This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Contents 1 William (Bill) Bean 2 User:Wikimachine 3 User:Tony Sidaway 4 Failed consensus-building at Talk:D. James Kennedy 5 Raidon04 6 Race-Hate website, article links to it 7 Eyes Wide Shut wikipage 7.1 Arbitrary break 8 69.115.34.186 9 Pushing POV 10 User Geoeg 11 NCCC article editors 12 User : Anastrophe. 13 User: Dave souza 14 User:Thewinchester 15 User:Bamadude & User:Clarityfiend 15.1 Reported at ANI

William (Bill) Bean

Stuck.

This user has become quite upset that I apparently failed to properly explain the placing or replacing of a NPOV tag. My apology has not worked to defuse the situation and now he's telling me: " I have more than enough evidence to assert that you are not acting in good faith.". I'm finding this whole thing very unpleasant and I really feel liked I am being attacked unfairly. OK, I've only been doing this for a few weeks and perhaps my edits have not been without error but does that mean I should be told that I am "failing miserably?" There are other examples but I think this gives the gist of it. Thank you, gentle Wikipedians, for your help. Dlabtot 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the diffs and see if I can help. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion on the talk page, Dlabtot wasn't even the one who added the tag in the first place. --Darkwind (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, I didn't think so, but he was asserting so strongly that I was, I was afraid to say so without taking the time to research it. Dlabtot 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A moment ago this comment was not here in this postion. When I researched the edits initially I found that Dlabtot had indeed thrown the first POV tag. I then went to his talk page and found numerous complaints that Dlabtot had thrown tags without explanation. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I doubt I'm wrong. Perhaps you should show the diff where my research failed. William (Bill) Bean 03:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a good time to set the record straight. The edit where the POV tag was inserted: diff 01:03, 19 September 2007. My first edit to that article: diff 01:04, 19 September 2007. Yes, I think I did replace the tag later after I had seen it removed. I was under the impression that if there is a tag like that on an article, it's not supposed to be removed unless a consensus has been reached on the talk page to do so. Since no such consensus had (or has yet) emerged, I didn't think I needed to explain why I was replacing it. I may have also moved the tag to the specific part of the article that seemed problematic. I don't know whether or what descriptions I put on the edit summary line. I will endeavor to be more descriptive in the future. I must admit that I have taken offense at some of the posts you have directed towards me. Dlabtot 07:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a reminder of WP:NPA on Bean's talk page, and let him know that he's free to comment here if he feels that he's been somehow misrepresented. --B/font>figura ^(talk) 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note. This user has made numerous POV tags without any comment or stated reason. This is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. It is also a violation of wikipedia policy. A quick review of back up my assertion. Please review Dlabtot discussion for verification. I now consider my placement here a personal attack. Fair warning. William (Bill) Bean 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating that someone is coming across as a troll or sock-puppet is not a personal attack. Accusing someone of the same (something I did not do) is. I will gladly accept your apology once you recognize the different. Finally, the person in question has made numerous POV entries outside wikipedia policy. He or she should stop. That's my point. William (Bill) Bean 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out above, I don't believe Dlabtot placed the tag that you're referring to. And even if he did, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet (if it isn't relevant to the current discussion) and stating that they "...are failing miserably..." (as in this diff: [1]) is possibly not the best response possible (see WP:CIVIL). And I don't believe that a listing here constitutes an attack, perhaps someone else can comment on that. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, for perspective, it might be helpful to take a look at a couple of other recent diffs, not directed at me: diff, diff. Dlabtot 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps for perspective the reader will note that the poster I'm responding to is making assumptions about my motives and or state of mind with no relevant evidence to back up those assumptions. Your turn. William (Bill) Bean 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not directly call Dlabtot a sock-puppet. Please review the posts again. I said the tag without explanation smacked of sock-puppetry. It's not the same thing whether you realize it or not. The presence of sock-puppets and trolls here at wikiedia is always relevant; always. Finally, if Dlabtot had not thrown the original tag he never denied it. Had he or she denied it I would have reviewed the diffs again. By the way this is a brilliant tactic for setting someone up. Your turn. William (Bill) Bean 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got a point. The other day, a guy said my Mom looked like, and acted like, a whore, but since he didn't actually *call* my mother a whore, I figured he was actually being civil, so I let it slide. Dlabtot 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't a debate. The point of WQA is to suggest that while you may (and I'm neither taking a position for or against) be correct in that Dlabtot tagged without posting posting on the talk pages, it is not appropriate to respond by calling someone a troll, or a sock-puppet, or a failure. If you feel someone is violating policy, then the right thing to do is notify them (politely). If they don't respond in a manner that's constructive, then follow dispute resolution, or try and establish a consensus on the talk page in question. Inflammatory language won't get anyone anywhere. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm not convinced that a back-and-forth argument is going to be terribly productive. May I suggest that we place this matter on hold so that other WQA responders may comment? --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I called Dlabtot a troll. I didn't. Instead of responding to criticism positively or appropriately he or she has made excuses, claimed ignorance, and "begged for forgiveness" without a hint of sincerity. I responded by pointing out why this started in the first place; a violation of wikipedia policy. The response was "please stop." This is manipulative and I know it. Now he or she has called upon you to intercede on his or her behalf rather than correcting the behavior that started this. Wikipedia is rife with trolls and sock-puppets. It hurts this place. Finally, inflammatory language is entirely up to me. If you don't like it that's your problem not mine. But I did get his or her attention. And I can guarantee you if he or she does the POV without showing cause again (and I'm not banned) this will seem mild. Enough is enough. I welcome input from others. If I feel I'm wrong I'll apologize, but don't hold your breath; it's unlikely. William (Bill) Bean 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you suggest I 'correct the behavior'? What could I do that would make you happy and end this? Dlabtot 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but inflammatory language is not up to you. There's an official civility policy, which specifically lists ill-considered accusations as an avoidable example of incivility, among other things. If someone doesn't like something you've said, and it can reasonably be taken as a violation of WP:CIVIL, then it is your problem. Also, veiled threats (if [X happens] this will seem mild) fall under incivility as well. I'd suggest previewing your posts first, or reading them out loud, before submitting, as it's entirely possible you don't realize how you might sound (the post above quite shocked me, especially on a page dealing with incivility as its primary purpose.) --Darkwind (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur -- the irony is somewhat staggering. As this doesn't look as though it will go anywhere in this forum, I've marked the complaint as stuck and fowarded it on to AN/I. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page. William (Bill) Bean 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC) *Regardless of whether your behavior fits the technical definition of a "personal attack", your comments of late have been incivil, both to Dlabtot and to Bfigura. Demanding that people follow procedure, or make apologies, is not a very good way of interacting with other editors, and not conductive to a pleasant atmosphere. I'd suggest that you refrain from such behavior in the future. >Radiant< 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for clarity, the above comment was directed at William (Bill) Bean. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been consistently on point about my issue with the tags. I have repeated these points numerous times. They have been ignored. I have never made an issue about the reason for the tag, rather the lack of a reason. Worse, rather than take my issues at face value and address them, I have been accused of having other motives. Since I have not brought up any other issue with the tags the motives attributed to me are fabrications. I find that insulting. As I said I have been on point from the very beginning. From the talk page on the article in question.

"Considering that you have listed numerous reasons that you believe the section is not WP:NPOV, I hope you will now follow Wikipedia policies and refrain from removing the tag until a consensus to do so has been reached here on the talk page. Dlabtot 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"

I have listed only one reason why I felt the POV tag was invalid; that being no reason was given for throwing the tag in the first place. Additionally I found the assumption on Dlabot's part both insulting and groundless. Again, my issue is with throwing tags without explanation. Further, Dlabtot is not the only poster who jumped to a conclusion as to my motives with no supporting evidence.

Please see [2]. My concern is now and has been for years the following; attempts by various parties to kill information, hacked articles, bias, and opinions presented as fact. Finally, I find the attempts at misdirection insulting as well. William (Bill) Bean 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I find it amusing that this section has been moved from Work in progress to stuck in less than twenty-four hours. Interesting no? William (Bill) Bean 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• In that thread you state that process wasn't followed in nominating the page for deletion, and start talking about vandalism - whereas it turns out that you were simply looking at the wrong day of the deletion logs. Seems to me that you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. >Radiant< 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I stated that throwing a tag without following proper procedure "smacks of vandalism." Please be accurate in relating this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjbean (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The AFiD tag was thrown on September 18th. For that reason I would expect to find the nomination on the page with that date. I did not. I did look at September 19th and did not find it there either. One poster claimed that the entry appeared on the September 19th page within seconds. I dispute that since I didn't find it. If the entire wikipedia community is not aware of a nomination for deletion then the process is flawed and any voting potentially skewed. I jumped to no conclusions. I responded to conditions I can plainly see with my own two eyes. Seems to me you are jumping to your own conclusions. William (Bill) Bean 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• According to the edit history, the article was nominated on the 19th, and indeed that's when the nomination page was made, and when said page was added to the logs. All at 04:06. So it would appear, from those logs, that you are simply mistaken. Being mistaken is really not a problem, but attacking others as a result is. >Radiant< 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the nomination on the 18th. This may have to do with time zones though I thought wikipedia used a universal time stamp. William (Bill) Bean 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If this "dispute" has been moved to an alternate forum I have a right to know where that forum is. William (Bill) Bean 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you do. That's why I gave the link to AN/I above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there was a call earlier for other WQA-regulars to comment, I'll say that User:Wjbean has been uncompromising, rude, and unproductive. He has even taken to seeking out other people who've been reported here, to inform them that he suspects a Cabal is out to get him. I'd say we're stuck, unless the user has a change of heart and decides to abide by policies like WP:CIVIL, instead of turning his nose at them, saying "Wikipedia has lost its way." --Cheeser1 01:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "a cabal is out to get him" and attributing that to me is a misrepresentation of my note to AussieLegend and I take strong exception to it. That was rude and uncalled for. If you are going to hold me to some standard of civility you should abide by it yourself.

I reviewed the statements he made that brought about an "incivility" charge against him here. Though I found them pointed I did not consider them uncivil. Certainly not remotely as "offensive" as my own. I am simply asking for his opinion on the attitudes around here. The title of the thread, like a newspaper headline, was designed to draw his attention to my question. I am finding that your (collective) attitudes are reminiscent of a lynch mob. I will not back down until I hear from someone who has elected authority. I will abide by whatever decision that authority makes up to and including leaving here permanently. Respectfully (well as much as I can muster) William (Bill) Bean 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that everyone who gets reported here seems to wind up hurling complaints at the accuser and/or the WQA volunteers? "Lynch mob"?? Are you serious?? That's probably a more absurd thing than a "cabal." Nobody on Wikipedia has "elected authority" - this is not a democracy. Certainly not on the WQA, where regular volunteers and other community members attempt to resolve conflicts. We abide by policies on Wikipedia, and when people step out of line, the community steps in to help resolve it. You have apparently violated some policies. My saying so does not meant that I'm out to get you (not to attack, lynch, or cabal-ify you), and reporting your behavior does not constitute a personal attack. If you don't want to be accountable for what you say, don't say it. You are soliciting help from other users who've been reported here, in order to mount resistance against cooperating, against abiding by policy. That's something definitely worth mentioning here. And I'm sorry, but lashing out at people is not how you settle these complaints against you. You should stop it. --Cheeser1 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1 First, I'm letting this drop as it's pointless. I'm simply responding to your question "why is it that everyone reported here seems to windup hurling complaints at the accuser and/or the EQA volunteers." My specific reason is that there is no process whereby the accused can mount a defense. Anyone placed here is automatically guilty. I cannot even use the word "verdict" since there's no formalized process to determine guilt. As a senior account creation date editor I find that highly irregular and extremely suspect. Since that does indeed appear to be the case I respectfully submit that the incivility flag is open to abuse. I am currently researching which WP: topic to report my concerns to. This is not the place though. My apologies for making this such a contentious issue. Finally, In my three plus (almost four) years here I have never once been cited for incivility for pointing out clear and suspicious violations of wikipolicy. I'm letting this drop here; I'll be continuing my investigation and reporting on it elsewhere. William (Bill) Bean 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not entirely sure 2005 qualifies you as a senior Wikipedian, and seniority or age is not a compelling reason to exempt you from WP:CIVIL. Every person who's been uncivil has a first time. Regardless of what evidence you may or may not have about your clean record or what you didn't do wrong, you can "mount a defense" by politely and civilly explaining your actions. Not by hurling attacks and accusations at everyone. That's just digging yourself a deeper incivility hole. While I appreciate your apology for making this a contentious issue, I wish you would recognize that that's exactly the point. --Cheeser1 14:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck and best wishes on your 'investigation'. Dlabtot 15:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm on a civility page? That wasn't really necessary. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I should have found a better way to point out that William (Bill) Bean was continuing to make veiled threats. Dlabtot 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1: I respectfully submit (no sarcasm intended) that you missed my point; that being that I see a clear potential for abuse when every wikipedian cited here is "guilty." I cited my time here to demonstrate that I'm not just some "rube" that fell off the turnip truck. It's 2004 not 2005. And I have cited many instances where misstatements have been made regarding my responses; they've been roundly ignored. A defense is useless if it's completely ignored. Thus my assertion that a cite here is an automatic guilty.

Bfigura: This is not the first time. Please see this. In fact my statements to Dlabtot did not take a more stern tone until s/he posted that. I've asked that Dlabtot's account be checked for possible past abuses. I do note that Dlabtot threw his/her first civility flag a mere two days after joining. That alone seems suspicious to me.

Perhaps we should take this up elsewhere. As was pointed out to me earlier this really doesn't belong here. Suggestions? William (Bill) Bean 16:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are plenty of instances where complaints here are found to be lacking substance. This is not a witch-hunt, lynching, or cabal. It's a group of people who try to resolve civility disputes by taking complaints, evaluating the situation, and attempting to resolve it. We do not determine guilt, and more importantly, we do not assume that anyone has violated WP:CIVIL (or other policies) until we've seen the situation. I will not dig up examples, but there are plenty of complaints here that are almost immediately turned away as either not having any violations, or having violations that aren't WQA issues. Secondly, Wikipedians are allowed to make complaints at any time, be it two days or two years after joining. You can't defend yourself by saying you've been here for a few years, nor can you dismiss Dlabtot for being here for two days. Wikipedians are also allowed to create new accounts or use multiple accounts. It is not appropriate to assume that Dlabtot is new to Wikipedia, nor is it fair to dismiss his complaint because he might appear to be new. --Cheeser1 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge all of your points. William (Bill) Bean 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to interject with some reality to counter the untrue statement "In fact my statements to Dlabtot did not take a more stern tone until s/he posted that." 'That' being this diff 00:36, 20 September 2007, which actually took place, after, rather than prior to, William (Bill) Bean's vicious personal attack against me 00:22, 20 September 2007, which he still has not acknowledged as being uncivil. Dlabtot 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The only recognized authority on Wikipedia, in the sense you seem to be referring to (someone or someones who will make a binding decision), is the Arbitration Committee. If you feel that you need to open an ArbCom case to settle this matter, feel free; but there exists no "greater authority" of WQA who will come in and settle this. Wikipedia just doesn't generally work that way. ArbCom is generally the last resort of all disputes on Wikipedia, and I really don't think this has reached that point.

Also, please consider that if several people who are uninvolved in a matter say the same thing about your behavior regarding that matter, it just might be true. Referring to "lynch mobs" and "cabals" and so forth just smacks of paranoia, and reduces the impact of whatever reasoned argument you might be trying to make at the time. --Darkwind (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering this perhaps it is time to mark this as resolved, even if it has ended badly, it seems to have ended. Dlabtot 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereTry AN/I or Arbcom given the severity of the issues and the history of the editor. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have recently walked into an ongoing "feud" spread over several articles between a number of users, one of which is a subject of a current arbitration case (Liancourt Rocks). I call this a "feud" because of the persistant animosity displayed by this editor against those who he does not agree with, whom he subject to automatic POV labelling. For example, arguments presented on the basis of WP:NPOV are repeatedly only met with accusations that editors are "using WP:NPOV to further their agenda" [3]. He even goes as far as to refuse a RfC on the basis that the general Wikipedia community is biased [4]. He publically states his disdain for other editors [5] and persistantly resorts to uncivil / childish language in response to perfectly reasonable comments [6][7][8][9][10][11][12].Phonemonkey 14:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

An arbitrator has proposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Proposed decision that this user be banned from the entire project for a year, so the matter has probably gone beyond the point where a Wikiquette alert is going to be helpful. If extreme disruption continues, you can post to WP:ANI for an admin to consider a block, or request a temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop. Newyorkbrad 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

Stuck. Parties involved do not seem willing to mediate - please escalate via WP:DR, or drop, as deemed appropriate

Follow up: An RfC/U was created for this matter. --Cheeser1 04:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't always agreed with Tony, but I've long respected him and valued his contributions. This is why I'm quite distressed to find myself unable to resolve a dispute that evidently arose for no reason other than the fact that we disagreed with one another. I've tried very hard to communicate with him in a courteous manner, only to find all such attempts rejected. I want to once again be on good terms with Tony, and I seek advice on how to accomplish this (and hopefully avoid further conflict in the future).
The dispute began at Phil Sandifer's talk page, where I was expressing my disapproval of Phil's decision to overturn a bureaucrat's closure of Kelly Martin's RfA. Tony expressed strong disagreement with me (which was fine), but he did so in an uncivil manner. Eventually, the discussion migrated to Tony's talk page and began to have less and less to do with the RfA. The original thread (up to the point at which Tony removed it from the page) is preserved here. The most recent replies were posted after said removal (which occurred while I was asleep). I brought this to Tony's attention, and he declined to continue the discussion.
My perception of the events that followed is conveyed in a reply that I posted to Tony's talk page earlier today. I now reproduce it below (following the message to which I was responding):

I shall not apologise for saying that to tell an editor in good standing that he cannot edit a wiki page is unbelievably stupid. Certain editors should be bloody well ashamed of their conduct towards others, and I will not be hounded to withdraw this well founded opinion, by the fact that the despicable conduct has now been turned on me for saying that they're wrong, These attacks disgust me as they should disgust all Wikipedians. Further attempts to hound me will also be ignored. Clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to note that from my perspective, this isn't even about the RfA any longer. Speaking purely for myself, I never once requested that you alter your opinion or apologize for expressing your belief that people were wrong. I merely argued my own opinion, which you then referred to as "disgusting," bullshit," "idiocy" and "pure wankery" (while removing the discussion before I'd had an opportunity to respond). You also referred to the closing bureaucrat and other unspecified editors as "loonies."

When I attempted to politely discuss my concerns regarding the above, you removed my message (which you deemed "utterly unacceptable") and took it upon yourself to also remove a good-faith discussion (once again labeled "wankery") from Phil Sandifer's talk page. When I politely requested that you explain how my previous post was unacceptable, you removed that message as well (this time claiming that I was "badgering" you).

I find it remarkable that you would accuse others of attempting to silence your opinions while simultaneously purging (and refusing to address) all criticisms directed toward you (and engaging in blatant incivility and personal attacks against everyone with whom you disagree).

As you condemn other users' "despicable conduct" and demand that they clean up their acts, I once again ask that you step outside of your glass house and examine your own behavior. I assume that you shall remove this response (presumably with a rude edit summary), and I can only hope that the Tony Sidaway I've long respected, defended and supported soon returns to the wiki. —David Levy 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough, Tony removed the message (with the edit summary "More attacks and false accusations ignored as promised.").
As noted above, what frustrates me the most is that this is not some random editor. If it were, I wouldn't bother pursuing the matter. But this is Tony Sidaway, and I hate being on bad terms with him. I don't believe that I've engaged in "attacks and false accusations," but I welcome any advice concerning where I've gone wrong and what I can do to resolve this dispute. I'm inviting Tony to take part in this discussion and convey his viewpoint (which obviously differs from mine). Thanks in advance for any assistance that you're able to provide. —David Levy 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, my off the top advice is to drop it. What he's taking your comments and questions for now is harrassment, and will not respond to it. So, if you drop it, in two months after the issues is dead and gone he might see that you had a valid point, but not if you bring it up. He will need to come to this realization himself. good luck. --Rocksanddirt 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm displeased by some of Tony Sidaway's comments and tone in the past two days, but it seems clear from his last edit that he is disdainful and dismissive of this forum and/or of the concern that has been expressed, so I am not convinced that further discussion here will be productive. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in seeing the edit history on this topic (including seeing it removed by the party in question and then restored with an edit summary saying that the WQA forum itself should be deleted) that it doesn't seem further discussion here will be helpful. Marking as Stuck. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already made my extreme distaste for this issue plain, and have asked the offending party to stop hounding me. He persists despite my every attempt to make it absolutely plain that I regard his attacks on others, and on myself when I intervened, as unacceptable. Carrying it to this forum is hard for me to regard as other than an attempt to keep this bleeding sore open. I strongly urge David Levy to stop trying to rake over this extremely painful matter, and hope that others will enjoin him to disengage, too. I myself have made every effort,without being intrusive about it, to communicate my extreme pain over David's conduct to him. He will not take the hint. My disgust remains but I expressed it and want to move on. Hopefully David will stop hounding Phil Sandifer, too, but it will be noted that I have not harassed David in any way. I ask him to extend the same courtesy to me. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Can someone (I use that term because Tony obviously isn't interested in continuing this discussion.) provide some diffs for these "attacks" that I've allegedly perpetrated? If I have written something that constitutes an attack, I want to know about it (as that certainly wasn't my intention).

2. Is it crazy for me to believe that our policies regarding civility and personal attacks are important and must be followed? Am I wrong to feel that Tony has no right to hurl such insults and then declare the conversation finished (claiming that anyone who expresses concern is harassing him)?

Was it unreasonable for me to attempt to discuss my concerns with Tony on his talk page? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

Not once have I called Tony any names or accused him of acting in bad faith. I made it very clear that it was my respect and appreciation that led me to pursue amicable conflict resolution, and he responded by referring to me as a "troll" (as he removed this thread). Where have I gone wrong? I'm doing my best to set things right, and I'm truly depressed over my failure to do so. —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's where you have gone wrong, David: by not letting it go. You've both hurt one another's feelings; neither of you feels you've done wrong or violated any policy; so just accept the impasse and move on. What good could you possibly hope to derive from continuing to drag out these grievances? Validation that you're the good guy? Some sort of formal censure? Do you wish Tony to magically assume a meeker, more repentant personality? Just focus on something else for a while. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I want nothing more than to resolve the conflict. I want to know how (other than by disagreeing with him) I've hurt Tony's feelings, and I want to make sure that it never happens again. Likewise, I want Tony to attempt to understand why people are upset with his behavior (and take these concerns seriously). Is that so unreasonable? —David Levy 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is unreasonable. Accept that there are behaviors we will never understand.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I care about people's feelings and expect the same in return. I believe that WP:CIV and WP:NPA are important and shouldn't be cast aside. I believe that problems should be resolved (not buried). Perhaps I'm idealistic, but this is who I am. —David Levy 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Matter now at RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4. Viridae^Talk 02:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed consensus-building at Talk:D. James Kennedy

Stale.

Editors involved in quickly reverting material on the D. James Kennedy article they personally deem to be not following Wiki policies and guidelines are virtually uninvolved in the process of building a consensus on the talk page. Notably, Guettarda, Odd nature, FeloniousMonk and Orangemarlin are "the usual suspects." Their defenses of reversions range from personal attacks to claims of consensus being reached months ago (completely ignoring this) and more. Recent attempts to politely discuss the issues have been met with silence (last contribution from any of them on the talk page was September 27th, as you can see here. How is a dispute to be resolved and a consensus built when editors involved refuse to participate in any discussion? Should refusal to participate exempt such editors from dispute resolution and consensus building? Jinxmchue 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the discussion, and while there are a few times that people seem to be invoking SPADE, I'm not seeing hugely blatant personal attacks -- just a long content dispute with a few uncivil comments (ie "POV Warrior"). So, while people should be more civil (and I'll say so on the talk page), I don't think this is a cabal). To me, it looks more like a consensus. If you think you have valid points that haven't been heard, than the RfC is the right direction. However, if that fails to attract users who support your point, I would consider either dropping the matter (as you'd probably be going against the established consensus) or taking it up to Mediation or some such (I don't think this is the best way to go, but it is an option). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Raidon04

Resolved.

[13] Do I need to say anything more? The Prince of Darkness 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User warned. Hopefully he's just a new user not aware that standard internet ettiquette is not the standard at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He needs to understand that free use images are more preferable than fair use images. The Prince of Darkness 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That too, although that's not a Wikiquette issue. Anyway, he's blanked his talk page since I posted my warning, which of course communicates that he's read and understood the warning. We'll see if his behaviour changes from here on in. Sarcasticidealist 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also put those images up for deletion. Blatant copyright violations, and fair use equivalents were already in the article. --Cheeser1 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Race-Hate website, article links to it

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereReferred to the reliable sources noticeboard. --Cheeser1 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me if this is a "Race-hate" web-site, and advise me what I should do when seeing it presented as a "Reliable Source". Linking from the home-page I find blanket references to Palestinians as "Arab terrorists", hatred of human rights observers who report on what the Hebron settlers are doing and a virtual justification of (but no link to) the abusive behaviour of one of the settler women caught on camera. It's not just the web-site that is dubious, because the same (?) group of people were, for instance, accused by an Israeli "senior military man" of carrying out "a pogrom against the Arabs of Hebron, with no provocations on the Palestinian side" in 2002. I'm seeing the link recommended in Talk and see it is linked to from the lead of the same article here. PR^talk 17:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any wikiquette issue involved here or is this just a debate about a source? Dlabtot 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the reliable sources notice board is the place to go. and off the top, it doesn't look like a reliable source. --Rocksanddirt 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Although calling someone a terrorist is terribly uncivil, this is more of a content/sourcing dispute. But yeah, that does not look like a reliable source in any way (racist fringe theories of a self-published website). --Cheeser1 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The touch-stone for race-hate websites (as I see it) is the Institute of Historical Review (since everyone agrees we'd not link there). The question boils down to "Is this as bad or worse than David Irving?". The Wikiquette issue becomes "Should I revert with a comment about race-hate sites"?, and, if other editors persist in including that link, should I then take it to RfC, AN, AN/I or direct to ArbCom and seek to have them blocked? PR^talk 21:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask, if need be. If/when its resolved that the source is unsuitable, if people still insist on including it, you can either make a request for comment (probably of the "society" variety) or just report it to the administrator's noticeboard (being sure to explain that these sources have been determined to be race/hate sites). --Cheeser1 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be awkward, but this is not a "Reliable Source" question. I would think it would be quite difficult to disqualify the IHR from ever being referenced in the encyclopedia again on grounds of accuracy, I'd be surprised if it contains material as contested as what appeared in the books. We don't use it because we associate David Irving with race-hatred. I suggest that www.hebron.org.il should not be linked to for the same reason (except much, much more so). Frankly, I don't want to have to trawl through their claims to separate the wheat from the chaff (just as I'm not prepared to go to David Irving to check his work). I don't go to the IHR site because I may pick up something that is provably false and accidentally use it here or elsewhere, giving rise to immediate nasty accusations against my motives and views (personal very nasty experience of this, right here in WP). We should not use a source entitling articles "Palestinian duplicity" for exactly the same reason we don't use sources speaking of "Jewish duplicity" (that example actually comes from a different source, but you know what I mean). PR^talk 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Eyes Wide Shut wikipage

Resolved.

_{A content dispute, a sock puppet case, two users blocked, and legal threats...it's why I hang around here.}

Will someone please, please peek in at the Eyes Wide Shut wikipage? A link [at the external links] to a document on my website [14] which I did not add to wikipedia (I will swear on a stack of bibles) has been removed by editor MarnetteD. The link was up for over a year. My website is purely scholarly and offers no self-promotion at all (some of my work isn't even signed by me at all!). I would hope that the link could be restored. But MarnetteD, in my opinion, is acting stubborn and I have become disheartened and distressed by this intractable situation. Wikipedia is a wonderful place for students to look first (on whatever subject) and my link at the Eyes Wide Shut site can only enhance students' examination of the theme.

It is my personal failing, but I find the wikipedia rules kind of murky. I have various scholarly documents on my website [15], each relating to a different subject. So I myself put a link to the Barry Lyndon wiki page, and the Full Metal Jacket wiki page; I also had a document linked to the John Milton wiki page; and to the Alfred Schnittke wiki page. All of these links are to different stand-alone scholarly documents which have been put online for purely scholarly purposes. MarnetteD erased all of these links. This editor has accused me of "self-promotion" because of the various links. But the links are to very different subjects, and are all scholarly, and involve no self-promotion at all (as a quick glance to any of the sites will show). I feel I have been done a great wrong, for I want to be a part of wikipedia and I hope an impartial judge of my work that was originally linked to the wiki-page(s) in question will restore the link(s) which have been up for over a year, links which many students from around the world have visited for their benefit, and for the enhancement of wikipedia (and not for my own enhancement, as a quick glance at my website(s) will show: there is NO self-promotion!). If I can have only ONE link, please may I have the "Eyes Wide Shut" link restored? Thank you for considering my predicament.Scrooby 05:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I`m not an expert on WP:EL, but it looks to me like this is a site that would be eligible to link to under the policy, but not required to link to under the policy. This means that the question of whether or not to link to the site is one that must be settled by consensus - it`s a content dispute. Because I`ve had next to no involvement in film-related articles (and because last time I offered an opinion on a non-Wikiquette issue on this page, I regretted it not long thereafter), I won`t be a part of forging this consensus - I just wouldn`t value my opinion enough. If you want to get more voices involved, try WP:THIRD (assuming this dispute has been limited to the two of you) or WP:RFC. If things between you and User:MarnetteD become uncivil or otherwise difficult (from a stylistic rather than a substantial perspective), please feel free to bring it up here.

As an aside, I think you might be interpreting "self-promotion" a little narrowly. It needn`t mean promotion of your*self*; it can also include promotion of your own work, which I gather is what MarnetteD means here (not that I necessarily think you`re guilty of self-promotion, since it wasn`t you who added the links in the first place). Good luck! Sarcasticidealist 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur that it might be up to consensus, but frankly, the status quo version seems to have contained the link. Boldly removing the link requires more than just "rm spamlink" or "omg self promotion." It's clearly not spam, and it doesn't become self-promotion until Scrooby says "hey, what about the status quo version, which included a link to my site?" I mean, if somebody removed all links from Pokemon pages to Bulbapedia (a Pokemon wiki), and the owner of Bulbapedia said "hey what happened to those links?" it would be just as much an issue of self-promotion as it would be of bold edits that go against status quo consensus. --Cheeser1 05:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting a little ahead of myself - before you can have consensus, you need to have discussion, and before you can have that you need to stop the blind reverts. Good catch on that. MarnetteD needs to be committed to discussing this on the talk page. Sarcasticidealist 05:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarcasticidealist. I think MarnetteD had demonstrated his/her opinion in the matter(s) and I suspect discussion on the talk page won't get anywhere. I briefly tried, and was roundly smacked down. So I'm sad about this. I just looked at WP:THIRD and it looks quite complicated!Scrooby 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarcasticidealist. I have gone back to the Eyes Wide Shut talk page and see that you have added a helpful comment. Thank you very much. I appreciate it greatly.Scrooby 06:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The link appears to have been boldy removed, and then when reverted, MarnetteD reverted the revert (repeatedly), initiating an edit-war. S/he should have brought it to the talk page. There is a discussion in the talk page but, oddly, it's a third party in this dispute, who goes on a very long, uncivil tirade about MarnetteD. I issued a bit of a warning. --Cheeser1 05:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I went back to the Eyes Wide Shut talk page, though I said I was through with it (because I was saddened by MarnetteD's attitude) and I can roundly say that I am not Ouillah, and while Ouillah may or may not agree with my situation, I have no opinion at all at this time of Ouillah's comments. But now I have learned a new word: sock-puppet. And isn't it unfair to be accused of being someone else? I would complain about this, but I am getting worn out now. Scrooby 05:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While this situation has been resolved with Scrooby's being blocked I just found these two little gems [16], [17] clearly disproving his statement above. Considering the vitriolic personal attacks that this editor and his sockpuppet made against me I just wanted to note this for the record. MarnetteD | Talk 15:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarcasticidealist and Cheeser1. I had just written a long reply to Sarcasticidealist, then something went wrong. Oh well. Sarcasticidealist, you say I should go to WP:THIRD? Cheeser1, do you agree? Or can someone fix the problem from here? Thank you again for your reply, and you too Sarcasticidealist.Scrooby 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am so very pleased that this issue has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I have thanked Sarcasticidealist in the proper page (Eyes Wide Shut talk page), but here I want to thank Cheeser1 for assisting; namely, restoring the status quo of the Eyes Wide Shut page which endured for over a year without a single other editor raising an issue. In fact, I have received many positive email responses to my link from people around the world during this time. This can only be a help to Wikipedia -- and not to me specifically, because, personally, I get nothing out of it (nothing sold on my website; no self-promotion; nothing!). Thank you again. I am very pleased that the "system" worked properly here and I will continue to praise wikipedia far and wide. Thank you for you help, Cheeser1.Scrooby 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! MarnetteD strikes again! Cheeser1! Sarcasticidealist! I wrote an informative discussion on the merit of my link at the "Barry Lyndon" wiki site talk page[18] and the "Full Metal Jacket" wiki site [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Metal_Jacket talk page. These sites have each contained a link to separate scholarly articles which involve no self-promotion (the "Full Metal Jacket" article doesn't even have my name on it!!). For over a year these links have endured, and no one ever took issue. Indeed, I have received much praise from students and scholars from around the world. The way I see it, worthwhile external links can only reflect well on Wikipedia. All I ask is for the status quo to be restored. MarnetteD has removed the links without a single comment on the talk page!Scrooby 21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have to add, Scrooby, that I just had a look at your earlier talk page discussion with MarnetteD (I had hitherto been under the impression that there hadn't been any such discussion), and you rather seriously violated WP:AGF in assuming that somebody had a personal vendetta against you because she/he removed a link. Some of your comments, especially the ones surrounding grammar, were pretty uncivil, as well. Whatever else comes out of this, please familiarize yourself with those policies. Sarcasticidealist 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarcasticidealist. Point taken. I agree, I should have been calmer. I guess I was in a kind of shock. It wasn't just one link, it was all of my Kubrick links! So I was kind of in shock. However, generally speaking, I think wikipedia can be brought into disrepute if the editors are not using proper grammar. Wouldn't you agree?Scrooby 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good grammar in articles is essential. Good grammar on talk pages is merely desirable, especially given that there are quite a number of people making valuable contributions to Wikipedia whose grammatical skills are very poor (sometimes owing to a lack of fluency in English, and sometimes owing just to whatever it is that causes people to have lousy grammar in their native language). Certainly it would be nice if all of these people suddenly started using perfect grammar, but I'd rather have them stick around with middling grammar than leave the project entirely. Sarcasticidealist 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Sarcasticidealist. I am very pleased to have found such a pleasant user on wikipedia such as yourself.Scrooby 20:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

69.115.34.186

Resolved. Issue appears to have been settled by discussion on the article's talk page. The edit warring and incivility seem to have ceased. --Cheeser1 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This IP adress keeps reverting my edits on LeChuck. My images are a lot better than the previous, and they don't really display the character itself. The best thing would be to either block the IP adress or semi protect the page. The Prince of Darkness 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute, not a Wikiquette issue. Further, it appears the two of you are close to breaking (if you haven't already) WP:3RR. Also, after looking at the page, your comments here appear to strongly violate WP:CIVIL. I'd suggest that you be WP:COOL and read there are no angry mastadons. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The only Wikiquette issue is the incivility with which you are both behaving. A block of User:69.115.34.186 would be absolutely inappropriate. I'm personally of the view that page protection would be excessive, but you can take it to WP:RFPP if you'd like.

In the meantime, though, you should take User:Bfigura's words to heart - User:69.115.34.186 is no more in the wrong than you are, here. Sarcasticidealist 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree; to quote a famous historical figure, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Don't open a Wikiquette alert if you're not prepared to have your own behavior examined, and comments like "I will keep on reverting you till you give up"[19] display a fundamental lack of understanding about the wiki process. --Darkwind (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A note was left on The Prince of Darkness's talk regarding this discussion, but given the lack of response, I'm marking as stale. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also commented at the article in question. --Cheeser1 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing POV

Stuck. This is essentially a content dispute involving a disagreement about content and a

User Jtrainor is trying to push his POV on some articles about russian military tech. For example here and here Necator 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll check the edit history, you will find that it is Necator who is adding unsourced irrelevant material and trying to establish a POV. Jtrainor 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks a lot like a content dispute. If either of you thinks that it is in fact a Wikiquette dispute, please provide some specific diffs. Sarcasticidealist 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My conclusion too. Aside from the two of you ramping up into an revert war, I didn't see anything terribly objectionable. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that its violation of Wikiquette in terms of

• Don't ignore questions.
• If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.

Because Jtrainor does not provide any sources when asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs. Sarcasticidealist 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As an example [20] -> [21] and here [22] Necator 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the original sentence merely stated that this capability was claimed, I agree that there's no onus on any Wikipedia editor to prove that it's physically possible. I also agree that it is inappropriate to add a claim that such a capability would be physically impossible without sourcing it. I'm still not sure that this is a Wikiquette issue, though, so I won't provide any further comment here, and would encourage you to open a WP:RFC on this issue if my opinion doesn't solve the problem. Sarcasticidealist 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be a subject of WP:RFC if there were some constructive discussions. But i, myslef, did provide severeal sources to prove my opinion and Jtrainor didnt provide even one. Necator 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Again, to me this seems to be a content dispute, but since we're all here: I agree with Sarcasticidealist that the only source needed is a source proving the claim (regardless of how true it is). Remember, the guideline for wikipedia is: verifiability, not truth. Now, if Jtrainor would like to counter that claim, he needs to provide sourcing, otherwise it's pure original research. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Now, if Jtrainor would like to counter that claim, he needs to provide sourcing, otherwise it's pure original research" But the problem is Jtrainor does not provide any sources at all and keep pushing his original research by brute force. There is nothing about content. Its about behaviour. Necator 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. And since he's participating in this discussion, he should have seen our comments. Just to be sure though, I'll leave a note on his page. If he keeps it up after being warned not to, take it to AN/I. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... he keeps it up [23] Necator 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From Jtrainor page: "The consensus seems to be that a source is needed to justify the the claims about the missile withstanding the blast (regardless of how true it is)" It seems like you are not clear with what is going on. It's not about one article. There at least 2 different mentioned by me above. And if you check the list of his contributions, you'll realise that such kind of behaviour is normal for this user. Necator 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Also, don't try to ignore the issue with S-400_Triumf. You are clearly pushing POV with your edits to that page-- people should check the history there and make comparisons to how it was before Necator started editing. With regards to the Bulava, as long as it's made clear that it's purported capability to survive nuclear detonations is simply claimed and not fact, I have no issue with it. Jtrainor 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue with S-400_Triumf is absolutely the same. I did provide you sources you did provide me phrase "I will continue to revert your attempted POV-pushing" The diff [24]Necator 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As mentioned above, this is not a content dispute forum. We only deal with cases of Wikiquette, which this has ceased to be. If you're interested in getting someone to give you an opinion on a content dispute, please try WP:3O or Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* Works for me. Necator wanted to bring you folks into this, not I. Jtrainor 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in that I agree with Bfigura. This is a content dispute, more or less, so it's not WQA material, but I would say that a source is a source, especially when we say "____ claims that ____" - trying to contradict a sourced claim (especially one like this) with an unjustified claim should be reverted, and it shouldn't be re-added until a source is found for this "it is physically impossible" statement. There's no burden on the editor to prove the claims of the Russian government. --Cheeser1 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of that? [25] Sources were provided and once again changed to original research. So, i can not agree that this is content dispute. There is no dispute at all. There are sources from one side and reverting from another. I've change the template back Necator 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Has the S-400 been tested against or shot down a stealth aircraft or not? If it has not (it hasn't), then any claims to it's performance against stealth aircraft are just that, -claims-. Jtrainor 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor - it's not up to Necator to verify the claims that can already be verified in reliable sources. It's also not up to him to prove your assertions wrong. You are making the fallacy of assuming things without evidence, based on your belief that statements to the contrary require proof. This is not valid. Certainly, we expect something to be physically impossible until it is known or proven to be possible. But you have no proof of its physical impossibility, nor do you have a source saying so. That means there's no basis or source for your claim. (Here I'm referring to the missile thing, but it's the same across the board.) If you want to call attention to the fact that these are claims, or that these assertions (despite being in reliable sources) are not scientifically proven, then maybe you can discuss making such a change, and if others agree, then do it. Pushing those disputed changes on the article isn't going to help. Please abide by these policies. --Cheeser1 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious you are only paying attention to one aspect of this dispute. Unless you're going to look at BOTH articles and Necator's history on both of them, I have nothing more to say to you about this as you are not paying attention. Jtrainor 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor: I'd like to reiterate what was said further above: Wikiquette Alerts is a forum for resolving interpersonal disputes and difficult communication brought on by violations of Wikipedia's civility policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc) and guidelines (WP:COOL, WP:POT, et al). We are not in a position here to resolve content disputes or to take sides in matters of content - if one of us can contribute to a content dispute, we will take it up in the appropriate article talk page. In short, WQA is here to help people get along and to educate them on WP civility policies - to help cool you guys down and get you back to a point where you can discuss the matter civilly.

If the situation is such that one person is pushing POV and ignoring consensus (I haven't read the whole discussion, so I can't judge), a more appropriate forum would either be WP:AN/I or WP:RFC/U, depending on the severity. Please also consult the dispute resolution page for more information on the overall process and the various options available to you. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User Geoeg

Work in Progress - comments welcome

• User Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This newly registered account drew attention when a request was listed for a third opinion. It's not yet clear whether the articles written by the user should be {{COI}}/{{COI2}} tagged.

The user has persistently violated the civility policy in his posts to npov editors who have attempted to address article issues appropriately.

• Talk:Least-squares spectral analysis (|article|history|links|watch|logs) (formerly "Vaníček analysis")

Sections: Move proposal and What is it?   Examples: 1 2 3 4

• Talk:Petr Vaníček (|article|history|links|watch|logs)

Sections: Petr Vaníček notability and Third opinion.   Examples: 1 2 3 4 5(a) 5(b)

The article talk pages are not long (articles are new). — Athaenara ✉ 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a COI here, but the implied legal threat made here is more troubling. I'm going to leave a warning for the user. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as the rest of the COI goes, this seems to more of an issue for the conflict of interest noticeboard, since most of the issues here stem from an intimate involvement of the editor with the subject in question. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I missed that one. It supports the perception of bullying, big time. You're quite right, also, that this needs some COI noticeboard attention. — Athaenara ✉ 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Geoeg. — Athaenara ✉ 08:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As Geoeg's incivility continues it is a Wikiquette as well as a COI issue. I think it is appropriate for this section to remain open a bit longer for input from other editors. — Athaenara ✉ 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have had much interaction with other editors; you and I are the only ones who challenged him, and he immediately lashed out abusively at both of us. In his latest, he calls me "Dickhawk", and the tags I placed as "naughty repellant-tags." He doesn't seem to be willing to listen to what the tags mean or are good for. Dicklyon 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have identified his sockpuppet and probable real identity (now looking more likely that my original conjecture was correct) on the COI page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Geoeg. Dicklyon 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking at all the pages, it seems this still could be further addressed. I'll respond on Talk:Vaníček analysis, since that's where the dispute seems to be. But in short, while legal threats and personal attacks are unacceptable, so is trying to expose someone's identify. (I know this was more of attempting to find the reason behind a COI, but it's probably still against policy). (I'm not sure it would fall under WP:OVERSIGHT, but it's still not a good idea). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there. If it's true there's a policy I violated, I apologize. But please try to find it and point it out to me so I can learn. Dicklyon 03:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. After looking, it's not really against the letter of policy (WP:HA#Posting_of_personal_information would be the relevant one), but it might be somewhat against the spirit. I'm saying 'might' because I think there's a balance between privacy and COI here, and I don't know which end should carry more weight. (I.e., the right to personal privacy, or the right to point out someone's COI by naming their involvement). In any event, I think you were acting in good faith, so I don't think it's an issue. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On the question of how far editors should go in looking into someone's real life identity, while investigating a COI case, please see a recent item on the User talk page of arbitrator Charles Matthews discussing this. See also Durova's comment in the same thread. These two editors believe you should not reveal the real-life identity of anyone on-wiki if you have determined it only through your searches off-wiki. If there is an actual diff where the user says who they are, the case is different. (According to Matthews, Arbcom has been known to discuss real-life identities on its own internal mailing list). If you have seen a number of these issues on the regular wiki pages, you will note that editors can use careful language to circumvent having to explicitly state someone's real-life identity even in cases where it is rather obvious (e.g. through the whois information on a web site where the user's views are stated). EdJohnston 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Geoeg's violations of civility and no personal attacks policies have been larded with untruths as well. For example, in one message which he posted twice at 23:51 and 23:52 UTC on 8 October:

• False: Lyon "is trying to separate" the two disputes
• True: Lyon's request for a third opinion listed them together.
• False: someone "said loud and clear: Dicklyon has been bashing" on Talk:Vaníček analysis
• True: Zvika, the only other editor who had posted on either talk page before then, had not said that.

Well, to be fair, Zvika's first talk comment did refer to "your fascinating mutual bashing above." In a subsequent edit he rebuked Geoeg for bashing and denied that I was bashing; anyway, this is all the Geoeg referred to, I think, in his "loud and clear: Dicklyon has been bashing". His incivility and fact distortion in support of his POV are about the strongest I've ever seen, but I've never found any wikipedia way to successfully deal with that unless some admin notices and gets outraged enough. Dicklyon 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

These examples are only two of many such distortions of fact. Might a brief block have some effect on Geoeg's attack posting and disruptive edit warring? — Athaenara ✉ 22:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NCCC article editors

We have reached an road block in trying to get User:Coterminous to work as a team member and not to attack other users on a personal level. User:LoverOfArt, who is the one being attacked is having a hard time fighting the urge to respond in kind, but he is trying. We currently have full protection set on the page, but even that has not helped the issue. The excessively long posts by User talk:Coterminous have added to the problem. To review the situation, please see the posts on the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-05 National Civilian Community Corps
• User talk:Coterminous
• Talk:National Civilian Community Corps

• Talk:National Civilian Community Corps/Archive 1

• User talk:LoverOfArt