Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) 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

Editor at 98.207.210.210 - abusive

Stale

 – 09:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am quite confident this editor means well, and I accept that I may be completely wrong in my edits. Even if so, however this abuse and this abuse in the edit summaries really must end. Even if consensus goes against me, I don't deserve to be treated this way.- sinneed (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've left him a template. I have no idea what the right text or sources for the article might be, but his language is definitely immoderate.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also commented on Talk:Labh Singh. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed this discussion a minute ago only. Kindly grant some time so that I could explain ruthless vandalism of wikipedia article by User:Sinneed. I promise that I will present strong proofs. I was hoping that User:Sinneed will be extremely sad after knowing that his destruction of wiki articles has been caught and he will regrett it, but I did not know that he won't care at all AND he will come up with new excuses to oppose an editor who has opposed his destruction of wiki articles.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• New posts by 98.207.210.210 here and here.- sinneed (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) And continuing in that vein.- sinneed (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Through edit 1 and edit 2 etc, I have simply notified all respected wikipedia editors (except User:Sinneed, who is already over here]], who have recently contributed to the article in question, i.e. Labh Singh. The respected editors have experienced User:Sinneed's huge vandalism, wp:pov violations in the same article, one of these respected wiki ediotors have even issed a formal warning to User:Sinneed and made a formal complaint against his behavior/vandalism at an administrative's talk page. It appears that User:Sinneed want an ASAP decision so that his vandalism and violations of wikipedia policies do not get exposed. It is 1:58am PST at my end, Kindly wait for me and all other (involved) respected wiki editors to join this discussion. --98.207.210.210 (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• My hope here is that established editors in the community will provide you (and I) with guidance.
  There is nothing to "wait" for. This is not a place where a decision will be made to take some action. This page is simply a place to go to find Wikipedia editors who are interested in helping resolve problems of Wikipedia etiquette.
  Had I been "rushing", I would have taken this article to ANI or the Copyright page immediately, in June, instead of painstakingly restoring edits mass-reverted as "vandalism" (such foul deeds as removing double periods, adding sources, removing copyright violations), explaining why each was appropriate. There is no rush.
  I would like to encourage you to create, log into, and use a single account, so that you can begin to build a reputation as a Wikipedia editor.- sinneed (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• User:Sinneed, kindly avoid diverting wiki administrators mind from the real issue of your vandalism. It appears that you are trying to club multiple editors (may be you suspect that they all can join this discussion to expose your misdeeds) into 'one' so that you could kill their credibility in advance. Kindly be patient, it is weekend, usually several editors try enjoying their weekends with their families, I am sure that (considering your huge vandalism) they will definitely join this discussion by this monday. Thanks a lot.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an edit war. Needs an admin eye I think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thus, when an anon at 98.207.210.210 objected so violently, I opened an RFC at the article.
• This article about a long-dead terrorist/freedom-fighter hero (his critics say organized crime lord pretending to be a terrorist - and I am NOT going to try to put that in the article, the press saying it *HATED* him) is unlikely to generate much interest, and is likely (certain) to generate much hate for anyone unwilling to have the article be an homage to him.
• Source-spam of copies of Wikipedia, fringe sites, books of database dumps of public domain quotations (including Wikipedia), sources that are related, but about persons of similar names, or that say things similar to but not supporting the content. Refusal of editors adding citations to provide quotations when requested. Copyright violations of one source, cited to another. Refusal of editors to use a single account, refusal of editors to use a named account. All make it very very difficult to tell if the dead man's fans are just screaming or actually have something to say that can reliably be considered.- sinneed (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Added "/freedom-fighter" - sinneed (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Respected User: Sinneed was previously warned by an editor over here and a formal complaint was also filed against his vandalism at an Admin’s talk page
• Respected User:Sinneed vandalized article Labh Singh, kept on destroying hard work of other respected Wikipedia editors until article Labh Singh was locked by an administrator. Revision history of Labh Singh shows User:Sinneed had edited this article continuously for 17 times until it was noticed by an admin who decided to lock it immediately. He was the only editor who was continuously deleting the legitimate information/references without any discussion.
• Proofs of respected User:Sinneed's edits/Lies and vandalism -

• In vandalism 1, User:Sinneed deleted two very important references and the related text without any discussion while mis-leading Wikipedia community with his lies. In an effort to delete the sentences which he might not have liked wp:pov, he lied in his edit summary Source is already a named source in the article, and it doesn't mention the bank robbery. Warning...if I can figure out which of the IP herd made that change easily" . Kindly note that the third paragraph in the 1st deleted reference clearly says "Police said Sukhdev Singh, himself a former police constable, was responsible for a string of murders and a Major Bank Robbery and the2nd deleted reference clearly says Labh Singh masterminded a bank robbery of Rs. 6 crore from a branch of Punjab National Bank in Ludhiana. This is reputed to be the largest ever bank robbery.
• In edit 2, User: Sinneed added useless "CN" (along with a threatening edit summary Brief CN for the association with Bhindranwale. I'll drop it today without a source" for Labh Singh's association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale), even though the reference was already there at the end of the sentence. Reference 1 clearly states "early 80s, he came under the influence of Bhindranwale and resigned from the police force, reference 2 clearly notedLabh Singh, a close confederate of (Sant) Bhindranwale's", and in the same reference, Labh Singh said I can't show my back to Sant Ji, I will fight with him and face martyrdom in this place.
• vandalism 2 User:Sinneed simply changed the section "Association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale" to "Joining Sikh militants" to further his POV, eventhough above mentioned references clearly prove subject's association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.
• In vandalism 3 User: Sinneed again mislead (lied to) Wikipedia community through his edit summary "source is about that person but doesn't tie to the murder of the publisher" even though the the deleted reference clearly mentioned "In Punjab his name figured in the 38 cases of violence taking place between 1983 and 86, including the one in which the editor of the Hind Samachar group of newspaper Ramesh Chander was gunned down in Jalandhar".

• Isn’t Sinneed harassing other respected Wikipedia editors (who might have done hours and hours of research work to find and add these valuable references) by deleting their hard work/valuable references? How can we guide respected User:Sinneed to READ the references before he destroy/vandalize wikipedia articles ?
• Considering all these documented proofs of respected User:Sinneed’s lies/misleading/in-accurate edit summaries and destruction of Wikipedia articles, if (in an effort to save an article) I have objected to his lies/mis-leading statements and destruction of Wikipedia articles then what is my fault ? I was honest, my intention was not bad, I wanted to save wikipedia article from his ruthless vandalism only...--98.207.210.210 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 98.207.210.210, eventhough User:Sinneed has made some positive and some negative edits, but his vandalism in article Labh Singh was huge. --209.183.55.46 (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

98.207 - you need to stop calling this vandalism. Vandalism is replacing the text with "I love Lucy". This is a content dispute. He may be POV pushing, but you risk being blocked for your repeated use of abusive language, repeatedly calling him a liar and a vandal etc. Instead of continuing to post screaming abuse at him, please pursue one of the avenues of content dispute resolution. If you can get a consensus for the article content, then you have a valid complaint to the administrators if someone goes against it without discussion (although even then it does not entitle you to put the things you have done in edit summaries). Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, I believe there is a difference between 'content dispute' and 'Lies based destruction of an article'. I had myself praised User:Sinneed's work in the past and I would still say that he had done a good 'NEUTRAL' work to improve articles in the past. Similarly 98.207.210.210's work is also commendable.

It was very unfortunate that User:Sinneed ended up deleting paragraphs/text/multiple references while liying in his edit summaries that 'said contents do not exist in the provided references'. I was so sad from User:Sinneed's wikipedia policy violations and his indirect 'refusal to read references' that I had to SADLY warn him. I think respected admins over here should advice User:Sinneed to read the references before he destroy them. It is extremely hard to read him references like this and this

I believe 98.207.210.210's edit summaries only showed his poor helplessness when User:Sinneed kept destroying the article only because he 'COULD NOT' read the related references. Anyways! I assume that this discussion should be helpful to both of the parties. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

Stale

 – 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The user has a lengthy quotation from a copyrighted work in his userspace [1], without even an attempt to provide a fair use justification. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, placing the standard/suggested notice on the user's main talk page[2]. Merridew responded with a snarky, derisive comment suggesting it was inappropriate to "template" him because he was a "regular" and characterizing me as "a dick." [3], refusing to provide any justification for his inserting copyrighted material into userspace. I suspect I'm being baited, and I find this level of gratuitous incivility inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Templating the regulars gets people annoyed, it would have been nicer to use your own words. Citing m:Don't be a dick doesn't mean you were called a dick. Ease up man. Seems more like you went on the attack. - Josette (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a bit of sense to me. The speedy deletion policy/guidelines suggest using that template. They say nothing about substituting your own language for it. Frankly, I think applying m:Don't be a dick to a user is far more "annoying," if not actively offensive. The "don't template the regulars" essay is just that, an essay (and a fairly obscure one, which isn't even referenced on WP:TEMPLATES), and its talk page indicates it's far from universally accepted. I don't see where I went on any "attack". User Merridew violated WP:FU, indisputably and without any attempt to justify his action. When I used the policy-recommended process to address the matter, he responded derisively and uncivilly. I hardly think my discussing this amounts to an "attack." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first I'm going to post what I posed on Merridew's page:

That's not templating, it's tagging for copyvio, there's a difference. Besides, you'll need to read Do template the regulars because occasionally we all forget that the policies we're safeguarding apply to us too

That said, Hullaballoo, when the page is not in article space, you are farrrrrr better off asking the user about it first, rather than flat out tagging it. Referring someone to WP:DICK is not calling you a dick, it's warning that you may be approaching dickishness. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

All debate aside regarding copyright, templating, etc. ... I don't see how using that tag is ANYTHING BUT a personal attack. It is not productive. You can parse the wording any way you wish of course ... but I don't think it would be a fair, objective assessment. I see no constructive use for that tag/link, beyond antagonizing and insulting. --Douggmc (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which tag are you talking about? The CSD for copyvio? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, read his summary. Hullaballoo, many people have quotes on their user and talk pages. Jack is a reasonable guy, if you had chosen to discuss first, instead of slapping those confrontational tags on his page, which can be construed as an attack, I am confident you would have gotten a much nicer response. It is not too late to go back and change your approach. - Josette (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Bwilkins ... I'm talking about the WP:DICK or m:Don't be a dick tags. --Douggmc (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Josette, with all due respect, I noticed that on both your and Jack's user talk pages that you have a relationship. While I'm not saying you are or can't be impartial here, or that having a relationship with someone even precludes impartiality necessarily ... I would think it appropriate to recuse yourself from this discussion. Independence (as they say in the accounting/auditing industry) is as much perception as reality. --Douggmc (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I know he is a reasonable guy. You may find DefendEachOther interesting reading. - Josette (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Douggmc, after 10,000,000 hours of jurisprudence, there are few people who will agree with your interpretation of the use of WP:DICK or the m:Don't be a dick links to essays (not tags). Indeed, I have even used them right here in this forum to warn people about the direction they're heading. If someone reads it, and feels that it applies to them and therefore get upset ... well, then that's de facto proof that they were being one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the "10,000,000 hours of jurisprudence" part? Nonetheless, I'll leave one last comment on this thread then ... because maybe I am wrong in my thoughts on the use of that term/phrase. Personally, if those types of phrases are thrown around regarding a person or their actions, then I don't want to be a part of this community. I'll let other users/editors take it from here on this subject. I don't think the use is justified by the subject of this WQA or anybody. Good luck.--Douggmc (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's over a million official editors ... and more than a million posts on the Administrator's Noticeboards. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Douggmc, I'm a little concerned ... based on your perception of what is and what is not incivility. I hate to ask, but is English your first language? Your WQA entry on Niteshift above, and your confusion over pointing out an essay and actually calling someone a "dick" seems to show that you're missing some of the nuances of written English. Again, not being bitey here, merely trying to help you fit in here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... English is my native and first language. I even have a couple years of college level Russian language education (so I understand languages in general). I think I see and understand nuance pretty well, but sometimes nuance doesn't matter. FWIW ... I don't see any difference, in terms of offensiveness and incivility, between calling someone a "dick" and telling someone to stop acting like a "dick". Both are offensive slang terminology. I think the WP:NOTCENSORED applies to article content, not in interpersonal dealings with peers. I still stand by my comment on this subject wholeheartedly.--Douggmc (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you just need to understand "you're a dick", and a warning that "you're getting close to acting like a WP:DICK" are quite different. "You might want to read WP:DICK is clearly the latter, and not the former, and has been held by ArbComm as such. Have a read through the Admin's Noticeboard for Incidents every so often ... it will be quite illuminating! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, without passion and irritation here ... please ... I understand the nuance of how "dick" is and can being used. If we are going to parse the uses in such a manner, then so be it. It is clear to me that it was and is being used in a manner to "slam" a person one is debating. I could conceivably see its use as not offensive if it is used in a clearly humorous/joking manner (i.e., context counts). I find it offensive. I'm not going to use it and I hope others won't either. I can find other ways to make my point. --Douggmc (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It always fascinated me when someone can say with a straight face that telling someone "m:don't be a dick" isn't insulting because of the little "m" in front. I can't speak for people who eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia, but normal humans don't think that way. It may not be against any guideline or policy to say it, ArbCom may have even blessed it (where, by the way, did that happen? I'd like to read it). But if you're actually trying to solve an actual problem with an actual human, it's a stupid thing to say. Sorry, I mean it's a m:stupid thing to say (that was close, I was almost rude!). If more people made more of an effort to avoid saying stupid things - not because they violate policy, but because it's not how grownups talk to one another, and it's unlikely to serve any useful purpose - more productive stuff would get done.

As far as the underlying WQA issue, saying something insulting isn't the same as making a Wikipedia Personal Attack^(TM), and not every single slight to one's character needs to be brought to the community for discussion. HW and JM should both grow slightly thicker skins and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's simple. WP:DTTR, one. Two, flagging a copyvio on a user's personal page is asinine and absurd. Three, that kind of passive aggressive behaviour is precisely why we have WP:DICK. If some editor's wish to refrain from using it, fine. But that's just like your personal opinion, man, so lighten (/grow) up. Eusebeus (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's simple. Don't call people a "dick". It is common courtesy ... regardless of the forum or past standards. I'll even go so far as don't tell your peers to "grow up" either (and it is my personal opinion ... I'm just shocked others are seem to be so cavalier and "matter of fact" regarding the topic). --Douggmc (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh .. and the saying is: "Yeah well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man" ala The Big Lebowski[4]. Great movie ... I appreciate the humor ... if that was what you intended ... El Duderino. Now excuse me for the evening while I kick back with a nice refreshing White Russian. --Douggmc (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about, a copyvio is a copyvio, its irrelevant if its in a userspace or the mainspace, it should be speedied asap. Jack_Merridew is clearly in the wrong here for hosting the copyvio material, and Hullaballoo is merely following Wikipedia guidelines. Jeni ^(talk) 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He has a quote from a large body of work on his talk page - it's there to illustrate a point - this is allowed under Wikipedia:Non-free content. - Josette (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not allowed on his talk page/in his userspace. From Wikipedia:Non-free content, Policy#9: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace. . . ." If this were a non-free image rather than text, my impression is that practice would call for me to summarily remove it. The parallel action here would have been for me to blank the page in question, which I think is a more provocative action than a deletion proposal. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In my recent experience Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a stereotypical wikipedia "powerbroker" that uses wikipedia to pick fights with people, but only when he thinks he can win: he wears a very thin mask. Users like this keep me from registering on the site and contributing my knowledge in the areas of Science and Engineering. His history is filled with edit wars on IP users, presumably because he sees them as easy targets. For instance, he followed me around wikipedia reverting unrelated edits due to his disagreeing with me on AfD. He's already been to Arbitration for this behavior, and I see it happening again in the future because hes going to keep mistakenly powerbrokering the wrong people because he has a malignant attitude. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

much hullaballoo about nothing. m:dick is a perennial discussion and is well understood. the issue of the quote is not pertinent to this page and has been addressed at User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses#non-free use rationale. hullaballoo had a difference of opinion with me a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roca Skolia and showed up last night to rather pointedly "stick a pin" in me. teh unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio was kept due to the usual keeps. Jack Merridew 08:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job of assuming good faith, Jack. There's a stronger argument to be made that you're just piqued because I !voted against you in a deletion discussion and your position was rejected by the community. Now rather than continuing your incivility, why don't explain why you posted extensive non-free content in userspace, when the applicable policy clearly states such content can only be posted in article space? You conspicuously avoided addressing this point in your invalid rationale.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what; I'll assume good faith that you didn't really mean to delete assorted people's posts in making your post here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than making low-rent insinuations about obvious technical glitches, you might demonstrate your good faith by actually responding to the main issue: why do you continue to indefinitely keep non-free content in your userspace when the applicable policy says quite clearly that it may be used only in article space? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy at Wikipedia is, for the most part, descriptive (of what we actually do) rather than prescriptive (in mandating what we must do from on high). Free content/fair use, although affected by the WMF board mandate, is no exception to this. We are talking, please remember, about a quote here, not an image. Accepted community practice for non free images is that they are swiftly removed if found anywhere other than article space. However, the same is not the case for quotes. I believe that if you do a reasonable investigation, you are going to find thousands of quotes. I am very cognizant that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't, by itself, a valid reason for not removing something, but I think asking for this quote's removal, as you have done, goes against accepted community practice. Perhaps you need to work to get policy changed by starting a broader discussion, specific to quotes, first... meanwhile you should drop this, because it appears to me that you are taking this personally (as are some other participants, or so it appears). I'll also add that your manner of addressing this by first using a template to notify someone rather than starting a calm and reasoned discussion with them, and of continuing the discussion by raising a wikiquette alert instead of just talking to them, left a lot to be desired, collegiality wise. Presumably as an experienced user, here since 2006, you know better. I think also, the case of Betacommand, who was arguably enforcing policy the whole time, is instructive. The community will not tolerate an abrasive approach when a softer touch is more effective. Drop this, and try a softer touch going forward. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I consense with Lar's well-balanced analysis. Milo 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are discussing Hullabaloo's actions outside of the context of the reason this WPA was submitted. There is clearly a valid debate about whether the steps/actions Hullabaloo took were procedurally correct and or what constitutes fair use in talk space, etc. But regardless of those actions, was a response from Jack Merridew characterizing Hullabaloo as a "dick" uncivil and a personal attack. That is what this WPA is about and what we should be debating in my opinion. My opinion is also clearly stated above, so I won't bother with stating it again. Just expressing my views on the need to focus the discussion on where it should be. --Douggmc (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lars ... one clarification I'd respectfully request input from you on regarding your statement: "The community will not tolerate an abrasive approach when a softer touch is more effective". Is this directed at one of these two individuals? May I ask what you consider abrasive ... a person applying the rules (or at least a reasonable understanding of them) in an edit OR someone responding to that edit and calling that person a "dick"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggmc (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is "Lar" not "Lars", as more than one of me I think would be rather a lot to put up with. :) I consider the initial action by HW to be quite abrasive, as I think I made clear. Jack's response, when provoked, could have been less abrasive as well. So it's directed at both individuals (and further, at everyone, wiki wide... a soft touch is always a good way to start things out, and placing, or referring to, templates is not generally considered a soft touch) ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to respectfully disagree. While the original edit may have seem to have been robotic in nature and maybe not sensitive to Wikipedia "norms"(and even that is debatable, looks just like following procedures to me ... but I'm certainly not an expert on that), it nowhere near compares to being characterized as a "dick" in response. There are many different ways one could have responded that would have been proportional. But ... characterizing your peer as a "dick"? --Douggmc (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. So I think we have some folk here who think the initial placement of the template, without further discussion or any attempt to take context into account, was impolite, and some who do not. Further, we have some folk here who think Jack's response to the provocation was impolite, and some who do not. Is that a fair summation? That is, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus about who was more polite or impolite? ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I guess I would partially retract my suggestion regarding not discussing the actions of Hullabaloo leading up to the "dick" comment. You are entirely correct ... context counts ... and you have to look at the picture as a whole. I would just hope we can be mindful of the real subject of the WPA (it seemed that this discussion was focusing or shooting off on tangent not entirely related). I think your summation is pretty accurate. I would add one thing personally though: consider proportionality. And consider perceived rudeness vs. outright rudeness. --Douggmc (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the substantive matter

Irrespective of the question of whether invocation of m:Don't be a dick in characterizing the actions of a particular user is considered to be uncivil, it's clear that Jack Merridew's usage of non-free content is unacceptable per WP:NFCC#9. Therefore, I have requested the community's attention to this issue in a more appropriate forum. Erik9 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is debatable that it's unacceptable. However starting a broader discussion seems a good idea. However I don't think MfD is the right forum... something more like an RfC on policy in this area seems better suited. Please make sure to include a representative sampling of other quotes for reference. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Two important quoted fair use factors to consider are the percentage of the whole work that was quoted, and the monetary market for the original work. For examples, how likely is it that a reader would have purchased the whole work simply to read the quote, and could they have easily read the quote at Amazon or Google books? Milo 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. However, in order to justify the use of non-free content on Wikipedia, we require that both of the following be established:

1. The inclusion of non-free content constitutes fair use as a matter of United States' law.

2. The usage is consistent with our non-free content policy, as construed by the community.

(2) is clearly not shown with regard to the non-free content at issue here. Lar has produced, in the MFD discussion, some examples of single-sentence, de minimis quotations being acceptable in non-encyclopedic userspace material despite contravention of the letter of WP:NFCC#9, but nothing to suggest that the community is willing to extend this tolerance to Jack Merridew's extensive, multi-paragraph quotation of copyrighted non-free material. Erik9 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're conceding, then, that it's not the quote itself you have issue with, (given the prevalence and acceptance of quotes on user pages), it's the size of it? That certainly will make things simpler. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The matter is treated holistically: is Jack Merridew's extensive, multi-paragraph quotation of copyrighted non-free material in userspace acceptable? (I did note the length of the quotation in the MFD nomination) Even if you did establish that single-sentence violations of WP:NFCC#9 have been generally accepted by the community -- though I currently take no position on whether your examples are sufficient in quantity for this purpose -- you haven't, in any case, shown that the community is willing to accept violations of WP:NFCC#9 on an a multi-paragraph basis. Erik9 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the intro to Wikipedia:NFCC#Policy is that WP:NFCC#9 does not cover non-free text quotations. Milo 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If WP:NFCC#9 is inapplicable to text, then the relevant portion of the policy would be "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author.", the letter of which implicitly proscribes non-free text outside of "articles". The relevant question is still to what extent the community is willing to accept violations of the letter of the policy, for the determination of which the extent of material quoted is undoubtedly relevant. Erik9 (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to debate the question of whether the specific quotation is allowable or not in more than one place. Can I suggest we move further debate of that to the MfD and confine discussion here to whether the actions of various users in this matter were or were not polite? ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the latter question, a single invocation of m:Don't be a dick in reference to a particular user is not administratively actionable, or even suitable for reporting here^[1]; I imply no conclusion as to the acceptability of analogies between editors and essays whose names incorporate slang terminology for human genitalia on a more regular basis^[2]. Erik9 (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC) superscript notation inserted by Ben Aveling

Could you restate that in English? I got lost in the legalese, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that [1]&[2] may be the following quotes from m:Dick, translated into legalise:

1. nobody on WP is empowered to ban or block somebody for being a dick
2. Telling someone “Don't be a dick” is usually a dick-move

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

see also: User:Moby Dick and recursion ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recurring PA

Stale

 – 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I left this request on the talk page of User:Will Beback, and he has continued the behavior (diff.) A word from an uninvolved party would be helpful. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not usefully a WQA issue. Editing behavior concerning LaRouche-related articles is under the jurisdiction of Arbcom [5]. I suggest taking this to Arbitration Enforcement. Milo 01:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the ArbCom decisions, and they are not as broad as you suggest. They basically boil down to 3 points: no use of Wikipedia to promote LaRouche, no use of LaRouche sources for articles outside the "LaRouche series," and an affirmation that BLP applies to LaRouche. Several individual editors are warned by the Arbs against incivility, but the ArbCom does not assume any special role in the more general matter of civility or personal attacks on "LaRouche" talk pages. That is the proper sphere of this board. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 63 hits on a search for "LaRouche" at ANI. I've read enough of them for years now to believe that WQA volunteers efforts are not useful to the project or themselves in that ongoing serial drama. So, I'll apply the "not a suicide pact" consensus to the proper sphere of this board. Editors here can and will do as they please, but I strongly recommend that they avoid any non-trivial discussion involving LaRouche. Milo 06:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your "not a suicide pact" link is broken. Could you clarify what you mean? --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's correctly a search link, but I've narrowed the previous 200-some general hits to currently 31 more-specific hits in Wikipedia talk space. If you want generalized consensus consensually clarified, please post at the Village pump. Milo 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens accusations and threats

Stale

 – 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens (talk · contribs) has accused me of Wikilawyering and Disruptive Editing, see diff. I suggested using Dispute Resolution if he/she genuinely thought I was Wikilawyering. After I stated that I would take the page in question off my watchlist as I found his/her hectoring too much to deal with, Jclemens stated that Dispute Resolution was not needed as if I continued editing in the same way he/she would provide evidence to Admins who would be likely to block or ban me.

I used the term hectoring as I found Jclemens previous edits aggressive and mildly threatening. My edits have been bold but I do not think my edits have been out of order (no other editors on the article have said anything to that effect yet). To me, a threat of using admins without using Dispute Resolution seems to be bullying, possibly to ensure I will stop editing the article. The page in question has a religious topic, and I recognize this could be an emotive issue for some people.

I would welcome a third party view as I recognize this may be my problem rather than Jclements; I may be taking this too seriously, be over sensitive or Jclemens may be right and I may have misunderstood what the terms Wikilawyering and Disruptive Editing mean.—Ash (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A full review of the facts will demonstrate that Ash has indeed been warned by me for his disruptive and tenditious behavior, to include various things such as removing deadlinks contra WP:DEADLINK, challenging sourced references simply because they are pay sites, inserting material from a source and then complaining that it made the article too gossipy, and then flagrantly failing to read the talk page when pointed to a previous discussion on the talk page. Furthermore, the combination of questioning all the reliable sources in an article without any policy basis to do so, subsequent to proposing a merger one of his first two edits to the article (and absent any previous discussion) demonstrates that Ash is simply not interested in working with others, but rather using whatever means seem expedient, including filing a basisless WQA, in order to achieve the elimination of this article. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Note) This BLP/N refers to the same issues (originally not raised by me with intent to cover the accusations above but was raised in an attempt to deal neutrally with issues raised by Jclemens on the same article) but now points to this WQA as a more appropriate process.—Ash (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ownership issues at Ashkenazi intelligence

Stale

 – 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In the past several editors independently of eachother (among them 72.82.52.106, User:yellowfiver, 70.23.225.197, User:Slrubenstein and myself) have expressed neutrality concerns about how this fringe theory about the Ashkenazi Jews Superior intelligence is being presented in its article. Each time concerns have been brushed off by USer:A Sniper. Today I tagged the article with an NPOV concern tag that he immediately removed without discussion [6]. I reinserted the tag[7] explaining[8] that NPOV tags are not supposed to be removed untill there is a consensus that the article is no longer biased. He removed it again [9] with a less than polite comment and commented agitatedly at the talk page[10]. I did not reinsert the tag to avoid an editwar - but instead requested that he reinsert it himself. He has not responded to this request. But instead defended[11] the removal of the npov tag by stating that "while the article needs inclusion of more critical surces this is not an issue of neutrality" which to me is self contradictory. I think the article generally suffers from ownership problems caused by User:A Sniper's defensive attitude whenever concerns about the neutrality or quality of this particular article is brought up. I would very much like someone to take a look at the situation and hopefully explain to A Sniper how POV disputes are solved here through consensus. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to the user, who has brought up this issue at the page in the past, it has been frustrating demonstrating that the article is about a theory, no matter how kooky, not about an issue. The user's page shows a degree of knowledge in the general area so I find it curious why the issue of ownership against me has been instituted, whereas I have tried (observing WP:CIVIL as best I can) detailing why this isn't a case of POV but simply a misunderstanding of the article itself: it is not about the issue of intelligence among Ashkenazic Jews but instead about a theory proposed by some academics in papers. One can try to use the article as a means of sporting POV to challenge the theory, but it is the incorrect forum. Instead, what I've suggested is that we merely add more bona fide citations to articles or books where there has been challenge to the theory - so far, no editors have done so. But is this actually a manifestation of POV in the article itself? And where is the discussion the user has mentioned? I have never had an issue with this article in several years other than with this particular user, to the best of my knowledge. Lastly, I found it curious that the user used the term "Ashkenazi Jews Superior intelligence" - was this a clue that the user really has a concern over the issue rather than the substance of the article? In closing, I would ask editors to note the difference between a general article about intelligence among Ashkenazim (which this article is not) and whether it is instead an article about a theory...once we get passed this, the user's criticism of my comments at the talk page (and removal of the NPOV tag) may make more sense. I would finally note that I believe the user's suggestion of adding the word theory to the article name is a fantastic one and could end all of this in minutes. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish to request that A Sniper's speculations about my possible ultiertior motivation for tagging the article be disregarded as irrelevant. The article is about a theory defended by a very small minority within anthropology however the article hardly mentions that other viewpoints exist, or much less suggest that they might be the majority viewpoint. This is a direct violation of WP:FRINGE, and in consequence of WP:NPOV which makes an NPOV-tag completely necessary as long as the article is not changed. The fact that the article is about a theory not the larger topic does not mean that the article is ecempt from providing a balanced view of viewpoints both for and against the theory while observing WP:UNDUE. A sniper is suggesting that i am unaware that the article is about the theory, however as he has noted I have suggested that it be renamed "Ashkenazi intelligence theory" which should show that I am aware that that is the topic of the article - renaming it however does not solve the neutrality concerns about the content. Lastly I will request that the closing admin/editor does not brush this off as a content dispute - the issue I brought here was A Sniper's ownershiplike behavior at the article, especially whether it is ok to unilaterally remove a NPOV tag when several editors have expressed pov concerns before any discussion is undertaken and a consensus is formed to either remove it or leave it in place. And possibly the larger ownership issue of A Sniper brushing off concerns expressed by multiple editors over a long period instead of considering that they might have a point (this behavior can be observed at the talk page). ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, what I am concerned about is that you have taken a few scattered comments about content and turned it into a discussion about NPOV that you've been having with yourself. You have not offered any evidence whatsoever that POV even exists in the article - merely that there needs to be additional references from sources that challenge the theory - this I agree with. But instead of it being POV in the article, the proper tag would be that the article needs additional referencing (in this case references of bona fide sources critical to the theory). An NPOV tag would be if the article was biased, contained WP:OR or was slanted in favor of the position of the theory - it does not (and I would hope other editors would agree that it lacks references to criticism but is not actually written in a biased or POV manner). Let's change the name by adding theory - yes. Let's dig up some sources that criticized the theory - yes. But stating the article is itself is written in a POV manner is simply spurious, as is your contention that I am exhibiting "ownership"; I am not an anthropologist bent out of shape about content...I am a Wikipedia editor concerned about incorrect use of a tag. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

At present we are two editors contradicitng eachother about whether the tag is appropriate or not. Why dn't you reinsert it and wait for the discussion to unfold between multiple editors about whether or not there are genuine POV problems with the article or not?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

...because the article lacks references (critical of the theory) - it doesn't exhibit bias, WP:OR or NPOV. Why not change the name of the article and add a tag asking for additional references? NPOV denotes a flaw in the writing. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is not the references, it is the content. It doesnt have any content about the opposing viewpoint that makes it a POV issue AND a flaw in the writing. NPOV denotes that the issue is presented one-sidedly and that is certainly the case here - you have enev admitted so yourself.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr & Awickert

Stale

 – 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr has been making what I consider to be some inappropriate allegations for some time now. I think that the base reason for the incivility is our disagreement about global warming related issues, but I feel that the accusations that he/she makes are unproductive towards any resolution and often leave me feeling rather frustrated.

• The feelings of frustration cut both ways. There is a persistent AGW-GHG bias amongst some of the 'entrenched' editors in the climate change areas of Wikipedia. An old boy (and girl) network gangs up to RV any information contrary to their POV. I have made repeated attempts to bring some balance to these discussions but have been met with obdurate responses from some members of the AGW-GHG advocates who will not brook any middle ground.Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to work with any specific issues you bring up, and I will promise to do my best to be fair about it. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As a rough chronology, our interactions started some time back as a roughly-resolved content dispute on Solar variation. I had no negative feelings towards Dikstr at the time. However, after that he/she has targeted a number of editors including myself with a number of global warming - related accusations.

• Awickert has difficulty dealing with dissagreement and criticism of his viewpoints, probably stemming from (as he admits) inadequate specialized training in the climate change area which leaves his arguments vulnerable to criticism.Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that my specialization is in a different area, but I'd like to know specifically where it seems I dislike criticism of my viewpoints. I've always felt that I've done a reasonably good job (or at least tried to) when working with those with whom I disagree. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for the disputes he/she has had with me. (He/she has had some disputes with other editors as well, but I don't want to speak for them.) They are in approximate chronological order from earliest to preset:

I repeatedly notify an IP editor who posts a list of complaints to the global warming talk page. Other users remove the list because it has no directly actionable items to improve the article but is rather a discussion of the topic (per WP:TALK), but the IP reverts. I wait for (as I remember) 10 reverts before requesting that the IP is blocked after several notifications, which I thought was more than generous. After that, and without notifying me, Dikstr leaves this comment on the IP's talk page that accuses me of POV-pushing. I see the message some time later, and because I was accused of POV-pushing in a situation in which I was trying to notify an editor about talk page policy, I leave a message at Dikstr's talk page and the following spat ensues.

• Awickert cannot distinguish the difference between a disagreement and a 'spat'. I stand behind my comments - they were fully justified, stated in polite 'queen's english' - and hardly a personal attack!Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps not a personal attack, but an accusation of POV-pushing that I take personally as I do try to subscribe to WP:NPOV. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• We all have our POV's. The objective of a discussion venue like Wikipedia should be to provide a rational debate of them and that is not POV pushing IMO. Suppression of other points of view by rv-ing gangs with the same bias is definitely POV pushing.Dikstr (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr jumped into another discussion on talk:Global warming by writing what I took as an accusation of sockpuppetry. I took offense at this as well, and notified Dikstr at his/her user talk page (full discussion given in diff) that he/she should have checked the edit history and seen that it was simply an unsigned edit by another user. His/her response was that he did not think it was an accusation, and I dropped the issue.

• As you will note from the dialogue he references, I didn't accuse Awickert of planting a 'convenient interrogative' for his follow-on statement. I merely observed that it was a 'convenient interrogative'. Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• That wasn't the troublesome part. The problem I had was suggestion that it was a sockpuppet post by me. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He/she then made some nasty comments (e.g., [12] [13]) and more accusations of POV-pushing by editors at talk:Global warming. I warned him again at his/her user talk, and he/she told me I was confused (as he/she claims I was about the sockpuppetry charge) and that I need to be more thick-skinned to edit on Wiki. I told him that I disagreed and that he/she would hear from me when I made a complaint about his/her actions [14], as I am doing right now.

• Nasty comments? Awickert has apparently never participated in the vigorous give and take of direct scientific debate. The heavy -handed rv techniques some of the AGW-GHG advocates wield with abandon in the climate change areas of Wikipedia are far more onerous for legitimate discussion than any characterization I have made of their approach.Dikstr (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I am OK editing with Dikstr; as you can see our initial messages at his/her talk are much more collegial. However, his/her continued disruption of talk pages with accusations about editors not being NPOV bothers me. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In summary I would like to make the following points:Dikstr (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia needs to maintain balanced discussions of its various areas to be a useful resource.

2 The coordinated efforts of action groups of similarly biased editors in some topics, like climate change, and their disinclination to admit information that may not support their views, will ultimately be detrimental to Wikipedia if allowed to persist.

3 Hypersensitive editors who have difficulty dealing with controversy and debate waste the resources of both Wikipedia and its other editors by abusing this venue with trivial complaints.

User:Clockback

User:Clockback (who claims to be Peter Hitchens, which is plausible but unverified) has engaged repeatedly in personal attacks on other editors at Talk:Bob Ainsworth, and generally displayed a battleground mentality, referring to those who disagree with him as "opponents". He also constantly accuses those who disagree with him of failing to WP:AGF. Despite repeated reminders, this behaviour has continued, but no further action has been taken, as the content dispute has gone on at great length on Talk:Bob Ainsworth and also WP:BLPN, now with an WP:RFC, with some (albeit desperately slow) progress. But Clockback's latest contribution is too much and disruptive of the RFC which will hopefully resolve the content issue, which is why I post here. Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some sort of action needs to be taken. I considered briefly blocking Clockback for disruption, but I'd like to wait for a few more people to weigh in. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I do find Clockbacks repeated use of the unconfirmed claim to be Peter Hitchins a bit disruptive and I would llike him to either stop that or confirm his identity. He does seem to be a clear WP:SPA and a bit WP:POINTY, since the 22nd of July all of his edits are in respect of inserting a one line comment originating from what he claims to be the website or newpaper of his own blog or affiliation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading a content dispute. A lengthy one. In my opinion, I'm also reading somewhat "snarky" and passive aggressive comments from multiple parties involved. Personal attacks? Seems like a stretch from what I'm reading. Disruptive? It is taking place on a talk page, quit participating if you wish. Worthy of a block ... I see no such need from what I've read so far (but there is a lot and I may have missed something ... if anybody cares to point out more specific items).--Douggmc (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's a content dispute (a lengthy one) - how often are personal attacks made without one existing? And that substantial diatribe against the editors disagreeing with him, whilst it doesn't contain swear words, is certainly an attack on other editors and an aggressive violation of WP:AGF (not for the first time). What annoys me more than anything is that it is completely unnecessary and disruptive of the RFC. And I didn't say anything about a block - I was hoping for an admonition. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to veer too far off the topic, but I didn't say you said anything about a block. But there is a specific item directly above that is contemplating a block. --Douggmc (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens has definitely worked on his Wikipedia entry and has written about it here. Note the date of the article, Clockback has been editing here for several years. Philip Cross (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence. I think we can agree on "plausible", the issue is verification, eg by Hitchens on his blog, or via WP:OTRS. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback should not be allowed to continue asserting he is a notable person without verification. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Er, I don't think that's really the issue here. (It has been in the past, in Clockback's on-wiki discussions of Hitchens' sources.) Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are other issues,which I have commented on already but I think his claiming to be hitchens without verification is all part of it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If Clockback wasn't Peter Hitchens, don't you suppose the 'real' one would have raised the issue by now? Hitchens' did just that with an impostor on the Guido Fawkes blog a while ago. Philip Cross (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If Peter Hitchens has off-wiki email or external website webmail, why not send him a request to confirm that he is User:Clockback, including his permission to post the email (without his private e-address) regardless of whether he is or isn't Clockback. If he only has blog posting available, it's a little more complicated to arrange for confirmable emails. If necessary, OTRS can handle the email security and do the secured posting at talk. Milo 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip, it is easy to think the notable people know what is going on here or care, someone is calling themselves your name on that wikipedia, ow well so what.. but that is not the point, and milo, it is not our work to write to hitchens and ask is this you? It is up to clockback to either stop claiming to be him or confirm his identity. I don't mind which he does, I have asked him to stop claiming to be hitchins withiut verification and I have offered to help him confirm. Either prove it or stop it.Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So if User:Clockback isn't Hitchens, how is Hitchens to know and deny it if someone doesn't write to him? Milo 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Our job here is to either stop him claiming to be a notable person or to prove it. I fail to see what the problem is with that task. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't answer my critical question, creating a catch-22. Milo 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem that would justify selective action agianst User:Clockback. My impression from my brief contact with him is that he is almost certainly Hitchens and that we should in any case WP:Assume good faith on the claim until such time as it is brought into doubt. The fact that this claim is being repeatedly challenged or cast into doubt is evidence that "the other side" of this dispute are themselves being WP:Pointy in their own behaviour. And claiming this is a single purpose account? Come off it! User:Douggmc has it right in seeing what questionable behaviour there is as not coming from just one source. And rather than it being a problem that Clockback has revealed his real world identity, it is good that he is open about it and that his contributions can be read in the context of his being a right-wing columnist with well publicised views on a variety of matters such as politics and mental health diagnoses including ADHD. He also tends to use talk pages much of the time in preference to editing articles directly. This is a lot preferable to the likes of the JIDF who have operated multiple accounts which have changed their page and which have denied any connection with the organisation when challenged. Further, I don't see other Wikipedians with entries of their own being challenged in this way when they identify.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Peter, It is not a matter of good faith, it is a matter of verify or stop it. Tomorrow someone is george harrison signed in as gomoz. If people are notable and want to keep inserting their name then why don't they get an account in their name, this would require confirmatrion and this is nothing more that a way around confirmation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because it isn't Hitchens? Or... you're already convinced it is Hitchens and you're engaged in a contest of wills?

I haven't read his stuff, but I'm well aware that right-wing columnists are in the business of pushing buttons. As an NPOV encyclopedist, it's inclusively your job here to not let your buttons be pushed. If he's really the problem, give him enough rope to hang himself. Milo 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a single purpose account. 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(...says a mysterious unsigned account :) Milo 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I am not claiming to be anybody, I am simply off2riorob and you are milo. Easy. simple, no dispute..no issues at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I would prefer if he didn't hang himself and became a valued editor. My personal opinion is that(and I have commented this already) that hitchens would be too busy to bother with this twaddle just to insert that so and so when to a couple of marxist meetings and didn't like it. It is not a contest of wills with the editor, is is a wikipedian thing, either stop claiming to be this person or verify that you are him, it is simple. .Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well said.

You can bet your booties that someone would like to get an anti-Wikipedia story out of this. You/others need to create a righteous journalism position whereof he can't legitimately complain about you/others, or Wikipedia.

If you go the extra mile to contact him via OTRS, and then if he doesn't respond, that removes a due process complaint that he might otherwise blog to gain traction in the right-wing press. Milo 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that my claim to be myself is now accepted, thanks to a Wikipedia procedure I didn't previously know existed (or mattered). Thanks to those who pointed this oput to me. The idea that 'clockback' is a single use identity is ridiculous. I've been using it to openly edit my own entry for years, and have edited other articles as well, as minimal research could ahve established, combined with an assumption of good faith. Now can we get back to getting the fact, which is not 'twaddle', into the Ainsworth article? Peter Hitchens, yes indeedy, and now officially confirmed, logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that OTRS has confirmed your identity here. Milo 11:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for confiming that Clockback. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

←Onto the next issue.

I've looked at the RfC you started,Talk:Bob Ainsworth#RfC: Should Cabinet Minister’s past attendance at Marxist meetings be included in his biography?

Here is a summary explanation posted by Rd232, apparently quoting you:

The source for this is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column (as reposted on his blog - [15] - requires Internet Explorer) which quotes Ainsworth's spokesperson as saying "Bob Ainsworth has never been a member of the International Marxist Group. In the early 80s he attended a couple of their meetings, at the request of a colleague, which reinforced his firm view that he did not agree with anything they had to say." I consider that WP:UNDUE to include. Rd232 09:42, 6 August 2009

According to the article, Bob Ainsworth is 57 years of age. Let's say he began attending various kinds of meetings at the age of 18, 2 meetings a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, for 39 years to his present day high political rank. One can quibble the over/under estimate details sloping from youth through maturity, but my estimation math works out to some-19,500 meetings. That's not an unreasonable number for a professional politician, and might on average be to the small side.

You are insisting that 2 of those roughly 19,500 meetings be mentioned in his WP article, yet you have reported his complete disagreement with their content. That's a textbook example of undue weight, just as Rd232 says.

But it's worse than that – it would also be WP:BLP violation.

Placing this utter trivia in Ainsworth's article, would cause Ainsworth's name to pop up when engine-searching for "marxist" and "politician". That would be nothing less than a keyword-spamming political smear, and IMHO, Wikipedia should not tolerate it as a WP:BLP violation by WP:UNDUE. Milo 11:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats' that got to do with this alert board? The issue here is whether one editor is being much more awkward in their behaviour than others involvedin that content dispute. It is not about which side in the dispute anyone thinks is right.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There are other under-the-radar behavior issues at the RfC that are protractedly difficult to deal with. But if the RfC issue goes away, so does the behavior (for now). A WP:BLP violation is within everyone's mandate to discuss, at least enough to refer a solution back to the complaining editors and/or the BLP Noticeboard. Milo 22:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:HM211980

Stale

 – 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:HM211980 could do with some gentle coaching. His/her attitude on talk pages and edit summaries is rather worrying. For instance, he has classified my post to his talk page as vandalism. He regularly, and without evidence, seems to think that administrators abuse their powers, particularly when 'losing' a content debate.
None of these are massively dramatic. However, I think the editor should be coached by a third party (my attempts have fallen on deaf ears). The JPS^{talk to me} 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He's been editing for a year, so I think he's probably entitled to form his own opinion on admins. Calling what you put on his talkpage vandalism is out of order I agree, but do you have any diffs for him reacting similarly in namespace?Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that some administrators abuse their powers. There have been numerous instances in which I, and other contributors, have made very reasonable cases to add content to an article, and an administrator returns with the response "If you do it again, you will be blocked", without any rationale or discussion. I could name specific instances and administrators, but I won't unless asked. It seems to me that this type attitude prevents articles from being as complete as they could be. I have tried to add compeletely factual content (about which there should be no dispute) on various occasions, only to have it deleted without administrators feeling obligated to respond, other than to threaten with blocking or the "three-revert" rule. There is a lot of bias going on, and I don't know how to explain other than an enjoyment of the use of admin powers. Some such instances have been unjustifiably labeled as "vandalism". This leads to the conclusion the the term "vandalism" tends to be used with very wide latitude on Wikipedia; thus my use of it. I have enjoyed being a contributor to Wikipedia, but I do not need to to continue it. Therefore, I am going to retire as a contributor effective immediately. Congratulations on a good product. I will continue to be a reader. HM211980 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

HM211980, your edits to namespace are generally in good faith and you have raised some issues over the consistency of which actors to name in the lead. I was concerened with the tone of your communication with a corpus of editors. I hope you don't retire, and continue to make positive edits -- just intereact with less aggression.The JPS^{talk to me} 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I never intended to detract, just to contribute. HM211980 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G

Uncle G (talk · contribs) (a sysop) has pursued my edits on the following AFDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lot 10
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Par
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomer Association
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yair Kless

I accept that I could have added some details of what searches I had conducted prior to my nominations, though adding such explanation is not a prerequisite for nomination. While Uncle G may have a point that can be discussed, referring to your own personal user pages as "long standing procedures" rather than directly to real Wikipedia guidance seems inappropriate. Persistently stating that the nominator has made no effort to assess available sources across several discussions appears to not meet civil behaviour guidance. In the same discussions, another editor has highlighted Uncle G's contributions as spamming and harassment. Uncle G has not followed up on my suggestion on using a DR process if he/she is convinced that I am doing something bad.

I am happy to accept positive criticism that my nominations could be better or may be poor quality (I am new at raising them), but I am not happy with the way Uncle G has pursued me here and would welcome another viewpoint to either set me straight as this behaviour meets WP:Administrators and I am being over-sensitive, or to suggest how else to handle Uncle G's contributions.—Ash (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. Uncle G turns up in AfD making the same points A.Lot. As you have noted, some of what he says is worth taking into account. Some of it is as idiosyncratic as his use of pronouns. If you do not interact with him, I at least find he tends not to pursue further, so I would not really say that it classes as harassment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elen. Uncle G is an inclusionist of the type that actually does something to improve an article (often dramatically), but he can't work on every article that he thinks is worth preserving. I think you can safely ignore him; or better still read his excellent essays on policy and decide in which points you agree with them and in which you don't. Don't take what he says personally. In the interest of the encyclopedia it's sometimes better not to decide every dispute with an outcome saying precisely who is right and who is wrong. Hans Adler 12:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I took a look at the Lot 10 example. In this case, Uncle G was quite right to correct Ash for his misinterpretation of WP:BEFORE. The main incivility there seemed to be from User:Joe Chill, whose language seemed too aggressive, ad hominem and lacking in AGF. More generally, editors who presume to criticise the work of other editors to the point of requesting that it is deleted, should not be surprised if their nominations are opposed with some vigour. This is the point of the process - deletion is a serious matter and this is why it is patrolled and supervised. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ignore him. He says essentially the same thing in many AfD's and I can't remember the last time he thought an article should be deleted. Some people simply think everything except the most blatant hoax or copyright violation belong here. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• No, don't ignore him, that would be foolish. As Hans Adler wisely says above, read what he has to say; you'll likely find parts you agree with, parts where you disagree and are not convinced, and maybe even parts where he may convince you of something. Indeed, it sounds from your opening statement that you've found at least one such issue. If you want to, continue to discuss with him if you want to go deeper into any issue. If you don't want to, then don't. As for opening a WQA report, I don't see any incivility on Uncle G's part. Criticism of actions is allowed, and is not an attack. If he disagrees with how you are nominating articles for deletion, he's well within his rights to say so on the AFD's you've started, without it being labeled harassment. He is acting as an editor, not an admin, so his admin status has nothing to do with anything. Take it simply as constructive criticism, rather bluntly worded perhaps, but still constructive criticism. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(clarification) I am not accusing Uncle G of harassment (I was highlighting the perceptions of another contributor to the AFDs in question) but I am saying that I think Uncle G has not followed WP:Administrators with regard to biting/civility (though I take your point that WP:Civility may be a more appropriate guide if being sysop comes with no expectations for better behaviour and I ignore some of WP:NOTPERFECT). As for reading his contribution, I did that the first time and it wore rather thin by the fourth time he/she said the same thing.—Ash (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I mean ignore the fact that he pretty much gives the canned response to nearly every AfD. He's written the same thing over and over, and not just to Ash. Read it once, skip the re-runs. My observation has been that many articles get deleted (meaning that the nominator was on the right track) despite the cut and paste lecture. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, "harrasment" was a quote, not an accusation, and "ignore" refers to re-reading the same thing 4 times. My point is that I don't see his wording, or the fact that he commented as he did at all 4 AFD's, as uncivil. (Indeed, it was significantly more civil than the response of the editor you quoted above.) You (Ash) are not a newbie, so I don't think WP:BITE applies, and he's not doing anything remotely admin-related, so WP:ADMIN doesn't either. We're left with WP:CIVIL, and I simply don't see anything uncivil here. Perhaps blunt, but that's all. (I don't spend much time at AFD, but my impression is, that's not really even blunt by AFD standards). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G has an annoying tendency to address highly experienced editors as though they are newbies; it's sort of the opposite of biteyness. This has given rise to periodic complaints, but there does not seem to be much prospect of changing his behavior short of an RFCU which I think would be over the top (and I speak as one of the people who has complained about it). Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Galassi

Galassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Disruptive editing: Ignoring warning not to revert edits as "vandalism".--Law21 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. One of many Russia vs. Ukraine revert warriors reverting another, across multiple articles, and someone sooner or later plays the WQA card to try to gain the upper hand. Not a WQA issue, though if a passing admin notices this, I'd suggest they block all involved for edit warring and disruption. I think there's probably an ArbCom case on this (the one on Eastern Europe), but I'll leave it to someone who can actually block people to look it up and see if it's been violated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to review (and subsequently did revert) Law21's edits and most of them are just blanking relevant info or trying to POV push. --Львівське (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

His edits are mainly POV pushing, removing mentions of Ukraine/Ukrainian and changing them to refer to Russia. Almost all of these edits are unfounded and have no relevance to the article itself (i.e. changing categories) ddima.talk 16:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I think Law21's actions qualify as a SPA.Galassi (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:M

I was looking for some advice on how to improve this interaction. The relevant part is at the bottom of that long section. I suspect that David is still upset that I'm apparently "quoting him". His firm imposition on me that I use quotes only for directly quoting him in his entirety is strange. I'd prefer not to have to suggest proposed wordings via, say, italic indent. I also use quotes where I want to express something in certain words without endorsing those words. If I were building a case against him as an editor, strict quoting rules would be very important, yes. For this, no. On the one hand, he may have no response to what I think are some rather solid points I've just brought up, and is instead focusing on trivial formatting details - on the other, he may have had some serious problem with someone quoting him out of context before, and is sensitive to it. I'm trying to respond as if it's the latter - actually, I'm trying to respond with focus on the actual issues, since I don't want to turn the conversation over to a pedantic discussion of quoting. Have I been uncivil so far (one need only read that last portion, I think), are my thoughts here reasonable, and how can I resolve this/improve? Thanks.    M   18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On a quick look, my advice is to decide on the main issue, and focus on that. The distraction into the proper way debate should be phrased has really detracted from the point, and, with respect, you sent it down that road with early and rather odd complaints about use of "you" and "we", and insisting other people should not say there that you are perceiving contradictions where none exist. Their whole point is that the you actually are perceiving contradictions where none exist. I have nothing to say at all on the substance of that disagreement; but you can do a bit better at letting people express their honest perspective and assuming good faith. I don't think your objections on phrasing made much sense, but whether they did or not, it would have been better not to go down that road, as they were so trivial.

On the plus side... I don't think you are being uncivil there, and it would be possible for others to do better also.... but if you are willing then the easiest and fastest approach is to look at things you can fix in your own writing; so well done for looking for solutions in that direction! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still think that "No contradictions exist here" is a far superior wording to "You're perceiving contradictions where none exist" - this implies that my perception is somehow at fault, not that my statement is false. But point taken, thanks for your reply.    M   21:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:BilCat - incivil and derogatory comments

The content of this edit by the user BilCat on his own talk page is distruptive, offensive, and incivil. While it was not directed towards me or any specific person of Indian origin, I am sure that this behavior violates WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL regardless. GSMR (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing anything offensive - unless it's towards technological attempts. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Why do think you have so much difficulty with the projects from India? When you've had no real successes, even the attempts are worth celebrating - to them, anyway!"GSMR (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a fair comment. I had to recently remove something from one of the list articles that suggested that India has submarine launched ballistic missile capability, on the grounds that the submarine from which to launch the missile is still at least two years away from going into service. It is natural to want to celebrate achievement, but sometimes the celebrations can be premature and result in things needing to be removed from articles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC) (Who is English - the greatest celebrators of failure on the planet )

People should resist doing things that they know will push other people's buttons, even if sometimes it is very tempting. Looie496 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, Elen, that is offensive. GSMR (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why, it is not an ATTACK on anyone or even on a country! It's the same as saying "Canada should still take pride in coming 4th in any summer Olympic event, rather than ever winning a medal". Am I offended? No. Is it true that we should celebrate losing? Sure, why not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh*

Fine, retracted... GSMR (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The words used probably went towards trying to explain the point that Elen and Bwilkins has summarised a little more effectively. However, I agree with Looie496's sentiment. It can also carry another implied meaning which I would not expect to see on-wiki. I don't care which country (or its people) it concerns, be it in Asia, Europe or America; at the end of the day, staging problematic expressions on Wikipedia has the potential to create misunderstandings and needless drama. It is essentially avoidable. Though each is entitled to their own opinion, more care should be taken on what is expressed at Wikipedia, and especially how it is expressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:68.162.214.17 - revealing personal information

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On [[16]], User:68.162.214.17 revealed personal information about me, including my name and location. This behavior obviously is in violation of Wikiquette.THD3 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This IP also has an odd notion that adding "citation needed" templates to claims that are not supported constitutes "vandalism". Grover cleveland (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Can you provide the diff where this personal information is contained? He said Mr Cleveland, which would apply to the user Grover cleveland, which is fine. My concern is that this user is correct in their thought that sockpuppetry by yourself is going on. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The addition of my personal information was made on [[17]] last night. I reverted the change, and requested that it be scrubbed from the edit history.THD3 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of Grover_Cleveland. Our editing has crossed in some articles (like Vladimir Horowitz) which is the result of common interests. But we are both long term editors who have also contributed to non-related articles. Surely, if you're an administrator, you can verify this via our IP addresses?THD3 (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I cannot find the supposed violation of WP:OUTING .. possibly because of oversight. THD3, if you have read the instructions on this forum, you will note that we're not admins. Outing is a blockable offense and must be escalated to WP:ANI, unless it's information that was provided by you at some point. The offensive diff's must be reported via WP:OVERSIGHT, as it appears you have done. Also, you should know that not all Admins have the ability to view IP addresses - this is a function of a checkuser. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Even ANI can't help as I can't see this outing of personal information. Oversight should have handled it if it were an issue. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

William S. Saturn and his tendentious editing.

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been continually over the past couple days editing in a tendentious and disruptive way within the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories from POV edits within the main page, argumentative posts on the talk page, to suspicious reporting others for 3RR violations. Some examples of this editing behavior [18], [19], [20], [21]. He left a 3RR warning on User:Tarc's talk page that in light of the recent edits is just a little ingenious [22] then gathered a bunch of Tarc's edits, including one that was completely unrelated to the situation, and then "offered" that if Tarc reverted his last edit to the one that William S. Saturn preferred, he wouldn't report Tarc to the 3RR board. Tarc called him on it: [23] and was subsequently blocked. Later the block was reduced and lifted. On the talk page, he also seems to be trying to disrupt/prove a point. A recent section he started is a prime example of how he has been talking on the page: [24]. His style has been that the article is a grossly written in a completely POV way to discredit the Birther movement and that editors are trying to WP:OWN the article. One example of this is: [25]. When asked to point out specifically which edits/section are the problem, he dances around the issue by continually asserting the whole page is inappropriately written [26]. As mentioned above, this has been going on for at least three days. Brothejr (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saturn is engaged in using wikipedia to promote the birther movement. That is not an appropriate use of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw Bugs, I was expecting you to say "my Outlook is that he has an Aura of not giving an Ion about the entire situation". Then again, you're often more serious in WQA than in ANI :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Brother jr HAS raised and important point here, but a WP:WQA case here is premature. Mr Saturn has only been resacting to an abuse of powe by certain other editors who are restricting access to the article to only anti-birther editors. The article is obviously biased against the birther movement, with regards to the use of "fringe", the use of insulting terms like "birther" in article space, the overuse of quotes intended to portray birthers negatively, and the phraisng of the article which implies deliberately that birtherism has been discredited and that the birth certificate is not in serious controversy. William Saturn may have occasionally overreached but that is only because the people who oppose him in the article space has have overreached in trying to completely squash any neutral portrayal of the controversy on its own merits. User:Smith Jones 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP requires a conservative approach, and the birther stuff is not that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

smith, no one is restricting anyone's access, but users have to be mindful of both Wikipedia policy (namely WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE) and the article probation. If they feel restricted by such editing requirements, then acting out and editing tendentiously is not going to reap positive results. As for birthers in general, the article portrays their opinions as fringe because that is how they are described in reliable sources, i.e. "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." from the fringe page. It was written with pseudoscience in mind, but is certainly applicable to political fringe opinion as well. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into this, everyone sit tight for a little while. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see anything actionable at this time, though there are some causes for concern. I've left a note for William on his talk page here. As I think this may be the first time an admin has discussed these issues with him directly, I'd like to take a wait and see approach at this point. I don't know that further discussion here will yield much of anything useful, so perhaps it's best to return to the article talk page and try to work out any disagreements. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We should be very aware that dragging good faith editors to the noticeboards repeatedly has been a tactic employed by those going after editors they disagree with. This abuse shouldn't be tolerated or encouraged. The noticeboards and administrative action is not appropriate for solving content disptues. Please use the appropriate means for dispute resolution and to get additional input on the content issues. The neutral point of view policy (a core policy) makes clear that notable viewpoints should be included, not just the majority or dominant viewpoint. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Only including majority perspectives and biasing articles against those that most of us disagree with amounts to mob rule. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We also have policy dictating that fringe opinion is not given the same footing as mainstream opinion. Perhaps when crafting your response here, you missed WP:VALID ? Tarc (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your argument, CoM, is a portion of WP:NPOV that you forget and that is WP:UNDUE. Here is the first line: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. A couple lines down are even more relevant: In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. So in light of that portion of the NPOV policy, we can only give minority viewpoints only as much weight as is shown in the reliable sources. NPOV does not mean we give both sides equal weight when none of the reliable sources support equal weight to a minority view point. Heck, the term minority view point in itself means that is is not the majority view point and is not shared by the majority of people. Lastly it is inappropriate and very un-encyclopedic for us to assert a view point is more important then what it really is. We can only follow what the reliable sources say and not make it up as we go along. Brothejr (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

However, a WQA in this instance is perhaps a bit quick in coming. Has he engaged in personal attacks? Really I think this is all a bit premature. Soxwon (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, yes, but let's not let ourselves go too far down the rabbit hole on this side-tangent. CoM did his usual rage against the machine bit, which really had little to do with the WQA itself. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

precisely. User:BigTimePeace has examined the issue and has found that the WP:WQA report is premature/unnececsarry at this time and William Saturn will not continue to be molested for trying to express an allegedly minority viewpoint. User:Smith Jones 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Molested? Maybe it was just a bit of heavy petting. Tarc (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the content of this ludicrous conspiracy (which seems to have burnt itself out at this point anyway), there is a larger point here which WQA veterans may wish to address, which is: when does tendentiously repeating a point in the wake of good faith rejoinders become a civility violation. Consensus requires good faith engagement, and based on the Talk page of the Birther article, we find a classic example of wilful non-engagement. Various editors have patiently explained why, according to our policies, this should be described in an encyclopedic context as a fringe view. Mindlessly repeating the same point over and over again without engaging those rebuttals is vexatious, tedious and combative. There is no personal attack that I can see here, but the steadfast refusal to engage good faith efforts at explication amount to a serious wikiquette issue. It flies in the face of our consensus-building process and is designed to rile not resolve. So I suggest that continuing to cry NPOV and slapping up tags and issuing 3RR warnings over what amounts to a steadfast refusal to accept our standards elaborated at WP:FRINGE does constitute a civility violation. If it continues, the matter should be taken to AN/I. Eusebeus (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

so, what, should every dissenting user just roll over whenever someone quotes their own interpretationf of a policy to them? if thats the case, POV-pushers would have overrun every article on the Wiki by now. The reason our Wikipedia is successful is BECAUSE people are free to disagree respectfully and collegially on talk pages and people who want to make changes that are controversial have to justify them before other editors and gain consensus instead of trying to use disciplinary powers to squash those who disagree. What if the so-called "birthers" were a majority on the article? SHOULD *they* be allowed to use WP:ANI or WP:WQA to sanction or discipline anyone who they think doesnt fold fast enough??? maybe before we rush to convict, we should try to see whether or not Mr Saturn and the rest of them have a real point and can still contribute hlepfully to the article! It's not as if they are vandalizing the article or editing tendientionally! User:Smith Jones 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Brothejr, content dispute resolution avenues (namely, mediation and article RfC) must must must be exhausted. Tendentious editors (if they exist in a dispute) tend to make their conduct reach a point where there is (or at least, should be) far less reluctance by admins to use their tools. If all these steps fail, conduct RfC is the next step, and I'm sure you're aware of what's in store after that.
• A question arose in the discussion asking "when does tendentiously repeating a point in the wake of good faith rejoinders become a civility violation?" To be frank, this form of editing can rarely fall under the (narrower) category we call civility violations - rather, it usually falls in the broader category of disruptive problem editing (also known as tendentious editing or sometimes, as the name suggests, civil POV pushing). In my opinion, this dispute has all appearances of falling between these 2 categories, and I don't think we can afford to have "wait and see" approaches employed when encountering this kind of editing. But in any case, unfortunately, WQA is not equipped to handle or resolve such disputes in general - which is why it usually ends up in an admin's hands (sometimes from ANI) or in cases of such needless reluctance, ArbCom. In the meantime, content DR is the way to go. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Chevrolet Astro external links dispute

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Take issue to relevant noticeboard or seek other dispute resolution. This is not the place for this issue. See WP:DR. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Astro#External_links

It has been an ongoing battle between two sites: www.astrosafari.com and www.astrosafarivans.com to be listed in the external links of this Chevrolet_Astro wiki page.

My position as owner of AstroSafari.com is that our site has been online since 2002 nearly 5 years longer than AstroSafariVans.com who just recently popped up as a knock-off copycat of our site in 2007. Our site has a larger membership, more traffic, and cyberspace tenure and should therefor be listed first in Wiki's external links.

Proof of my claims:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.astrosafari.com (Online since Sep 21, 2002)

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.astrosafarivans.com (Online since May 21, 2007)

http://whois.domaintools.com/astrosafari.com (Domain created: 2002-08-20)

http://whois.domaintools.com/astrosafarivans.com (Domain created: 2006-10-27)

Someone please help resolve this external link battle. It is obvious that both URLs are relevant and beneficial to wiki users, but I am requesting that AstroSafari.com be listed first as it is factually MORE relevant and has online seniority over the other site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.78 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, 'the original' can sometimes be 'old and obsolete', and a 'knock-off copycat' might be 'new and improved'. What's this edit about? [27]

The first listing should be the official site, but Astro production ceased in 2005, and only trivial mentions remain at Chevrolet.com. If General Motors has an endorsed site, museum or history page for the Astro, that should be listed first.

Links at many articles tend be listed in a random order. The advantage you have is that alphabetically (or asciibetically), "." sorts out before "V" or "v").

If the other link owner won't accept that ascending sort, you need to start a WP:Request for Comment to help decide.

Here are some aggregated traffic rankings for each site, useful in an RfC to prove relative importance:

• AstroSafari.com Site Info at Wmtips.com
• AstroSafariVans.com Site Info at Wmtips.com

But keep in mind that all of the links could end up getting deleted, if drawn to the attention of anti-external-link activists. Milo 03:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mauritius - Language section - User: Maurice45

Resolved

 – Subject warned; filing party advised on how to proceed in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was not the intention of Maurice45, but I do believe that justifications such as "pfft", "ridiculous", "ridiculous copying continues" when editing are against the policies of Wikipedia (I checked Wikipedia:Civility just to make sure and it is stated clearly that:"Ridiculing comments from other editors, rather than making serious criticism of them" is not acceptable. You can also check my talkpage and his to learn about the general tone of our little "disagreement".

Basically, he deleted whole paragraphs with references and replaced it with a new text without any reference. When asked about it, he cited one sentence which he deemed unfit for Wikipedia and I agree with him on that one. However, I do not think that this justifies the deletion of whole paragraphs. That is why I told him that he can of course modify the style which he deemed incorrect, but to modify the content without any justification is, in my opinion, a bit too much. Also, his second wave of edits included the deletion of a sentence which was backed up by three references. One of them is from a forum and I agree with him that it should be removed. However, when he deleted the sentence, he did not even check the other sources. Among the other two, one is from the government's official website. I believe that Wikipedia should not be a place where subjectivity is placed before objectivity. Also, it seems like all his edits are not justified by any reference whatsoever. It's just personal opinion.

Moreover, I believe that the worst thing is the fact that he does all this in such a rude manner, belittling the contributions of all the other Wikipedians and myself who worked on that section. As we all know, mistakes ARE possible but I do believe that if we can talk things out in a civil manner, at least, we can move forward. Please see my talkpage for more insight.

Thank you for looking into this matter since I have been an active contributor on the Mauritius website since a while (whether anonymously or as a registered user) and if this is deemed as normal behavior, at least I would know what to expect.

Please see links for edits:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ju CAN (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 

I have informed the user that that kind of edit summaries are in conflict with WP:CIVIL and may lead to him being blocked. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

About the content disputes and what you perceive to be his agressive and uncooperative editing pattern I think you should adress this on the talk page and encourage him and other editors working on the article to work together and form a consensus. If he removes sourced content without explaining why or disregarding an established consensus then you are of course in your right to reinsert it, but you should be careful not to let it escalate into an editwar - make sure that it is a consensus of involved editors who decide what is cut or inserted not the opinions of any one editor.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Maunus, I really appreciate your input and your help! I also do hope other editors will share their opinions on that matter too and that this will not become an editwar. The last edit I made on that page was actually something written by someone else before, but since Maurice45 removed it without any reference and that to my knowledge, what the other editor wrote before was correct, I provided a reference and hope that it will be enough. As long as he provides reliable references, I do not believe that there will be an edit war since it is not in my nature to contradict for the sake of contradicting. The problem I had with him was that he was providing misleading incorrect information WITHOUT any source and...of course, the way he was addressing this issue. Just wondering, if he keeps editing without any references, what would be the best thing to do? Move it to the talkpage of the Mauritius page then? Sorry for taking your time and really, thank you for your help!Ju CAN (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If he adds content without sources then remove it (if it is controversial or dubious) and then start a discussion on the talk page, ask him to provinde sources. If he insists on including unsourced material you can start by asking other Mauritius interested editors about their opinion, then if the problem persists you can use the process for dispute resolution. You are welcome to alert me at my talk page if problems persist.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much for the advice, Maunus!! Ju CAN (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User Harout73 - hide info and threath people that change his version

Hi, well I am new here, really sorry if I make any mistake in write it here, just I search for some fair help. I heard many time ago about a problem here in wikipedia in an article of a music band (Modern Talking), but I never paid any attention until now that I saw myself and realize that it was true, there are an user called Harout73, I really don't know who is, or if he has any influence here in wikipedia, but he doesn't accept that we include some information in the biography of Modern Talking. I tried to have a polite conversation, I do all with respect, but this man only threath and is closed to open his mind or give some freedom in modify his version, and he doesn't allow to add some information that he consider not serious, or that don't come from a reliable source... the things I write I am sure with more than reliable sources, because I know many about this issue by a private investigation that I started since years, also this is easy to find for someone neutral (not like a crazy fan like it seems he is), whoever can read the solid proofs about the truth of Modern Talking, this is not vandalism, I am not attacking, or offending to anybody, I simply add some missing things in the biography, with all the respect to all the artists involved, but this man, just come and threath, you will be blocked, i will dennounced... what?? why?? for say the truth??, he is the only vandalist here!!!, he makes that like if he had any authority in the issue, well since I read that he didn't know some facts that are more than obvious it gives me the reason, that he really doesn't know too much about Modern Talking, and his real story, so with what right, only his version can be considered like a true??. I ask please that my text would be keep in the story and don't delete it again please!!. He deletes and deletes and then is warning me that i will be reported or so... please, where are we??, there are a dictadure by someone that want to keep only the version that he likes!!?. Please I ask to a third person that can put some order with it, I am not saying nosense info, are just some facts from this band that the public need to know, specially the new public. Is really unfair what is happening, I am not just a fan or somebody that waste time by internet, I am interested in keep a real serious article and not the text from a manipulated music magazine. I know an old user tried also to write something about that, but was attacked by this same user, he reported him or blocked... well, I really don't know what happened, but this was also unfair. Another thing, he wants to keep, some fansites in extern links that are really not serious included an illegal warez and mp3 sites that damage to this artists, etc. Somebody really neutral can help please?. Again sorry if I am asking some help in the wrong place, is my first time here. Bluesky84 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Modern Talking biographer

Can you provide a link to (a) the article, (b) the offending user (c) some diffs that show where he has caused a problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Bluesky, you will need to be a bit careful here, based on your signature. If you are an biographer of a subject, please read WP:COI carefully. Can I also ask you to use edit summaries on each and every edit that you make - this helps other editors to understand your edit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Background on this issue may be seen at:

• Modern Talking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Harout72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bluesky84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On Bluesky84's talk page there are suggestions that Bluesky84 may have added inappropriate external links to the Modern Talking article. Harout72 is a long-time editor, while Bluesky84's account was created August 11. We should give him a chance to get oriented to Wikipedia and explain our policies to him. However his present complaint, speaking of 'attacks' and such, seems over the top. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he's getting aggrieved because he wants to add information on the backing vocalists. I've just taken it out (again, probably the fourth time someone has removed it) because he keeps sticking it in the lede first sentence, and also in the first sentence of the next para. I'm sure it's ok to add somewhere in the article that the backing vocals on the cds were by Huey, Louey and Dewey, but it is a fairly trivial piece of info. Perhaps he needs someone to explain to him about the structure of articles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have been unable to find any "hiding" of anything, and the only "threats" are to take the situation to the admin's noticeboard for intervention. Bluesky is a new editor, and a) does not appear to have English as a first language, and b) does not understand many of Wikipedia's core rules on reliable sources, external links, and the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Because of this, I have left a big welcome template on the user's talkpage.

Bluesky, here's some specifics: Geocities cannot ever be used as an external link - an automated "bot" has removed your addition more than once. Do not revert the removal again. Speaking of reverting, if you are bold and make an edit, and someone reverts it, then you are not permitted to re-add it without discussion on the article's talkpage to reach consensus (see WP:BRD). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please I ask for patient because I am new here in wikipedia and I still can't understand the formats and codification. The problem happen in the article of Modern Talking. Is true I am new, but tis don't quit me the reason and don't give to this user harout73 the only true, only for his time here... he has many familiarization with wikipedia so he has advantage in this. But please check in this article, the part of discussion and the part of historial, you will realize how this user change again and again the contributions that other people always tried to do before me. He pretend to cheat wikipedia with his only version, I added a link that showed realiable source, but he deleted it intentionally, and then threath that will report me as vandal, when he is the only who has been a vandal here. I am being neutral, and having respect for all the artists involved. But harout73 delete my contributions again and again for keep only his manipulated version. Please look in discussion, other people suppored me, and it show more people is agree, check in the historial, how before, similar contributions were deleted. We have rights in tell the true and don't hide important information that the world need to know, if they search about this music band, the one it is showed here has been until now, just a manipulated version, that never talk about the facts, trials, and demands that this band had, and are necessary for make of this article a really serious and neutral source of information. The current article is not neutral, and has to harout73 like the first person that don't allow it become serious. --Bluesky84 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Modern Talking biographer