such sources
-or- given concerns about the quality of available sources, the claim is being discussed to assess WP:UNDUE.
-or - the claim is stated as a personal opinion and is used to clarify potential biases in a discussion. It is not uncommon in modern academic journals - especially in religion and the social sciences - for articles to say something like "The author is a white, female, ....". As much as we try to be unbiased, we cannot be. By owning our biases it is hoped that we can share experiences and insights that help each other get past them to a more neutral article.
prejudicial claims made in support or against WP:NOTABILITY or WP:UNDUE should be sourced, at least upon request. It hardly helps the discussion to move forward to buttress an uncited claim with yet another uncited claim.

WP:TALK explicitly says (in bold letters):Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. It is my understanding that the looser guidelines on the talk page exist only because it may take teamwork and discussion to evaluate a claim/resolve a dispute about a claim. To insist on citations on the talk page itself would give us in a chicken and egg problem: We can't discuss it because we don't have sources. We can't get the sources because we can't discuss it.

I don't believe IZAK's particular views are at issue here. As I stated above I hold myself to these same standards (i.e. with the above clarifications about talk page content). Clearly this would limit my ability to express prejudicial views not specifically related to discussions of article content as much as it would limit IZAK's.

Finally, I don't think diffs are relevant at this point. As SarcasticIdealist has said, this is about moving forward. If IZAK and I can agree that these are rules of the road moving forward - whether interacting with each other or with other users, then the past is past. Egfrank (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egfrank, wishful thinking! You cannot make up all sorts of rules that you alone understand and will apply and then ask the world (in this case me) to abide by that. Wikipedia has enough rules without you adding more. Kindly refrain from reinventing the wheel (as Wikipedia rules do not need a bout revisionistic interpretations just because you can't handle a straightforward honest discussion on talk pages!) My policy is and will be to abide by known and clear Wikipedia policies and not by what you or anyone else may think the rules should, could or would be. IZAK (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd response from IZAK

Thank you for taking the time to respond, even though this may be an inconvenience. In response to the above:

I did not call Egfrank "pathetic" it is her efforts to rabble-rouse hatred against me that I deem pathetic.
She even claims to be able to read my mind when I say ""Hi all" when it was my way of responding to two posts, from her and from Sarcasticidealist. I do not have a fan club that I run to on Wikipedia and I am not delusional as she would like to paint me. How dare she say about me: "has no respect for the concerns expressed about his actions" just because I say "hi all" -- how nuts is that?
I have not stood in her way of getting a "warm and welcoming editing environment likely to encourage a plurality of points of view" in any way. Do I control hundreds of Judaic editors? Which ones? She has no compunction in attacking me, after she requests open communication. She has had sharper content differences with other editors. My concerns have been that she is attempting to assert only her Progressive POV and demand that all others prostrate themselves to her personal and POV wishes.
Why would I want to draw up a "wish list" of how I would like others to respond to me or to any subject on the table? The only way to assesss and understand the thinking and positions of other editors is by their honest comments, often via lengthy discussions on talk pages, which as I have said, I have bothered to do for her and for which she has yet to thank me (it can't be a warmer welcoming gesture than that, that an established editor gives a new one lots of feedback.) I have no wish to limit or control what Egfrank says, and will never write a silly "wish list" of how I would like another human being to talk to me or to anyone else.
I much prefer and agree with the summations of the more experienced and balanced Users MPerel (talk · contribs) and Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) above. I have had many interactions with them. They are probably personally way to the "left" of my personal positions, but we have never discussed those issues and inspite of many disagreements they have never seen fit to react the way User:Egfrank is doing at this time. They neither personalize nor globalize comments and discussions but focus on the issues at hand. They have no wish to crush editors who disagree with their personal POVs.
So my wish is that Egfrank, as a new user, take mentoring from User:MPerel and User:Shirahadasha, and that she bounce any problems she may have with them and not run from pillar to post trying to tar and feather me or anyone else when she has disagreements or faces opposition to her POV pushing, and that she recognize her own POV attitudes which are causing her ship to bump into others in the middle of the night.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izak -- Looks to me like Egfrank has been a user since March 20, 2007, ~8 months. HG | Talk 03:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't check her history, but my dealings with her have been for about a month when she got seriously involved with the Judaica issues, and my impression is that she is still going through a learning curve. IZAK (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Egfrank's "wish list" against me:

Egfrank request's: "I would like IZAK to refrain from making negative statements about the motivations of Jews" -- and my response is, I do not do so in articles, and have never done so, but that does not mean that I cannot express opinions that may also be relevant, critical and important in discussions and talk pages. Egfrank does the same when she flings mud at Orthodox rabbis and issues, but editors forgive her, something she is not willing to overlook when the process is applied to her POV. (By the way, it is not "Rabbi Foo" who forbids eating pork, it is God who fobids it in the Torah, see Leviticus 11:7–8 and Deuteronomy 14:7–8, see also 613 Mitzvot. Therefore any Jew or person can openly state that those Jews who are against it are wrong or worse according to the Torah, and of course a Progressive Jew can just as much say that they don't care about this and will do as they please. Everyone has their rights in this scenario.)
To her "wish" that: "I would like IZAK to refrain from making negative generalizations about the behavior or moral or ritual choices of Jews of any denomination unless (a) those generalizations are relevant to the content of an article under discussion and (b) the statements are attributed to reliable, verifiable sources" -- my response is that I am incredulous that she even says this, and in any case, my reply is the same as above, where have I done this in an article? And why would I not be able to comment on talk pages if the issues merit it? The more this discussion continues, the more Orwellian these bizarre suggestions on her part become. She controls only her mind, not mine or anyone else's.
She asks: "I would like IZAK to avoid making disparaging claims about denominations in edit summaries" -- which is an outright falsehood. Can she cite examples?
Reading Egrank's "wishes" in her point 4 that conflates and combines so many issues, that they really go way beyond the scope of a "civility" or "Wikiquette" issue and are matters that have to do with writing or editing of articles, and so far I have co-worked with her in only one or two. Has any editor ever been presented with such an outlandish "order of battle" from an opposing editor that reads more like a "terms of surrender to my POV" list than anything that is expected of a normal Wikipedian? I would be able to respond in detail to each point, but at this time it is just plain going beyond the pale to get into this tangent that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.
Egfrank says: "I would like IZAK to be silent on the editor and focus instead on the content" -- says it all, she would like me, or anyone else around her "to be silent" so she can have a field day with her POV pushing. Nice, but no cigar.
This is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by Egfrank against IZAK: "Important 'counselling' exception: if IZAK feels negatively about X or their motivations or behavior and needs the feedback of person Y as a reality check and/or emotional support and/or suggestions of how best to handle the situation, it is appropriate to state his concerns to person Y" -- and just another sign of the chutzpah which it clearly is.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the purposes of this was to give you two a chance to continue to exchange insults and accusations. You've taken Egfrank's good-faith participation (as I see it) in this process as nothing but slander, accusations, etc. Your "wish list" could have easily been construed in such an inappropriate fashion too. If you don't want to participate in this process, then don't. If you do, then do and do it right. I'm going to just say it right here and now: if either one of you responds again to the other in a way that continues to exacerbate or enliven this back-and-forth that you two have been having, this issue is going to get escalated off this alert board. The WQA is not a place for you to battle about who's the better Jew or who is more Orwellian or who's the bad guy. Seriously, it's childish and totally wasting your time and effort, and now ours too. I've been watching this issue develop, and I've been impressed (not in a good way) by how out-of-hand this argument is, and how being here hasn't changed that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cheeser1: I do not have a "wish list" and I don't need a "Santa Claus" to come and solve my or anyone else's problems. I was not consulted if I wanted to come here, I was "informed" and asked if I wished to respond. So I have. I have only responded insofar as the lengthy accusations against me, with which I respectfully disagree, which is my right. All this time and effort by Egfrank could have been spent in discussions and positive work in articles where this debate took off from, namely at Talk:Relationships between American Jewish religious movements where the editors (including a couple of admins) are experienced and mature enough to deal with all contingencies, so that the issues being debated here should not have become a waste of your or anyone else's time. So, I would be agreeable to revert the focus back to where they belong, without anyone having to run to forums like this to self-righteously slander editors with whom they have editorial and POV disagreements. IZAK (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, and this is not a binding or mandatory process. If you don't want to participate in this process in good faith, then don't. Immediately interpreting this WQA board as a slander forum is not going to get you anywhere. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have taken my time to respond very carefully. I have said nothing against this forum. What I have said is that User:Egfrank has come here as a means to attack me outside of the regular talk pages where the issues causing the difference of views are being debated. If you cannot be neutral in this process, kindly recuse yourself. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've taken the time to continue your bickering. There is a difference. I would have responded in exactly the same manner if your roles had been reversed. Since you clearly have no intention of taking this forum seriously, interpreting my actions as automatically not "neutral" and requiring that I "recuse" myself, I will be happy to let you dig yourself a bigger hole. I have no interest in engaging in this process if you've already decided that anyone who asks you not to unnecessarily exacerbate or fuel the conflict is non-neutral. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have stated my case. If I am asked to respond (as I was by User:Sarcasticidealist at least twice), what would you suggest? IZAK (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, SI never asked "Please break down every point Egfrank makes and take each point as an opportunity to insult or accuse her of something else." You could have just kept doing that in the places you two have been fighting already. You want to participate in this process appropriately? Stop making references to her being a false Jew. We aren't stupid. When you say that she's looking for a "Santa Claus" to come solve her problems, it's a shot at the legitimacy of her Judaism, and it's totally inappropriate. And it's exactly the source of the conflict here (or at least one of them). But this is the last response I have on this matter. My wiki-time is limited and I have no further desire to spend my time doing the run-around in this absurd, pedantic, senseless conflict. I asked you to stop what you're doing and participate appropriately. You think I'm fostering a slander forum? Fine. Whatever. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I never accused you of anything so I cannot imagine what is bugging you. You have no right to tell me how long or what my responses should be. Had I been confronted with a few short points, I would have responded accordingly. But I am forced to respond to lengthy diatribes against me for things that I have not committed. Your accusation that I have accused her or anyone of being "a false Jew" is sheer nonsense. The discussions at Talk:Relationships between American Jewish religious movements are based on divisive and schismatic matters within Jews and Judaism that are real and cannot be wished away by anyone. I said that "I" am not interested in running to a "Santa Claus" with a funny "wish list" to solve my problems or what I perceive to be false failings in others. I did not accuse you of "fostering a slander forum" but I am saying that Egfrank is using this forum to lob attacks at me when she should be keeping the discussions where they belong and where she and I and a number of other very serious editors have been debating for weeks. I don't know you and you have never introduced yourself so I do not know what you do or what your role is here, and you should not expect anyone to jump and salute you the minute you show up because some of us have been around a long time and we can't know everyone. If one is impatient and is short of time, they should not enter into lengthy complex debates that they cannot do justice to. I thank you for your time and understanding. IZAK (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For someone getting uppity about me telling you how to behave civilly (the point of this board), you sure do have a way of telling me what to do. The point of this board is for you to have people tell you how to conduct yourself civilly. If you don't want that, then you are not going to get much out of it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser1: For a guy who has no time for this, you sure do find the time to debate with me. Feel free. I haven't seen you make one positive suggestion yet, besides telling me that I should not be talking. Kinda funny, don't you think for someone who is supposed to teach the way of civility, peace and harmony? This process takes maturity and it also requires that you can understand theology and that when matters of religion get discussed, someone is bound to feel offended, and so far that somone is not me, even though I have every right to be as much as the other party complaining here. IZAK (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting again to move forward

Well, I'm not certain that this is going very well at all. That said, I think a great deal (although not all) of the issues might be resolved if both of you would simply refrain from debating the merits of the various branches of Judaism, even on talk pages. I'm sorry, but even if you infer quite correctly from somebody's religious views and cultural identity that they are likely to have eaten bacon and eggs for breakfast, nothing is accomplished by making the suggestion. It cuts both ways, of course: you might think that Orthodox Judaism is a sexist, homophobic, anachronism, but there's no reason to state or imply as much (I repeat, even on the talk page), because such a statement or implication does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. I think this was a recurring theme in User:Egfrank's "wish list", and I don't think it's an unreasonable request for the sake of maintaining civility. For the rest, I'd encourage both of you to simply be extraordinarily polite with one another, and to avoid taking offense too easily (if the other editor says something that you find inappropriate, as yourself "Is it possible for me to look past this?" rather than "Does this technically violate a Wikipedia policy, and would I be able to score points at my opponent's expense by pursuing it?" On the mentoring issue, User:IZAK does make an interesting suggestion. User:Egfrank, are the two editors mentioned by User:IZAK editors that you think you can work with? When in conflict with another editor, I find it is quite often a good idea to consult with relatively disinterested editors as part of the conflict resolution process, so involving them in some way in your approach to User:IZAK could be a very positive move. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be an optimist Sarcasticidealist. I respect your views and your very thoughtful approach, and above all your patience, which in this case is a virtue. If anything, we need to hear more from you. I think that what you have suggested so far is good. The only issues I have is that it is not realistically possible to avoid discussing divisive matters on the talk pages. It's like asking for surgery without blood, which is only possible for the patient if he's unconscious (since he will "not see it") but in reality it is on the table for everyone else. But yes, we can all try to tone down, which does not mean that Egfrank has a green light to move and edit articles in the aggressive and provocative manner she did with transforming the Reform Judaism article into multiple articles spread out all over the place before the discussions that had been taking place were concluded to everyone's satisfaction, particularly all the hard editorial work from User HG (talk · contribs) that was not given the due it deserved. (I even had to calm him down after he instituted AfDs out of frustration with Egfrank's work, and at times I sided with Egfrank to resolve an impasse.) So yes, let's move forward, and thank you for your wise words. IZAK (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested not discussing divisive matters - but rather (a) limiting them to content discussions (b) expressing them specifically as someone's point of view (c) only mentioning them when cited (in situ or upon request) or for the purpose of finding and evaluating citation. Are you willing to agree to this? Above in my "wishlist" section you stated that you viewed any compliance as wishful thinking. Have you now changed your mind?

I would also like to explicitly ask you to stop casting distorted and untrue aspersions on my editing behavior or intent. The break up of the Reform Judaism article was a decision by 3 editors who waited a week for feedback. You were active editing the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism page at the time. You even complained about the discussion and the project's very existance on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. If you objected to the breakup of the article, why didn't you post the objections then? We waited a week for feedback before taking any action! As for characterizing your involvement as calming User:HG down - may I quote your words from the time? The creation of these articles is legitimate at this time when there are active editors who wish to expand and research the articles[22]

If you have cause for believing that I am a POV warrior, or have added material without citation, selectively considered sources, broke up articles for reasons other than WP:LENGTH or good encyclopedia organization, failed to give time for developing consensus, or have insulted any religious point of view, or for that matter committed any other indiscretion, please name specific diffs. If you do not have real cause, I ask you to hold your peace. I am tired of being accused of things I haven't done. Egfrank (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest that IZAK did help calm me because I also perceived your restructurings as POV-oriented and contraindicated for consensus-building. While I don't happen to laud it personally, it is common on Wikipedia for editors to hold and express their POV outside of articles. Egfrank, at times you've been admirably upfront about your POV and you might as well be open here, too. For instance, didn't the 3 editors you mention set up a WikiProject for Progressive Judaism in order, among other editing reasons, to discuss your POV and collaborate together? That may be fine, the problem is then how you all move to implement vis-a-vis the rest of us. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of your being upfront about your POV: "Statement of my own bias: I am one of the editors in favor of the use of the term "progressive". I am also an active progressive Jew born in Uganda, raised in the US and living in Israel. So I may not be representing the other position fairly." Of course, advocating a POV and being a "warrior" are different. HG | Talk 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We set up the project so that discussions of article content focused on this topic would not take place on user pages. User:A Sniper initiated the project and I did the wiki work for the project page. It is not uncommon for editors with an interest in a particular topic to coordinate via a project or attempt to find others with shared interests by creating a project. There was no intent to push a POV - both user:A Sniper and myself are 2nd degree holders who appreciate the importance of neutrality and the academic methods used to achieve that. Nor is it wrong to be especially interested in articles where one has knowledge of the topic and access to reliable sources. In my case, living in Jerusalem I have access to several Judaica libraries, including the one on the Hebrew Union College campus. Egfrank (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the Progressive Project wasn't just about collaboration, which is terrific and much of why I love Wikipedia. I greatly welcome your collaboration. However, it also sounded like you folks wanted your Project as a safe space. You said in support of the separate Project: "The second reason, quite frankly, is moral support. I think the orthodox editors may simply not be aware of how tiring it is to have what is common knowledge among the people you pray and study with suddenly be challenged as unjewish by one or more editors." That sounds like you didn't want to be disturbed in dealing with the disagreements etc found in the overall Project Judaism. HG | Talk 15:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Wanting moral support is a crime? Being tired gets in the way of good editing and promotes less than tactful responses. So people can want moral support so that they have the emotional resources to be able to handle constant negative feedback with grace and diplomacy. Which is exactly what that meant - no more, no less. That conclusion of yours is assuming bad faith, in a very big way.

Furthermore, the assumption of hiding from criticism is completely inconsistent with the offer given to you and IZAK to join the project:

From User:Egfrank to User:IZAK at 7:44 UTC October 28: "You have expressed a rather significant interest in the topic to date (or rather its non-existence). I invite you to become an active member of the project. You will be most welcome to express your views and sources."[23].
From User:A Sniper to User:HG at 19:58 UTC October 28 (12 hours later): "Those who disagree with edits are welcome to be a part of the project, hence Egfrank's invitation at the main Judaism project."[24]

Yours and IZAK's posts directly above are own are visible in the diffs. We really do have short memories here. Egfrank (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egfrank, perhaps you're over-reacting? I haven't said it's a crime or that you did it in bad faith, which means to harm Wikipedia. I'm only saying that it certainly seemed like you folks wanted the Prog Project as a safe space to discuss a progressive point of view. As A Sniper said in the above diff: "I would rather talk, discuss & collaborate... everything Progressively Jewish HERE than debate and argue at the main project, perhaps with nice-intentioned folk...." That's neither a crime nor bad faith, it's asking for the Project to be a space away from the heated debate. For me, one problem that arose is that, from what I can tell, you would assume that when the 3 of you agree, then some consensus was reached on such matters as vastly restructuring Reform Judaism. Plus, while not bad faith, it does indicate a kind of POV way of approaching the editorial mission. HG | Talk 16:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I did take A Sniper's invitation as a good faith gesture and I joined your Project because I did/do want to collaborate with you all. (I didn't add the Userbox due to the misimpression that the Ortho one had caused.) What bothered me most is that, despite discussions on various Talk pages, I felt blindsided by the intense restructuring. (Of course, my own reactions were misguided and I reiterate that I made mistakes -- certainly with the AfDs and maybe for the Beliefs/Practices spin-off which you're angry at me about.) Thanks. HG | Talk 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HG I'm sorry you felt blind sided but as the diffs requested below will show, you did have plenty of opportunity to object and even gave indication that you were comfortable with the idea of splitting up the article. Egfrank (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll look. Meanwhile, teensy pet peeve: You have a tendency to outdent yourself when commenting, but the style is to indent responses. It makes Talk harder to read and may make you appear in an unflattering light. HG | Talk 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it rather strange that you would view collaboration as something negative. Didn't you offer to speak on behalf of User:IZAK here[25]. Egfrank (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what?! Look at that diff again! I'm actually speaking to Izak on your behalf or at least for your benefit because I agreed with you that he was being too harsh. I said to IZAK: "I feel like you are coming on unnecessarily strong.... you just posted your set of challenges yet again, this time on Egfrank's Talk page. Please, can you sit back a bit and chill out with this? ...it looks like you are pestering them" The notion that I would/could "offer to speak on behalf of IZAK" (as you say above) is your misreading. You seem to constantly lump IZAK together me, and this is a big reason your communications with me are often "misfiring" and off-base. HG | Talk 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you and IZAK are one and the same. However, you did offer to speak on his behalf. "One idea would be to contact another active Judaism editor (or me, if I'm around)" and expressed (unspecified) partial agreement with him. In fairness, you also suggested a neutral admin as a spokesperson for IZAK as an alternative to yourself.

However, my only point here was that people work together for many reasons. If you can have constructive reasons for wanting to work together with IZAK, don't you think it possible that the people who formed the Progressive Judaism project also had constructive (good for wikipedia) reasons? Egfrank (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your reply surprises me. Basically, I was asking Izak to find a facilitator or go-between for your conflict, and offering to so serve if need be. What I said to him: "If you feel there is something highly unusual (I can guess at what you might mean), perhaps even then you don't need to intervene yourself. One idea would be to contact another active Judaism editor (or me, if I'm around), another idea would be to request a neutral admin via the usual open channels." Believe me, I was not offering to represent him, though I was naive in thinking that the issue would be resolved with some brief discussion. Anyway, I do think we all have constructive reasons to edit here. Still, I have concerns with, for instance, how Izak interacts with folks. With you (Egfrank), my concern is how you go about working on topics in which you have a strongly felt point of view. HG | Talk 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we were all naive - I never imagined in a million years that a word that is just a word to me with no other significance than some people use it to identify themselves would turn into a hellstorm. HG, the strange thing is that I don't have a strongly felt point of view on Judaism except maybe the belief that it isn't my place to decide for people how to arrange their relationship with ---- or even what they should call ---- and most certainly what they choose to call themselves. But that cuts both ways - I would no more judge a haredi woman who covers her hair and has 10 children than I would the woman who enjoys tanning her body on the beach in the skimpiest bikini known to man. And I would defend them both equally should one try to cast judgment on the other. Egfrank (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Scylla and charybdis here. If I don't accept what you say at face value, then will you claim again that I'm assuming bad faith? On the other hand, I can't honestly say that your actions and statement reflect somebody to whom "Progressive" has little significance or you don't have a strong point of view on Judaism. If that were the case, why be so offended by Izak? Why tell me how you feel about your Haredi friend's jokes about "Reform" Jews? Etc. Maybe we should make a wish list for dealing with each other. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions about editor POV or knowledge

Adding break and outdenting. ok? HG | Talk 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On miscommunicating: Egfrank, you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I'm Orthodox and part of an Orthodox cabal. As I recall, you thought this partly because I belonged to WikiProj Orthodox Judaism. (Revealing that you viewed such Projects partly as POV spaces.) To avoid this impression, I removed myself from the Ortho Project. (Also, I realized it just splinters WP:Judaism.) Or maybe you jumped to a conclusion from my editing history -- but such "sleuthing" can be completely wrong. You also seem to think I'm Orthodox because I happen to partially agree with Izak on (1) the naming dispute of Reform vs Progressive, and (2) concerns about how you handle your POV. However, I think you'll be much more effective in working with me -- and many similar editors -- if you would avoid making assumptions or inferences about my religious views (if any). You are welcome to broadcast your own religiosity or POV bias as you wish, but I decline to represent myself as having such views. HG | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are orthodox or not. What I do strongly suspect is that you have little close personal experience with either US Reform or any other progressive denomination. Or if you do have experience you were one of the many who were raised in a congregation that had little or no proper Jewish education or have such people as friends (sigh - it is a big problem among my generation of Reform Jews - fortunately it is getting a lot better as reform Jews are taking the idea of education more seriously). I came to that conclusion because as a third generation US Reform Jew who pretty much has considered Hebrew Union College as her home congregation for round about 40 years, you seemed to doubt a lot of things and make a lot of statements about reform Judiasm that indicated a different set of "common knowlege" from myself and those I know. Egfrank (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is no different than the assumption that you and I would both make if someone didn't know what the word "mizvah" or "shomer shabbat/shomer shabbas" or HaShem meant. I think we would both suspect they probably aren't an educated Jew. Egfrank (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you notice what just happened? I'm trying to ask you politely to stop speculating about me. You respond by writing in Wikipedia what you "strongly suspect" about me. Please respect my anonymity and stop such conjectures about me. (Also, your comment feels to me like an unnecessarily snide swipe at my supposed lack of experience or education or "common knowlege" (sic). Maybe I'm just touchy, or maybe Sarcasticidealist can comment on tone?) Again, please, please keep your suspicions about me to yourself. On article Talk pages, please just stick to the substantive merits of editing choices. I would be grateful. HG | Talk 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HG I'm sorry if I offended you. Weren't you the one who made the assumption that I (a) was assuming you were orthodox (b) had sleuthed to guess it? If you didn't want an explanation of what I do and don't believe and why, you probably shouldn't have voiced assumptions of your own about what I did and did not believe and why. How did you expect me to answer such a challenge?

And please don't read what I said as a swipe at you. It wasn't intended that way. You don't have to be a life long Progressive Jew or even a Jew to have something valid to say about Progressive Judaism. Plenty of academics write on topics they have no personal experience with. However, they do put in a lot of work compensating for that.

Knowledge and experience do affect understanding and communication and it can be quite hard to communicate when people aren't up front with what they do and don't know. Perhaps you will consider with me two scenarios. Suppose you were trying to have a conversation with someone about halakhah with who quite obviously didn't know what b'deavad or l'hatchila (forgive my horrid transliteration) meant or how it affected halakhic reasoning. Suppose also they didn't understand the difference between minority and majority opinions.

Scenario I:Consider the situation where a very bright person, such as yourself, is up front about what is and isn't new to them and trusts the knowlege of the other person. In this situation, once the preliminaries were out of the way, their reasoning could fly and the conversation might be very fruitful -- precisely because they have a fresh view on the basics. At Princeton, senior professors are expected to teach freshmen seminars. When I was a student I thought it was just because Princeton was a great school. In youngish middle age (scary I'm that old - sigh) I've come to realize that this wasn't a favor to us students. It was a way of making sure that professors didn't get stuck into intellectual ruts. The fact that even professors (who are experts) need fresh voices says how important it is sometimes to have someone in the mix who doesn't come from the same background or knowlegebase.
Scenario II:The person insisted that their personal background meant nothing and you weren't supposed to come to any conclusions about it. How effective do you think that conversation would be? Not very.

b'deavad and l'hatchila are important concepts. The nuances of what they mean comes gradually by looking at and discussing a lot of different talmud debates and halakhic discussions. But explaining things is useless - the person doesn't trust you.

well, maybe you could cite sources? Nope. Your discussion partner denies the existence and validity of certain rules about who outweighs whom. Nor are they willing to discuss the possibility that we have two notable POV's about what rules apply - lets assume both POV's are notable and find sources that speak from each POV. Instead they distrust your knowledge about minority and majority sources and any time you try to build an argument based on it or cite sources they discount them.

No matter what you said, it wouldn't get very far. The combination of lack of trust and different backgrounds would lead to stalemate after stalemate.

So bottom line - your background is not a qualification-to-participate issue. However, it does affect the discussion and by hiding it, you don't really help the discussion, you complicate it. Egfrank (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what are you saying sorry for? Your reply is confusing me. Are you sorry that you've mischaracterized me and my views? That would be nice, but it's sounds more like you're defending yourself. I'm not sure I want to find the diffs, rather put this behind us, provided you feel you can avoid working that way. Are you sorry that you generalize about my supposed lack of education, comparable to somebody who doesn't know from mitzvah? That would be nice, too.

Your scenarios about qualifications are interesting. I'd like to hear comments from the WQA folks here. If a person doubts what we edit about a topic (e.g., "autonomy" or "liberal"), then the solution isn't usually a claim to one's qualifications. Instead, we explain in Talk, we cite 2ry sources, etc. My difficulties (and successes) in trusting you have little to do with your qualifications. Instead, I start losing trust in you when I see edits that appear to be strongly motivated. And I regain trust when your writing ore re-writing strikes me as neutral and descriptive, which is often.

(Further, I lose trust when -- from where I sit -- you use your viewpoint on the Truth as the yardstick to evaluate my edits. Or to deduce my supposedly inferior education. Sometimes you don't seem to notice that you are judging on a True/False scale what just might be a valid analysis from another perspective. But how much of this can be discussed without an example?) In sum, I think the conversation on Wikipedia depends more on intellectual humility, patience, and verifiable analysis than on qualifications. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said you were uneducated. I'd be a fool to say that - you do great work on lots of articles, especially complex ones that require a great deal of technical knowlege about things like halakhah or political issues. I was not comparing you to someone who didn't know what a mitzvah is and I am very very sorry if I seemed to be saying that - my point was only that we both would have come to that conclusion about a third imaginary person person who didn't know what a mitzvah was (and I used the word educated only to avoid the conclusion that the imaginary person was not a Jew - there are many Jews with strong ethnic identity but little knowledge of religion). It was supposed to be an analogy - not a claim about you, me, or anyone else.

Nor is saying you have different common knowledge an aspersion. Different means, well, different. You have something I don't have. I have something you don't have. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Nor is anyone claiming that the solution is qualification - the whole vision of wikipedia as I understand it is that anyone can edit. But since editing does require reliable sources and the ability to assess WP:UNDUE - I would think that under the covers actual knowlege and experience (not qualifications) do make a difference. Finding sources, assessing the reliability of sources, and making judgment calls about weight do require something more than the raw capicity to reason - whether achieved through lived experience, personal study or formal training. And the presence or lack thereof does affect the quality of discourse.

On the Christianity and Judaism article we are able to have many difficult discussions. Why? Because Christians don't claim they can define Judaism as well as Jews and Jews don't claim they can define Christianity as well as Christians. We understand that we come from different knowlege bases and assumptions and we trust the "other" to fill in what we don't know. I think this trust is especially important when what we are documenting is a group's self-concept (which is pretty much what one does when documenting a religious denomination: that has to be there out on the table before you can critique it from the outside - otherwise you are critiquing a straw man). And as IZAK has aptly pointed out elsewhere in everything, not just Torah, there is a written tradition and an oral tradition that has to be lived or felt. We can study to get at the written material but we can only get at the oral stuff by trusting the "other" who is part of that "oral tradition".

So, no it doesn't matter whether you are "qualified" in the eyes of someone else. But whether or not you actually are knowlegable "under the covers" will affect the discourse and your ability to recognize verifiable analysis when you see it. I wouldn't pretend to be able to follow a dispute in chaos theory - I don't know enough about it and I'd only cause trouble if I pretended to myself or others that extended study of chaos theory didn't matter and were to say to myself "I can participate if I want because wikipedia editing is open to everyone". In the same vein there are many articles you edit (well) that I wouldn't dare join in on - I just don't know enough.

A large part of intellectual humility is admitting what you don't know - even to others. Hence we are back to disclosure and transparency. Not for the purpose of judging - but rather for the purpose of pooling resources and working together more effectively. Egfrank (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On guessing someone's POV. The interesting thing about it is that if you said to me "Hey, I'm orthodox" I still wouldn't know a thing about your POV. There are so many different kinds of orthodox out there. There are as many different orthodox Jews as there are human beings. Even if you called yourself orthodox, I wouldn't really know a thing about you.

By the same token, you really know nothing about me. Do you really know my beliefs? My practices? My sympathies? My motivations? Or have you just drawn conclusions from a label I assign myself? Or the label I use for others? What exactly is this POV that you think I am pushing? Egfrank (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on methodology. You say above that Jews should define Judaism, Christians define Christianity. In other words, "native informants" should describe their cultural system. While this view is rampant on Wikipedia, it is contested by critical scholarship. Instead of informants, articles should describe religious topics based on best available outside sources -- ideally, critical theory may suggest that informants should not do this work. Wikipedia would improve if the informants (aka POV adherents) could operate at far greater critical distance or else recuse themselves. <Of course, you also valorize scholarship, so I recognize there's a tension or complexity in your various statements.> Maybe we should continue this theoretical discussion on our Talk pages, or maybe it's central to our Wikiquette difficulties.

About you. Why even ask such questions? Ok. You've self-identified strongly and repeatedly with a POV and //I feel as if// you've edited aggressively on it. By aggressive, I include several levels: the ProgJ Project, the dispute over naming, the restructuring, and (occasionally) editing judgments within the articles. Despite everything, I still have a warm regard for you, your enthusiasm and your abilities. But I think you overplay your experience as an informant and, at times, //I feel that// you act as if you are critically unreflective of your biases as an informant (i.e., POV motivated edits). Of course, you also often advocate the use of high quality sources and a scholarly standpoint, so we have common ground, too. HG | Talk 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting advice from WQA folks. For reasons I don't understand, Egfrank is upset with me and does not want to participate in the WQA. Here is Egfrank's comment on my Talk and a reverted comment here. I'm curious about how I might have handled my comments here differently. Though I slip at times (see //..// above), I am trying to make "I statements" when I describe my difficulties in trust. I am not accusing Egfrank of being a "POV warrior" (as stated on my Talk) nor do I believe that Egfrank is untrustworthy. (I.e., I recognize the difference between my feelings of (partial) distrust and whether the person is trustworthy.) It does seem like Egfrank would appreciate my expressing similar distrust or disapproval of editing by Izak or Orthodox editors. If asked, I am willing to do so, though I'm not sure why my problems with Izak are germane (since I'm not in an editing dispute with him). Egfrank also seems to think that I have concerns or thoughts about her religious beliefs or observance. This never crossed my mind -- it does seem to be a point of contention betw her and Izak, but I don't quite see how it enters into my conflict with Egfrank. I'm somewhat baffled by her abrupt end to this conversation and I'm concerned about how we will interact on the articles we're editing. Thanks for your input. HG | Talk 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence of restructuring dispute

Break from thread above, continue here. Ok? HG | Talk 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Egfrank, I'm curious about your claim that you waited a week for feedback before breaking up Reform Judaism. Can you show me the diffs? On Nov 2nd, I started a discussion at Progressive Judaism entitled Avoiding a POV fork. On Nov 4th, Jheald created the Germany spin-off. On Nov. 6, here's where you announced that you were refactoring the Reform Judaism article, where you state yourself that IZAK and I still disagreed. (Saying you were opposed to Reform Judaism as "an umbrella article providing an overview of a movement (User:HG and User:IZAK).") Or am I misreading this? Maybe you waited a week on another Talk? Please fill in the picture. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've just looked at the diffs and I notice something interesting, and I think I may now understand your surprise - as well as the confusion of others at your surprise. It appears a spin off for the Israeli Progressive and UK Reform were discussed for a week[26], but the spin off of North America and German Reform were only added to the list at 3:35am on November 4.[27].

So I understand your surprise a bit better - you were expecting the UK and Israeli spin-off but not the US and German spin-off. Now I understand why you AfD's the German and USA but not the UK and Israeli. But also try to understand how JHeald must have been seeing things:

Jheald was more interested in content than naming. From the point of content development, the USA and 19th century German movement needed their own article.
The basis of yours and IZAK's original argument wasn't umbrella article, but POV split. And you specifically mention that as the key issue in the WQA. By removing the spin-out material we would only have the material that was in common for the four spin out articles but not specific to any one. That was the only information that could possible cause a risk of a content/POV split - so by removing the material we actually made it easier to assess the situation and genuine risk of POV split, not harder.

So I do apologize for claiming that you had a week warning for the German and US split off when you only had it for the Israeli and UK spin offs. My bad. But I also think you should judge JHeald's decision on the merits. Egfrank (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Main reply below. FYI. You write: "The basis of your... original argument wasn't umbrella article, but POV split." Incorrect. My concern was about the (POV) split of two umbrella articles, Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism. Now there's a third, Reform movement in Judaism (yes, I realize you personally might not see it as an umbrella article). HG | Talk 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

But let me ask you this - as I have elsewhere - don't you think it is time to stop worrying about the name "Reform" vs. "Progressive" or monster scope umbrella articles and focus on developing focused articles that have a narrow enough scope that we may actually get something to good article status before the next millenium? You have so much to offer these articles via your research and writing skills. Why not make that your contribution? Egfrank (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology for claiming that I had a week's warning. I felt blindsided since it appeared to come in the middle of several ongoing discussions (at ProgJudaism, bias page, maybe WP:Judaism). Perhaps I should have called you on your claim about the timing earlier (I try to ignore ad hominem stuff in general). You made this claim in various places against me, so if you happen to notice it, I'd appreciate your retracting (not deleting) it there.

I have accepted Jheald's spin-outs on the merits. But I was stunned at first, hence my erroneous AfDs and AN/I. As you know, I retracted and apologized. However, I still feel some distrust about the big restructuring without reaching consensus. From my seat, you guys have made sweeping changes without sufficient regard for consensus-building and it makes me nervous about what will happen next.

Next steps. It is unhelpful for you to ask me, or others, to "stop worrying" about the Reform vs Progressive nomenclature. Why? First, because this has been a significant, time-consuming dispute carried on in several places. You share a fair degree of responsibility for the dispersion of this dispute. We all deserve to bring this to closure. Second, the naming dispute now casts a shadow over the new spin-out articles, perhaps the whole Category. (Izak focuses on the Category name.) I don't want to see my (or your) contributions continue under a cloud, not knowing which articles might be deleted or vastly reframed (due to a name chg) or subject to new spin-outs. This was my point going back to Nov 2nd, that it is our editorial duty to avoid overlapping content (forks) as best we can. Shirahadasha has made renewed attempts to do resolve this dispute, e.g. Talk:Reform Judaism and I've tried at Talk:Reform movement in Judaism. So far, I feel that you've avoided responding to either overture. If you don't mind my saying so, it would be better if you'd contribute to enabling a broad consensus to be reached. Maybe we need to go to MedCab with these disputed questions. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing complaint

NB I moved this here because it seems like a new subtopic. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're talking about collaboration, what about User:IZAK's requests for feedback on the Progressive/Reform issue? He was rather selective about who he notified. He only notified selected wiki project members. He explicitly notified User:MPerel and User:Dfass of the debate. Interesting that User:MPerel shows up here as part of the discussion.

On the other hand, he did not notify User:JerseyRabbi - who is (a) a rabbi (b) on the participant list and (c) has had interactions with User:IZAK in the past. Oh... but maybe we do have an explanation...User:JerseyRabbi is a Reform rabbi - surely he doesn't have anything interesting to say on Reform/Progressive Judaism. Do I smell WP:CANVASS?

And if I were a nefarious POV pusher - why didn't *I* request feedback in the debate. I did the first time arround when I first raised the Reform/Progressive Judaism issue on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism page (long before the creation of the Progressive Judaism project). Yet when I was the target of a complaint and should have been canvassing I never did. In fact I never even asked him to join the Progressive Judaism project - something that would have been logical to do and even appropriate. So if I'm a POV pusher I do a pretty bad job of it. Egfrank (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Eg, going back into past history now are we? Well, it was after you arbitrarily opened a second front, or is it a third, counting the "Progressive Judaism Project" you started, and then you went over to "WikiProject Countering systemic bias" that I asked a couple of editors to join the debate at that time but what does it have to do with now? You are making a mishkabibbel of everything now to blur the real problems we are having. They are established and very respected editors and I don't even know their affiliation because it has never been an issue even though I am sure they are different to me, we have never gotten into struggles over assertion of their or my POVS. This is the original message: "Please see the present discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns. Your input would be greatly appreciated. (They are the result of discussions that unfolded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels.)" I do not see any problem with this request. This is becoming like a bad marriage, when do we get our divorce? IZAK (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message was indeed neutral as per guidelines. And I trust you are being absolutely honest here that you simply asked editors because you trusted them and not because of their views.

But here's the problem. This discussion should have been focused on content and that means that the right people to approach would be people that might know something about the issue. In fact, both the people declined to participate, one with the explicit reason that this wasn't something they knew very much about. On the other hand, the one user you could have approached who might know something about this - being a Reform Rabbi - you didn't approach. If trust was your criteria, then this means you didn't trust him/her and this begs the question why?. If knowledge of subject area was your criteria for selection, then you approached 2 people who didn't know and overlooked an obvious choice of someone who might.

I'm going to assume good faith here and assume you just forgot that User:JerseyRabbi existed and that it never occurred to you to scan the participants list before you chose who to (validly) canvas. The main problem I see with this is that you are a leader in the wiki Judaism project and you keep referring to yourself as a mature participant whose judgment should be trusted against this greenhorn.

However, if you place upon yourself the mantle of role model or leader, that gives you certain responsibilities. The project has lots of orthodox/interested in or sympathetic to orthodoxy(but maybe not orthodox) editors and very few non-orthodox editors. A successful NPOV project needs a balance of interests and a mix of POV. You don't seem to be working very hard to get and encourage participation of the few non-orthodox/sympathetic to non-orthodoxy(but maybe not non-orthodox) contributors available to you (e.g. User:JerseyRabbi). And now you also want to give me a get and get me to go away. (for non-Jewish readers: divorce in Hebrew means send away) Egfrank (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Eg, I have never heard of User:JerseyRabbi and we can stay "married" if you insist! Can't you even see humor when it is staring you in the face? Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd response from IZAK

I would like to put on record, that three times in a row now, Egfrank has very unhelpfully to the workability of Judaic editors, has tried to drive a very calculated strategic wedge into the functional and functioning consensus of the active editors at the long-established non-sectarian and non-denominational editors associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism.

The first blow to unity was when she actively joined User A Sniper (talk · contribs) to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Progressive Judaism against the advice of the more established editors. At the time, and even now, I say it is their right to do so, but when seen in light of a strategy of leaping outside the paramaters of the Judaic editors rough cohesiveness, it can be judged to be detrimental.
Secondly when discussions were not going her way during the Reform Judaism reorganization débâcle she suddenly and without consultation went and jumped into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/open tasks#WikiProject Judaism needs help - geographical bias concerns that did not get any attention from anyone over there, but just embroiled the same set of editors in acrimonious discussions at that uncalled for location.
Then thirdly, during lengthy discussion at Talk:Relationships between American Jewish religious movements#Primary and secondary sources she went ballistic when I stated clearly that academic sources cannot over-rule Judaic sources when it comes to matters of Judaism and she then openly denigrated and belittled me and threatened to call in the opinions of editors in no way connected to Judaic topics: "...if we are serious about writing a wikipedia policy compliant article and we are concerned about academic bias, we may need to look outside of our usual project circle...But that difficulty doesn't give us permission to go write joint opinion pieces. It means we need to either learn the research skills/methodological issues ourselves or find fellow wikipedians who have those skills and methodological maturity and are willing to help out. Egfrank 06:57, 26 November 2007" [28] After she wrote those insulting and scathing comments directed at me for suggesting that there are many primary Judaic sources to rely upon [29] and when I then gave a response, "Hi Egfrank, thanks for taking the time to answer. There is no need to preach the "gospel" of Wikipedia to me or to anyone, I am well-aware of the policies and I have never diverged from them..." that in spite of academic sources there are still and all vast primary texts and sources that belong to classical Judaism that are available on Wikipedia itself, predate and even run concurrently to the goings on in academia and which are as legitimate as any sources are in a subject about the Jewish religion and theology.[30] It was at that point that she then got caught up on phrases I used here and there and used that as an excuse to leapfrog an important discussion and launch this present series of time-wasting and acrimonious accusations against me here, and now she still has the temerity to ask if I will submit to her one-sided POV hostility to traditional Judaism, its texts, sources, Orthodox rabbis and teachers.

And that is why I call it not only pathetic but absurd and even comical that she uses the metaphorical editorial strategic axe so violently, and then when someone stands in her way, she hacks and chops, runs from pillar to post, opens second and third fronts, wasting time and efforts, and threatens to open more new fronts in the hope of a "divide and conquer" of Judaica on Wikipedia and of its merry band of hard-working editors. Well, sorry, tough noogies, it ain't gonna happen on my watch. She has to be stopped! I rest my case thus far. Thank you! IZAK (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, I am not hostile to orthodox Judaism. I think all Jews have a right to read and study the sources and come to their own good faith conclusions about what those sources mean. I fully understand that orthodox Jews are trying as hard to be faithful to Torah as any other religious Jew - reform, progressive, liberal, reconstructionist, masorti, conservative, or purple polka dotted with green strips. Please don't project your hostility towards Progressive Jews back onto me. Egfrank (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"purple polka dotted with green strips" Jews? Where are they located? Probably in someone's imagination. Oh, and could you define a "religious" reform, progressive, liberal, reconstructionist Jew please. That should be kinda fun. IZAK (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eg, I do not have "hostility" to ANY Jews! You see, that is the way you create a personalization of issues. When one debates ideas, notions, beliefs, concepts, principles, ideologies, dogmas, logic, abstractions, phenomena, people, places, and things, and if one takes things apart and analyzes, explores, thinks, and debates them from multiple angles, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively, it does NOT mean that one is either "hostile," "friendly" or "neutral" at that point because processing and working things though in discussions is not the be all and end all of what one's true beliefs on a subject really are. To truly know what another thinks or believes about a subject, one would need to be a mind reader, and since neither of us is one, we need to assume that we are both fair human beings and that no matter what we say or do in the course of long conversations and dialogues, at the end of the day we can respect each other. You seem to think I have an agenda to be mean or "hostile" as you say to Progressive people or to whomever, when I have nothing against ANY people, I love them as part of loving humanity and ahavat yisrael, but that does NOT mean that I have to personally "love" their ideas or personally accept their ideas in any way whatsoever and thus criticisms, coming from me or from you or anyone, in the course of much broader discussions does not mean that they have been dealt "mortal wounds" that requires you to file official complaints like one seeking comfort at a First Aid station. You are mature and strong enough to hold your own in the discussions where they could and should have remained, at WP:JUDAISM or at article talk pages, or on user talk pages (that's what they are there for), where I tried to do that but you said you did not feel comfortable talking on your user page but you have a nasty habit of personalizing relatively minor comments, that are tiny fragments, in much longer discussion threads and cutting and chopping them up, and bringing it as "testimony" that the "poor little Progressives" have been attacked by some "big bad wolf" and just like those stories are myths so are many of the tales you make up and seek to tell to anyone who will listen to you. Guess what, so far I need to get a prize for listening to you and your POV's a lot longer and in responding in greater detail than almost anyone (except User:HG). And what do I get in return for this from you? More crying, attacks, insults, personalization and globalization of comments not directed at you, and all sorts of belly-aching that is simply a great big nuisance. Hope we can all move on from this waste of time soon. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A final word on HG's attempt to join this WikiAlert

This wikialert did not concern HG but he has chosen to make it his own. I unwisely took the bait and responded. I will not discuss this matter further with HG on this page. I have deliberately let him have the final word in each debate as a way of saying I no longer wish to participate in this conversation. Readers should consider the fact that there may be another side of the story to each of his statements. His having the final word neither signifies my agreement or disagreement with any of his statement. Egfrank 00:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok if you choose to bow out of the conversation. However, this isn't a kind way to end it. Before entering the conversation, I asked: "I'm wondering if maybe I could be added in here?" (03:52, 28 November 2007) I only got more involved after Egfrank disagreed with Izak about whether Izak had "calmed me" during the dispute. (Egfrank 11:32, 29 November 2007) I certainly agree that Egfrank has another side of the story, and I'm open to the possibility that her side may be better and more correct than mine. Nonetheless, it's unfair to say that I baited Egfrank and somehow tried to "own" this wikialert. Thank. HG | Talk 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt to move forward

IZAK, at issue isn't just how I would respond. It is how this kind of interaction might look to others. Consider the following from the above:

Oh, and could you define a "religious" reform, progressive, liberal, reconstructionist Jew please. That should be kinda fun..

Talk pages are not a platform for personal positions (see WP:TALK) so what possible reason do you have for making that claim?

Are you planning to argue for its inclusion in an article?
Are you asking people to help you find citations for it and to evaluate whether it should be included in an article?
Do you intend it to set the tone of the page? If so, doesn't such a statement act like a "stay out - you're not welcome" sign to a Jew who believes themselves religious (whatever denomination)? Are you proposing that making the edit page uninviting for Progresive, reform, liberal and reconstructionist Jews is good for wikipedia? Are you suggesting that most Progressive Jews would find such a statement sets a positive tone for the talk page? That they would feel that editing on such a talk page would be a harmonious experience?
Do you intend it to "team-build" so that we can cooperate better and be increasingly biased towards good faith? If so, how are "Progressive Jews" going to feel part of a team where team-building statements cast aspersions on their religious convictions?

You have a right to your opinions. You do not have a right to use them to create an unfriendly environment for other editors. Wikipedia's quality depends on having a mix of editors from different backgrounds and point of view.

You might want to think carefully about how you answer the above questions. It will affect my decision about whether or not I should push this up to another level.

And to the helpers on this page, pending IZAK's response, I would appreciate feedback about what to do next. At that point I hope it would be clear that IZAK's response to me so far has more to do with the fact that I am objecting to his behavior and not the way I am objecting to his behavior (see response to User:Cheeser1 above for comparison). Excessive politeness is not a solution to someone's strongly held belief that they can say anything they want and it anybody bothered by it is a cry baby, running "pillar to post". Egfrank (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4th and final response from IZAK

Eg, you know it's very strange, so far, you have heard from others here, such as User:HG, User:MPerel, User:Shirahadasha without me telling them what to say and how to say it and who know me well as an editor having worked with me for many years, and with whom I have even had sharp disagreements in articles, AfDs, CfDs and countless other talk pages over the years, yet none of them have either evoked in me or responded to me the way that you have to the degree of hysteria that you have. Why is that? I take you seriously as you can see from the lengthy and laborious responses I write to you. You say lots (way lots) of things that bug me, I overlook it, but heaven forfend if I utter even the slightest line, clearly often in jest and of no major import, and kapow there you go galloping on your horse, waving your sword to skewer me. Now why is that exactly? Just see what you have done right here, instead of taking note of my serious responses to your comments, and taking to heart the input from three serious and experienced Judaic editors, like HG, MPerel, and Shirahadasha who know the issues well and how to handle hot potato subjects, you jump to point out how I responded to the rudeness of User:Cheeser1 yet you conveniently overlook the maturity, civility, and suggestions to you, being displyed by User:Sarcasticidealist who reveals a greater willingness to be patient and earn everyone's trust. It is very confusing and frustrating dealing with you or taking your assertions seriously when you are so sensitive and selective in pushing your own interests and your own POV. It is all compouneded as you then take it personally as well as you globalize discusions by speaking as if you represent this or that segment of world Jewry. You need to calm down, not expect the world to agree with you, learn that "NPOV" means "Neutral Point of View" and NOT "No Point of View" on article talk pages, and that above all else, the ways of peace are far better than the ways of confrontation. Unless of course you wish to make yourself into the "poster child" of WP:BITE, which I highly doubt. A final alert, by now it should be obvious that this alert is more about you than anyone else. And as you would say, kol tuv. Thank you, IZAK 08:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have given User:Egfrank my utmost attention here and elsewhere. I have tried to explain the who, what, why, when and how of my responses here and elsewhere. I have said everything I possibly can. We are thus running around in circles. From this point I shall not add anything else here, unless it is a matter of an extreme nature. I can be contacted via my talk page. Thank you all for your kind patience. IZAK 10:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Hersh

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Not sure this is the right place to post, but--- There's been a back-and-forth, with multiple deletions and reinstatements of text, involving edits made to this article by contributor Dooyar, most recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Seymour_Hersh&diff=174038623&oldid=174028805 Is this contribution "original research"? Is it of encyclopedic significance? Could others weigh in on the issue? There's discussion on the Talk page. Thanks. RickDC (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest heading over to WP:RFC. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will move it there. Thanks for the redirect. RickDC (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the kind of thing that usually is discussed at WP:BLPN.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with user

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

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

You should also note that I've been reverting the most recent post. CMacMillan (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your exchange has become pretty uncivil on both sides. At this point, I would suggest that both of you simply disengage, since there doesn't appear to be any point to your arguing. I could analyze who's been uncivil where, but that seems less productive than both of you just cutting off this poisonous exchange.

(Tengentially, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages; doing so signifies that they have read and understood the warnings.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SI, except for misspelling tangentially :p - you should let it go (maybe he's not a troll, but the point is the same). I've left a warning asking him to cool it. I'd suggest you just let him do whatever. If the content dispute persists, handle it as calmly/professionally as you can, and if need be, just ignore that part of Wikipedia for a while. Responding by getting to into a more heated type of argument (ie the piss and vinegar comment) isn't going to help much. Take the high road. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that if the IP user continues to introduce bad changes that are consistently reverted, he may be in violation of WP:3RR and other edit-warring policies. If you see a genuine violation, please feel free to report it at the appropriate admin noticeboard. If it's just a matter of this person harassing you, I'd recommend what SarcasticIdealist and Cheeser1 have suggested - disengaging - and let us know if the situation persists. If you make a good faith effort to resolve the situation by letting it fizzle out on its own or working proactively to bring focus back to the articles, it'll be that much easier for people here and on the admin noticeboard to intervene. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Craig_zimmerman

On two talk pages [31] [32] (both loosely discussing the same issue), user Craig_zimmerman has displayed venomous and persistent incivility, in at least the following regards:

Abundant personal attacks:
1. "Just goes to show that arrogant presumptive censorship comes in many flavors"
2. "When asked to explain what his point is, he yammers that "he already has.""
3. "your undoing the revert was simply an arrogant immature act"
4. "...after demonstrating both immaturity and arrogance..."
Assumption of bad faith:
1. "He does not actually have a point here, just an agenda"
2. "you are now just being petty, and it's clear you don't care whether your point of view has merit"
3. "his modifications are based not on any logic or reason but on an agenda"
Disruption of discussion. User:Dbachmann made an edit to one of the above-mentioned talk pages, adding a signed comment. I wrote a response, but at the same time he expanded his comment, causing an edit conflict. To resolve the collision, I added my reply under the part of his comment that had existed from the start, reasoning that he presumably had no problem with it standing alone since he had originally submitted it that way. It wasn't the best way to deal with the collision, but I had no ill intent, and would go back to make the split more clear if not for the facts that Craig_zimmerman already did so (in as derogatory way as possible) and that any changes now would require large restructuring of the comment tree. To antagonise me, Craig_zimmerman is now exclusively responding to my comments by breaking them apart wherever he wishes to reply ([33],[34]), and accusing me of deleting his comments with ill faith ("deliberately deleted comments I have made in a discussion page the content of which he did not like") when I revert his insertions and urge him to stop responding in this way.
Changing of section headings to fit his view. He has repeatedly changed the heading "Capitalisation of 'god'" to "Capitalisation of 'God'", despite that this breaks direct links to the section.

With every comment that he makes, he spends far more energy impugning my character than addressing the issue at the heart of the dispute, and dealing with him is demanding far too much of my time. Ilkali (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkali has made edits to pages that were reverted by admins, and then has gone back and put them in again despite a consensus that his edits were unwarranted and violated NPOV. When the subject was discussed (on multiple pages), he has deleted comments made by myself and others because he didn't like the way they were formatted, even though they used the same style of interjection he admits he employs. "Assuming good faith" only goes so far, and this user's repeated insulting behavior is the problem here. Accusing people of not understanding his point simply because they disagree with it—"You don't understand the simplest linguistic issues involved here" is a typical response when you disagree with him. And the simple logic of saying "you may want to look at God (word)#Capitalization. When monotheistic Singular God is intended, God is spelled with a G. When a polytheistic deity is intended, we spell it god, with a g. Please consult any major dictionary of English" is lost on him. How can you assume good faith with someone who goes out of his way to violate any such faith incessantly? Censure me if you think this is warranted, but please put a stop to the nonsense this person is persisting in perpetrating. Craig zimmerman (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we're off to an exciting start - thank you both for participating. If I could ask you each to respond to the other's allegations against you, without mentioning the other person, that should get things rolling. Would you each be good enough to do so? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

"Ilkali has made edits to pages that were reverted by admins, and then has gone back and put them in again despite a consensus that his edits were unwarranted and violated NPOV"

They were reverted by an admin (dbachmann), acting as a normal editor.
There was no consensus against me. I only restored my edits at the point where only dbachmann and myself were involved. 1 vs 1 isn't a consensus.
As far as I remember, only one person has accused me of violating NPOV, and it is not the person with whom I was disagreeing at that point. It's not clear to me how I even could be guilty of violating NPOV. I've asserted nothing about the nature or existence of any gods. Most of my edits have been stylistic, and the others have been to correct over-specific definitions.

"Accusing people of not understanding his point simply because they disagree with it". I have not done this. I've claimed that others don't understand my point on the grounds that they've argued against a position I do not hold, such as that the proper-noun 'God' should not have a capital.

"the simple logic of saying "you may want to look at God (word)#Capitalization. When monotheistic Singular God is intended, God is spelled with a G. When a polytheistic deity is intended, we spell it god, with a g. Please consult any major dictionary of English" is lost on him". I presented my counter-argument to this on the relevant talk pages. The point of this Wikiquette alert is not to discuss the validity of either person's position.

"How can you assume good faith with someone who goes out of his way to violate any such faith incessantly". I've seen no evidence presented that I do not have good faith. Ilkali (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Ilkali. Over to you, Mr. Zimmerman. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sarcastic.

The act of deleting other people's words from a discussion page, for whatever reason, is an attempt at censorship, in addition to being a flagrant violation of Wikipedia protocol. Claiming that this act was performed because the deleter did not like the style of comment interjection does not suffice as a justification for such deletion, it is merely a rationalization. Claiming that this is a reasonable justification for such an act is both presumptive (assuming that the deleter knows better than the original author whether his text ought to be there) and arrogant (erroneously believing that the deleter has authority and credentials to warrant such acts of deletion). Thus it is not a "personal attack" to call such action "arrogant presumptive censorship," it is a valid description of the action, and not in any way a smear on the character of the one who took such action. In any case, the charge that there were "abundant personal attacks" is fabricated, unless criticizing another person's position, statements, or inappropriate actions can be called a "personal attack."
The point in saying that such behavior "comes in many flavors" simply notes that this kind of censorship occurs across the religiopolitical spectrum, not only in religious conservatives but in atheistic liberals as well. No one gets a pass automatically absolving them of such charges owing to their political or religious affiliation.
When clarification on points in the course of discussion or debate is requested, it is unfortunately a much too common tactic for the one thus challenged to assert that s/he "already has" clarified. This seems to happen regularly, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, even if the challenger says quite clearly that they don't get the point that person is trying to make. The one challenged engages in an act of seeming auto-absolution from their responsibility as a participant in a two-way communication to clarify at the request of the person they are talking to. When this request comes from multiple sources, as it did in this case, it indicates that clearly it is not a failure on the part of those being spoken to (despite the person's dismissive assertions to the contrary regarding their failure or inability to comprehend), but a failure on the part of the one speaking to make himself clear. When "I already have" is repeated excessively in this scenario, it is reasonable to drop the assumption that the one using that canard is operating in good faith, since the reasonable request for genuine clarification is being summarily ignored. The further acts of deliberate deletion represent additional reasons for dropping this assumption.
The notion that I followed a particular style of comment interjection, one that is not only in common usage but was used by the very person complaining about this style, for the overt purpose of "antagonising" that person, is absurd. The further notion that such usage disrupted a discussion is even more preposterous. The discussion continued unabated and unrestrained despite my insertion of comments. However...
The deletion of points added to the discussion that were relevant to that discussion and that were as a result of the overt deliberate deletion not responded to, was indeed a disruption. The fact that those points still have not been addressed, even after they were reinserted following the deliberate disruptive act of deletion, is another fair reason to drop the assumption of good faith. The contorted explanation required to justify/rationalize this act stretches the limits of believability.
As for the changing of the heading "Capitalization of 'God'" - I stand guilty of that. I erroneously believed that a third party also participating in this discussion created this heading in the page, and that the plaintiff actually made the change to suit his views. I thought I was changing it back appropriately.

In conclusion, if criticism of another person's position, noting their repeated failure to address points and acknowledge rebuttals to their position, and citing of their inappropriate behavior (e.g., arbitrary deletion of other people's text, making false accusations) represents "venomous incivility," "impugning their character" or an example of "abundant personal attacks," then mea culpa. If we are summarily prohibited in the course of discussion from criticizing positions we feel are false or unfounded, from making note of failures to respond to rebuttals, and likewise from noting failures to abide by Wikipedia protocol as previously mentioned, then we have eviscerated the whole idea of open discussion, allowing verbal bullying and mob rule to win the day. I participated in a discussion where a person made unwarranted changes to pages and, when asked to provide and clarify his reasons for doing so, he at first gave flawed examples easily rebutted, and then reacted by claiming he wasn't obliged to clarify further (despite multiple repeated requests) and by deprecating the abilities of those requesting such clarification. I did not act abusively or derisively in response. I simply made note of what was going on and tried to get the discussion back on track, explaining that clarification and explanation were required and that disagreement is not the same as failure to understand. (The assumption apparently being that if we understood, we would "naturally" agree.) I responded with counterexamples and rebuttals that were summarily and deliberately deleted and ignored. I'm sorry, but I have to assume that is not the way discussion of topics is supposed to work on Wikipedia. Craig zimmerman (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think we're making some progress. User:Ilkali, am I correct in believing that your removal of comments stemmed from your belief that those comments were being interspersed with yours solely to antagonize you? For what it's worth, WP:TALK says that "In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic)." That seems to preclude extensive use of the style of commenting in question, so User:Craig zimmerman, I'd encourage you to try to refrain from it in the future. User:Ilkali, with respect, I'm not sure that User:Craig zimmerman has forfeited his entitlement to good faith: remember, WP:AGF doesn't require that you actually believe somebody is acting in good faith, just that you behave as if you believe that. Besides that, if User:Craig zimmerman was doing that only to antagonize you, removing his comments would seem to do nothing more than validate his desire to antagonize you. As for the civility issues, I think there have been some (minor) breaches of WP:CIVIL on both sides. Rather than dealing with them in much detail, I'd prefer it if both of you simply made a great effort to be extremely polite moving forward. I'd appreciate both of your reactions to what I've written. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think we're making some progress. User:Ilkali, am I correct in believing that your removal of comments stemmed from your belief that those comments were being interspersed with yours solely to antagonize you?". No. I reverted his additions because the practice of inserting responses within comments:

Makes it difficult for others to respond on a point-by-point basis. It's impossible for more than one person to use this method - they might want to divide at different places, and how would that be resolved? So should the first person's responses be inserted within the text, and subsequent people's inserted below? There is no good solution.
Obscures who wrote the snippets - any person trying to follow the discussion has to scroll through potentially pages of discussion just to find the signature associated with that text.

"I'm not sure that User:Craig zimmerman has forfeited his entitlement to good faith"

In general? Sure. I can act as though his general intent is to maintain quality within Wikipedia. But in this one instance? He objected through his use of language ("torn apart by Ilkali") to my dividing Dbachmann's comment, which kinda suggests he doesn't think that's an appropriate method for responding. Either he's rapidly changed his mind, or he's intentionally doing something that he doesn't think others should do. There aren't many possible motivations for that.

"if User:Craig zimmerman was doing that only to antagonize you, removing his comments would seem to do nothing more than validate his desire to antagonize you"

At this point, anything I do will be taken by him as validation of his desire to antagonise me.

Here's the primary problem: At the moment, every comment he makes, regardless of where it is or what it's a response to, accuses me of the same things: Refusing to explain my position, deleting his comments, operating on an agenda. I'm willing to address these accusations, but it doesn't matter if I do. I've explained that my reversion of his talk page edits is solely because of his placing his comments inside mine, but he continues to assert that I am "deleting" his contributions because I disagree with him, or because I don't like what he has written.

If he is willing to restrict discussion to the content of the comment he is replying to, rather than continually inserting the same accusations, and if he is willing to assume good faith and remain civil, I am willing to forget what has happened up to now. I've recently created a new section ([35]) in the talk page discussing specific examples of 'god'/'God' uses that have proven controversial, and I'd be interested in hearing his perspective on them. Ilkali (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate that my intent is neither antagonism nor disruption, I will employ the very style this person claims causes disruption and serves only to antagonize, tediously repeating the entire block of text that I would have simply injected comments into directly. This style is used throughout Wikipedia and throughout the history of the Internet, for the opposite reasons offered by this person: it actually makes it easier to follow the flow of a discussion, and indentation levels make it clearer who wrote and said what; plus it prevents discussion pages from becoming bloated with unnecessary repetition. A contribution consisting of a series of points is best responded to point by point, in place; the alternative is repeating entire sections over and over again with reference fragments scattered haphazardly. Sarcastic, I believe the concern over unnecessary bloating of pages, as well as the desire to see rebuttals properly placed in context, warrants the use of that style in circumstances like these.

"I think we're making some progress. User:Ilkali, am I correct in believing that your removal of comments stemmed from your belief that those comments were being interspersed with yours solely to antagonize you?". No. I reverted his additions because the practice of inserting responses within comments:

Makes it difficult for others to respond on a point-by-point basis. It's impossible for more than one person to use this method - they might want to divide at different places, and how would that be resolved? So should the first person's responses be inserted within the text, and subsequent people's inserted below? There is no good solution.
Obscures who wrote the snippets - any person trying to follow the discussion has to scroll through potentially pages of discussion just to find the signature associated with that text.

As I just mentioned, both these assertions are not true. This user apparently feels that the "sanctity" of his text demands that it not be responded to in the most efficient and compact way, that interjecting comments taints the purity (or something) of his original text. I find it hard to comprehend how such a person can operate in the Wikipedia community, where one's text is most definitely not sacrosanct and immutable.

"I'm not sure that User:Craig zimmerman has forfeited his entitlement to good faith"

In general? Sure. I can act as though his general intent is to maintain quality within Wikipedia.

"I can act as though..." This is plainly a deliberately disparaging remark. The implication is that "obviously" my intent is not to maintain quality within Wikipedia, but that he would deign to act "as though" this was true. This kind of overtly snide remark is unfortunately typical of what has transpired here. Perhaps my coming out and saying that he is plainly not acting in good faith based on the evidence is a heinous breach of etiquette. Sorry. I will say it again if the subject comes up and I will back up the statement.

But in this one instance? He objected through his use of language ("torn apart by Ilkali") to my dividing Dbachmann's comment,

This is absolutely not true. At no point did I make any such statements about his splitting up of dab's comment to insert his own rebuttals! Quite obviously not! In fact, my point throughout is that if this style of response is good enough for him, it should be good enough for others responding to him. The things "torn apart by Ilkali" were the original articles whose content he arbitrarily altered!

which kinda suggests he doesn't think that's an appropriate method for responding. Either he's rapidly changed his mind, or he's intentionally doing something that he doesn't think others should do. There aren't many possible motivations for that.

See above. It would seem that this whole line of complaint is based on the erroneous assumption that I flip-flopped on the usage of that style of commentary. Indeed, I recommend that style for clarity and compactness. It would seem this is another example, like the notion that I do everything to antagonize him, of his viewing things through a filter of his own making.

"if User:Craig zimmerman was doing that only to antagonize you, removing his comments would seem to do nothing more than validate his desire to antagonize you"

At this point, anything I do will be taken by him as validation of his desire to antagonise me.

This comment certainly qualifies as an overt assumption of bad faith, does it not? And much more. Since I have no overt desire to antagonize this user, and have not done things for the purpose of deliberate antagonization, and yet he insists that I must be doing things to antagonize him, well...

Here's the primary problem: At the moment, every comment he makes, regardless of where it is or what it's a response to, accuses me of the same things: Refusing to explain my position, deleting his comments, operating on an agenda.

I document each such accusation and continue to do so. Again, deleted comments (which I finally reinserted yet again) still have not been addressed or responded to! Is this the behavior of a person operating in good faith to have an honest discussion?

I'm willing to address these accusations, but it doesn't matter if I do.

Another example not only of assumption of bad faith on my part, but of rationalizing his not explaining and clarifying himself: he's willing, he says, to address things, but it doesn't matter if he does, so he doesn't bother!

I've explained that my reversion of his talk page edits is solely because of his placing his comments inside mine

And since this was done to compact and organize the conversation properly (not to antagonize he keeps on claiming), he had no valid reason to do this. In any case, deletion of what another person has said in a discussion page is an egregious violation of the principles of Wikipedia discussion. It is an arrogant act of censorship because it presumes that the deleter has some sort of authority to decide that what others have said isn't worthy of inclusion or of further discussion. The deleted text also contained rebuttals he no longer had to address (because Winston Smith had rewritten the history of the discussion so that they not only disappeared, they seemed to have never existed). How can such behavior be rationalized so boldly as reasonable?

but he continues to assert that I am "deleting" his contributions because I disagree with him, or because I don't like what he has written.

Why is "deleting" in quotes? Was the text not removed from the page? Is that not a deletion? It seems there is an attempt to spin this as something other than what it was through creative use of quotation marks.

If he is willing to restrict discussion to the content of the comment he is replying to, rather than continually inserting the same accusations, and if he is willing to assume good faith and remain civil, I am willing to forget what has happened up to now.

And I have learned that assuming the good faith of this person is a fool's errand. I have explained and documented why. He makes disparaging statements based on his apparently somewhat paranoid assumption that I am "out" to "antagonize" him, that everything I do and say has this purpose and goal. He rationalizes egregious violations of protocol based on his apparent personal distaste for a compact and efficient style of discussion breakdown. And he has the nerve to cite me for violating Wikiquette! I hope others take up the mantle of dealing with this person, and I wish them luck (I think they will need it!), but I am not likely to force myself to endure more of his irrational behavior. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... well, as W said in his erroneous conclusion to that maxim, "you can't get fooled again."

I've recently created a new section ([36]) in the talk page discussing specific examples of 'god'/'God' uses that have proven controversial, and I'd be interested in hearing his perspective on them. Ilkali (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this section yesterday. I honestly appreciate the effort, and the backpedaling away from the stance of "I'm under no obligation to explain or clarify anything for the likes of you who is incapable of understanding the simplest points I make." (Yes, this amalgam represents the content of actual comments he made to us; I will gladly go back and dredge up the originals, but I think this has gone far enough already.) I expect that perhaps further discussion can move forward. But most likely not with me participating. I have better things to do with my life than subject myself to someone who frantically believes I'm out to get him, who reacts to this assumption by making disparaging statements and willfully deleting my comments under some presumed delusion of authority, and then reports me for rules violations. Good luck to you, Ilkali, and even more so to those who have discussions with you in the future. Craig zimmerman (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig zimmerman, I strongly encourage you to refrain from breaking up User:Ilkali's comments in the future. Not only does it go against WP:TALK (which, yes, is a guideline, not a policy), but Ilkali has specifically stated that it's a source of grief for him. I think agreeing to respond to his comments in a single block as recommended by WP:TALK is probably a reasonable way to meet him half way.

Other than that, I'm sorry we couldn't bring things to the point where you're comfortable working together. There's clearly still lingering assumption of bad faith on both sides. I'd like to see Craig zimmerman take Ilkali up on his offer to start completely afresh (with new assumptions of good faith on both sides), but obviously I'm in no position to force it.

In any event, it appears that this alert has reached the end of whatever usefulness it may have had. Again, I'm sorry that the outcome wasn't more positive, and I wish you both the best of luck. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic, I've invoked "fool me once," as I think I have the right to do out of self-preservation, so you have no worries about my "doing things that deliberately are done to antagonize Ilkali" (in other words, "doing things to facilitate smoother and more efficient organization which Ilkali takes offense at and irrationally assumes are done for the purpose of upsetting him"). We cannot be expected to bend over to facilitate a single user's notion of what brings him "grief," especially when that user has expressed irrational beliefs that I am "out to get him" and that "everything I do is intended to antagonize him." Is it reasonable, or for that matter possible, to expect someone to even attempt to deal with someone like that? I think not. Thank you, Sarcastic, for trying to bring closure here. Craig zimmerman (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts here, Sarcasticidealist. I too hoped for a better result, but I'll settle for this one. Ilkali (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility by User:Starkrm

This user has finally ceased his harassing posts on my talk page (User_talk:Dlabtot#Depleted_Uranium), however, my entreaties to maintain civility on article talk pages seems to have had the opposite effect: diff Dlabtot (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not harrassed this editor on his talk page. I would invite anyone to examine it and give an example or state an opinion. I've not been uncivil with this editor on the DU page either. I was trying to educate and have a discussion about a subject. Apparently this editor would rather try to create a straw man argument than discuss the subject. Starkrm (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that the diff User:Dlabtot provided is a little uncivil, User:Starkrm. Please try to tone down the snark a little. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, I feel that Dlabtot could also stand to tone down his own responses. (Directing to Dlabtot now) I think you've been unnecessarily hostile toward Starkrm at times as well, no doubt as a result of one or more heated exchanges in your discussions. You both should consider cooling down and perhaps taking a break from each other for a while, and come back to the discussion when you're in a calmer state of mind so that you can focus on the content discussion at hand. As long as you're emotionally invested in the topic, you'll both feel that the other is behaving irrationally, harassing you, etc., even when that may not be the case. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been unnecessarily hostile toward Starkrm at times as well Could you please give an example? Thank you. Dlabtot (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring specifically to this diff, in which Starkrm appears to have apologized to you for coming across as harassing, and your response, which came across to me as unnecessarily mean. As I said, I'm pretty sure the whole exchange is a result of both of you getting heated up at each other, and that's why I suggested you take a break from the discussion in general for a while. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just don't see in what way my response was mean or uncivil. It actually seems to me to be more polite than the previous time I asked him to stop, or the time before that or the time before that (when the Request of Checkuser was still open and Starkrm appeared to me to be fishing for evidence that I was a sockpuppet). At the time I made the response to which you are referring, I was just very relieved that it looked like the exchange was finally over. I'm open to suggestions as to how I could have phrased my response more politely. Dlabtot (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting it. The way I saw the exchange was something like this: (Starkrm) "I'm sorry." (Dlabtot) "So you DO see that I'm feeling harassed now. Good!". Basically, it seemed as though your response to his apology was somewhat vindictive - I personally would have replied with a "Thank you" or "I accept your apology", but that's me. In any event, this particular comment aside, I still think it would be useful for you both to disengage for a while. It does appear there's a history of Starkrm following you around, but the little jabs and insults look like they've been flying both ways, so it's difficult to say more about it and remain fair. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC

Well, I agree that if I had said "So you DO see that I'm feeling harassed now. Good!". - that certainly would have been less polite then what I said. But actually, I was hoping for some advice on being more polite, not less. And, as long as we are speaking of fairness. I really would like to see a diff that shows me insulting someone, since you've made the accusation. BTW, other than the exchange on my talk page, it would not be accurate to say that there's a history of Starkrm following me. Dlabtot (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I want to acknowledge that you have given some advice on a more polite response. The only problem with simply saying "Thank you" or "I accept your apology" is that those responses would not actually have been sincere. So while they would have had the form of a polite response, they wouldn't have had the substance. I was indeed relieved that he had acknowledged my repeated requests for him to stop repeating questions that I had already answered, and I wanted to make sure there was absolutely no confusion about the matter. My frustration may have been evident in my comment despite my best efforts to remain civil. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that saying "I'm sorry you feel harrassed." is not actually an apology, since it contains no element of contrition or remorse. "I'm sorry you feel that way" is a far cry from "I'm sorry for what I did". Not that I expected or desired an apology - I just wanted the behavior to stop. At the time, I didn't yet know if it had - but now I do, and I do sincerely thank him for stopping the posts to my talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - I recuse myself from this WQA because apparently I'm misinterpreting the situation. I haven't had time to fully review it, so it'll probably be better for me to let someone else handle it from here. It looked to me like there was a bitter exchange going both directions between you two, but perhaps that's not the case. Sorry for the confusion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Advance Fee Fraud on Nigeria pages

Hi all, I have been debating with another editor WhisperToMe (talk) on the following issues:

Do crime references belong on a city/country page?
Is Advance fee fraud significant enough to mention on the Nigeria page?
Is Advance fee fraud significant enough of an economic issue to discuss it under the Economy section?

We are unable to reach a compromise on these issues and I would appreciate your opinions on how to best resolve this matter. Ajisekanla (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just the two of you in the dispute, try WP:THIRD first. Failing that, head over to WP:RFC. If, in addition to the content dispute, there are serious interpersonal issues developing, then we can talk about them here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a third editor (Wizzy…☎) has stepped in and we appear to be making progress now. Ajisekanla (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857

User:Bobby Awasthi used these words for me on Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857 in this edit

you invisible shallow smelly bundle of sh*t
Thanks for enlightening me (about the existence of morons like you)
PATHETIC MORONS LIKE YOU]
I DONT RECOLLECT ANY MORON EXCEPT YOU...

And when I provide a book as a source, here is what he said:

THIS IS PATENT BULLSHIT BY AN INVISIBLE LIAR

Does Wikipedia has any mechanism to tell their users to behave nicely? Or is it a free-for-all mud-slinging ground? 125.16.17.151 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee, it's nice to see people getting passionate about history.

In answer to your question, this sort of behaviour is blockable if it persists. I'll leave the user a fairly strongly-worded warning on his or her talk page, and we'll see what the reaction is. Hopefully it's an apology and a correction of behaviour. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick

Work in progress; comments welcome

I was having a civil conversation with User:Nick and then he erased our discussion and called me a troll. Isn't this a classic case of WP:ABF? I'd like an apology.--S TX 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the distinction you make between calling a person ignorant and calling their argument ignorant may technically have some validity at an abstract level, in practice, it's not really very polite, and I've found that pejoratives should just be avoided altogether. Most people will feel insulted when you insult their argument. It's much more productive to just state why the argument is in your opinion wrong. Just my two cents on the matter. Dlabtot (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise. I'll try not to ever use the "I" word again. But I really think that Nick overreacted, perhaps he was having a bad day (I've been there before). It just hurts to be called a troll especially when you have the best intentions in mind. A few months ago I called User:Balloonman a troll but I apologized and now he helps me out.--S TX 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arcayne

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

Incivility

Arcayne accused me of having a "merry little band", and having a "frail post-Persian psyche". Arcayne has told me to use my "noggin". [37] He has called me and other editors at the 300 article "Petulant, vengeful children" [38]

Arcayne has accused those that disagree with him of being "a pro-nationalist group of editors".[39]

Alteration of other users edits on talk

[40] User Arcayne has changed the header of a section on his talk page, even though I created it. The original header was "Stalking". Please see [41]. His edit summary was "May [sic] talk page - if I wish to change contentious edits, or headers, I will." This is very misleading since I never accused him of stalking me (that is, until months later when definitive evidence was provided), which the changed header "Who's Stalking Who?" implies.

He removed my answer to his question from his talk page. [42]. And called the answer, which was sourced from ArbCom, vandalism (rvv).

Sniping in talk pages

Arcayne sniped me on Dmcdevit's talk page and recieved this admonishment by Dmcdevit: "Please do not refer to other ediors you disaree with as vandals, as this is uncivil". Furthermore, to his accusations of harassment he responded "The proper response to harassment is not response in kind."[43]

Sarcasm and tone that has been disruptive

"That I find little patience for proven POV editing is not against Wikipedia policy; while I choose to be perhaps a bit insulting of the POV nonsense and not at all sensitive to the frail post-Persian psyche, I would remind you and others that it is not my job at WP to make you feel better. You have mommies for that, and I am not your mommy" [44]

"I am presuming you read it, since you track my edits." [45]

Prejudice comments

"...your problems likely run deeper than nuclear instpections and snagging up Brits", [46] Arcayne later claimed he was talking to the Iranian government, but could not explain why he was talking to the Iranian government on my talk page. You will see further examples of him saying he was referring to other people when he is attacking me.

Accusation of Stalking

Arcayne has accused me of stalking on multiple occasions. Please see [47]. He also accused me of stalking The Behnam and harassing him on Dmcdevit's talk page. I did not stalk in either cases.

Arcayne stalking me

Arcayne recently followed me to the Persian Gulf article and tried to argue with me there. He had never edited that page. This happened during a dispute on the 300 film article. Please see [48]. This is a prime example of wikistalking. I decided not accuse him of it until there was definitive evidence (I did not want to violate AGF).--Agha Nader (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps it would be important to point out that all of these instances (but the last, referring to the comments in Talk:Persian Gulf) are more than six months old. It's my understanding that the source of his Wikiquette alert is from a sub-page of his user account called RFC/User:Arcayne, created back in April of this year. Talk about holding a grudge. I believe he was inspired to submit this here because he would have found some difficulty with finding someone who would agree that a six-month-old RfC was worthy of consideration. And even 6 months ago, Nader's own conduct (and misinterpretation of events and statements taken out of context) would have sunk him in any RfC proceeding.

It also bears mentioning that Nader is currently arguing in the 300 article (which became FA after all the partisan editing went away) that we should be using the word 'Iranians' to replace 'ancient Persians'. And has been scolded by other, established editors for edit-warring and initially refusing to discuss a contentious edit. When he finally made his way to Discussion, he began making fairly impolite comments, which have become increasingly uncivil.

As far as the contributions to Persian Gulf, there have been three I've made in over 2 years. the first was to tell folks to essentially calm down, and the second was to counsel Nader for accusing someone of sockpuppetry (where RFCU and SPP are immediately available and can resolve the situation quickly and without the perception of personal attacks). The third time was to point out that Nader needed to read the earlier post, as he accused me of wiki-stalking, which is odd, considering that he then followed me to another user's page and commented there.

It is unfortunate that Agha Nader seems to consider those who disagree with his point of view to be targets for incivility and unwarranted accusations, and not just in one article, but across the spectrum of his edits. I say unfortunate because, when he isn't pushing a nationalist point of view, he can perform very good edits. Where his nationalism comes into play, he becomes somewhat narrow-visioned (which is fair to say of anyone, I guess). I do wish he would learn to recognize when his point of view is compromised and withdraw accordingly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

– This is a content dispute, and has been referred to the RfC process. --Cheeser1 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here and here. The question is: Should whole sections be erased because a user just likes it so, or if other users object other methods such as tagging the disputed section be employed? Thank you. Dr.K. 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr. K. What you have here is a content dispute. To file a request for comment properly, you can follow the instructions here. Regards. --Cheeser1 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cheeser1, thank you very much. I was never good in procedural matters but thanks to great people like you I can finally find my destination. Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. 02:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:83.67.73.117

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

– Referred to the ANI. --Cheeser1 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

83.67.73.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fairly new editor that fits the description of a WP:SPA, who has been blocked once for inserting misinformation. Editor is now contributing solely to Talk:Bosniaks‎, where his comments are consistently in violation of WP:TALK, and often WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE as well. Editor has been warned multiple times but persists. --Ronz 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor not editing in bad faith really doesn't have alot of hope on this board. The best we can do is ask him/her to be polite and to follow the rules. With multiple prior warnings and no sign of wanting to contribute appropriately to the talk page in question (or to contribute anywhere else at all), this is much more suited for the an administrators' noticeboard. --Cheeser1 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but wanted to get another opinion first. Thanks for the help! --Ronz 17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that any opposing argument of the "Serb and Russian view of the world" isn't automatically inappropriate. Although I do appologise if I've appeared very strong with my oppinions. 83.67.73.117 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you all? What is going on, why did you tell me to go here. Do I know you? 70.234.133.124 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the photograph of the Members of the First Majlis of Iran

Just wish to report the following odd incidence which in my opinion points to a dishonest appropriation of my earlier work by User:Mrostam (please see below for this user's page address on Farsi Wikipedia — I have no dealings with Farsi Wikipedia). By chance I discovered that the photograph that was first uploaded by me into Wikipedia, on March 18, 2007, has been overwritten, without any trace of this action having been left in the history file of this photograph, by the last-mentioned user on August 25, 2007. Please compare the following two histories of Hasan Taqizadeh (expanded from one sentence to its present form by me): http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hasan_Taqizadeh&oldid=116018662 and http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hasan_Taqizadeh&oldid=116020471'. In the former page there is no photograph of the Members of the First Majlis to be seen and in the latter there is this photograph to be seen. This makes evident that the photograph at issue could not have been uploaded as late as August 25, 2007. How is such an incidence possible? Aside from the dishonesty involved here, how is it possible that someone (whether this person be Mrostam or anyone else for that matter) could have appropriated the photograph at issue without leaving any trace in the history file of this photograph? In this connection, it is relevant that I point out that the file which apparently has been "uploaded" by User:Mrostam, has exactly the name that I had given to my file, namely First_Majlis_MPs.jpg; interestingly, even the underscores in this name, between "First", "Majlis" and "MPs", coincide with those in my original file name. To correct for this injustice, I have now uploaded my original photograph again and named it First_Majlis_MPs_1.jpg. I have subsequently changed the name First_Majlis_MPs.jpg into First_Majlis_MPs_1.jpg in all Wikipedia entries that cite this photograph. I hope that in due course my original file (carrying its creation date) will be restored.

I should like hereby to request that appropriate action be taken against User:Mristam who has so blatantly attempted to take credit for my earlier work. In this connection, please also consult: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1:First_Majlis_MPs.jpg. You will notice that the copy-right statement of this photograph on Farsi Wikipedia refers to English Wikipedia! User:Mrostam is registered with Farsi Wikipedia and his Farsi Wikipedia page address is: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Mrostam. The question arises as to how a person who has not made a single contribution to English Wikipedia could have uploaded a photograph to this Wikipedia for the sole purpose of subsequently citing it on Farsi Wikipedai (please note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:First_Majlis_MPs.jpg gives "Mrostam" as the User who must have uploaded the photograph at issue on August 25, 2007).

For completeness, please also consider: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D9%82%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87 and note that the photograph on this page is also taken from Hasan Taqizadeh, which was again uploaded by me. I hope that you will demand from Mrostam that he discontinue with his dishonest practices on Wikipedia. With thanks in advance, --BF 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:TenPoundHammer

Resolved

– The complaining user has received an apology and a thorough and sensible explanation for what is at worst a marginally uncivil edit summary. --Cheeser1 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this user is uncivil and rude as demonstrated in the following comment: (cur) (last) 06:27, 2 December 2007 TenPoundHammer (Talk | contribs) m (8,217 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by WBoutros; What part of "MUST BE SOURCED" do you not understand?. using TW) (undo)

There are far more civil ways to communicate, and editors who act like children should be banned. WB 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide us with the diff of this edit so we can properly contextualize it. It appears that he is quoting an already-existing reliable sourcing notice. --Cheeser1 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's this diff from 03:27, 2 December 2007, and in this case, I am inclined to agree with TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), given that all of the other entries in the article, List of musical works in unusual time signatures, are well cited. It is expected that in this case, per WP:CITE, should be cited as well. WBoutros (talk · contribs), please provide reliable citations on all future edits wherever possible. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also the same notice essentially given by TPH on WB's talkpage: diff. It would be great to heed the advice. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to the user above; it was only one comment and I definitely don't think I should be banned for it. The user in question repeatedly added the same unsourced info, and repeatedly asked that it not be removed -- despite the big warning on that page that states that all info must be sourced -- and I guess I snapped a little. Again, my apologies to User:WBoutros. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Lima

Work in Progress - comments welcome

Here is Lima altering two cited sentences and leaving the citations in place. [49] He's implying that the RS says what it didn't say. He came in about an hour after I had added the citations and altered them. This is just the last, clearest example of his campaign of opposition against me. He apparently defends a pro-Catholic POV. Meanwhile, I'm consulting reliable sources on religious topics (purgatory, baptism, early Christianity, etc.). I've got a POV (who doesn't?), but I'm happy to use RSs and simply want Lima to do the same. I want to use several RSs to fashion a standard definition of purgatory; Lima wants to quote the catechism. I can sing a long song of grievances, but let's start with him altering cited information. This has got to be a faux pas, and I hope someone can tell him so, please. Leadwind 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Leadwind (talk · contribs) on this, given that Lima (talk · contribs) is misinterpreting the citations for a non-balanced viewpoint. Other editors seem to agree with this stance as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what I did wrong, I apologize. When I edited that text, it seemed to me that the statements (which are not between inverted commas) attributed to the source could not have been exact. Does the source say simply: "Jesus did not baptize"? Surely the author of the source knew of John 4:1–2, which says it was reported that Jesus baptized (not personally, but his disciples did). In any case I did not change what was attributed to the source, which is what Leadwind accuses me of: I, in a way that I recognize was wrong, gave an interpretation of the apparent contradiction between the 20th-century source and the 1st-century source to which I drew attention. I thought that infelicities in what I wrote would be ironed out by other editors. With regard to the second change from "doctrine about baptism" to "forms of baptism", I thought this was necessary, because the examples that followed were, I thought, only about the manner in which baptism was administered (the text itself uses the word "form"), unrelated to doctrine (what baptism is, what it does). Does the source really speak of the variable forms of early Christian baptism as variable doctrine? These two changes, done perhaps rather too hurriedly, followed the other change that I made and that I thought was made necessary by the Leadwind's insertion of the word "immerse" as if it were the only meaning of the word "βαπτίζω": the article itself states that the meaning of this word was broader, as Leadwind too indicated when he reported his source as saying that the usual method of baptism was by pouring water over the upper part of the body of someone standing in water. This is not baptism by immersion as usually understood. Now that I have explained myself, I will add that I hope the Wikipedia community will reprimand me for what I did. Certain people, who have now got together here and here, have been making me spend too much time on Wikipedia, and I would love a pretext to retire. Lima 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anyone who views the corresponding Talk page can see that I have indeed been pressing Eschoir to discuss our differences of opinion. Lima 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:ADouBTor

This user has been engaged in a dispute over the history of China template. He seems to believe that showing the Republic of China as continuing from 1912-the present to be POV pushing, and that separating the People's Republic of China from it with a line somehow suggests that the PRC is subordinate to the ROC. He first accused me of inadvertent vandalism [50]. I then contacted him on his talk page [51]. Subsequently, he (properly IMO) moved the discussion to the template talk page. He has since accused another editor of adding incorrect information [52]. Discussion there has been met with insults [53] [54]. There also seems to be a case of not getting the point regarding the discussion that other users have been trying to have as well as ownership of articles.Ngchen 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ronz

This user has repeatedly battled to retrieve sections which are already covered in Previous Archives and in this way is repeating the same sections in each Archive which to me qualifies as spam, as people can list archives easily and chose what topic they want to read. So I am reporting vandalism & spam. Further - this user is supporting dismissal and 'Peakocking' of famous anthropologist to satisfy one-sided non-neutral perspective. I doubt this user is interested in dialogue as he/she has resorted to vandalism more often then discussion. This user's behaviour is in evidence particularly in: Talk:Bosniaks. NeutralBosnian 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:NeutralBosnian, WP:Third opinion#Active disagreements, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:NeutralBosnian reported by User:Ronz (Result: ) 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Further - The content which Ronz is war'ing over contains swear words by user Frvernchanezzz in Talk:Bosniaks#Ethnic make up to dismiss Genetic evidence and further the Slavophile agenda by trying to therefore airbrush a people and their Government/Uni based references which claim that Bosniaks have Illyrian/Goth/Celt Genetic heritage almost exclusively... NeutralBosnian 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss the situation. I don't believe I've vandalized anything in any way, let alone spammed. I archived old discussions and some inappropriate discussions. When NeutralBosnian restored some of them, I sought third-party opinion. As for "dismissal", I simply asked for verification, which is what another editor had already requested in his edit summary, in order to try to make some progress with a dispute. When NeutralBosnian removed my, and others' comments from the talk page, I restored them as legitimate discussions. If NeutralBosnian has a problem with Frvernchanezzz, he should discuss the issue with him. --Ronz 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Ronz is unable to remain Civil, and is promoting a narrow one-sided propaganda as well as foul and unprofessional language via repeated undo's.83.67.3.166 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 775: / Line 775: @@
 Further - The content which Ronz is war'ing over contains swear words by user [[User:Frvernchanezzz|Frvernchanezzz]] in [[Talk:Bosniaks#Ethnic%20make%20up]] to dismiss Genetic evidence and further the [[Slavophile]] agenda by trying to therefore airbrush a people and their Government/Uni based references which claim that Bosniaks have Illyrian/Goth/Celt Genetic heritage almost exclusively... [[User:NeutralBosnian|NeutralBosnian]] 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 :I'm happy to discuss the situation.  I don't believe I've vandalized anything in any way, let alone spammed.  I archived old discussions and some inappropriate discussions.  When NeutralBosnian restored some of them, I sought third-party opinion.  As for "dismissal", I simply asked for verification, which is what another editor had already requested in his edit summary, in order to try to make some progress with a dispute. When NeutralBosnian removed my, and others' comments from the talk page, I restored them as legitimate discussions. If NeutralBosnian has a problem with Frvernchanezzz, he should discuss the issue with him. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
+It seems to me that Ronz is unable to remain Civil, and is promoting a narrow one-sided propaganda as well as foul and unprofessional language via repeated undo's.[[User:83.67.3.166|83.67.3.166]] 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards