Revision as of 04:26, 13 July 2008

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

Joseph Smith

Storm Rider (talk · contribs)

I wonder if someone could have a look at the comments being directed at me on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.? - Juden (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Juden, it would be much easier if you could provide wp:diffs so that we can see what comments in particular are bothering you. happy to take a look if you do. --Ludwigs2 04:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of things like this (note the edit summary) and this , which seem to have poured over to this. - Juden (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - well, at least he's got a flair for sophisticated insults.  :-) my guess, here, is that you tweaked his religious beliefs and he's fuming about it, and since these diffs only cover maybe a couple of hours it will probably blow over. but I'll leave a message on his talk page and see if I can figure out what's eating him. believe me, though - I've seen SOOOOoooo much worse than this. --Ludwigs2 04:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really gone on for months... so perhaps it's unfair to involve you. I mostly wanted a sanity check. Nearly every edit he objects to is instantly reverted and only occasionally discussed - usually vituperatively. You're right that it's all religious stuff. I think the problem is bigger than you think :) - Juden (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

you may be right; I'll see what he has to say. religious issues are always tricky, because almost everyone who edits them is convinced they know the right of it, and different opinions can lead to a lot of friction. keep in mind, if he reverts you more than a couple of times in a day, or with an unpleasant regularity over a period of time, you can always ask for assistance from an administrator (see wp:3rr), but I'd save that as a 'last resort' kind of thing. it's much better to figure it out and get some kind of working relationship going.--Ludwigs2 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look, and while some of Storm Rider's comments are pushing it in terms of civility and good faith, the edits Juden is adding have some problems. The allegation that Joseph Smith fathered children with women other than Emma smith is a tinderbox, and would need to be well-sourced. Even if it was well-sourced, care would have to be taken regarding the Undue weight policy. I know quite a bit about Mormonism, and I think I've only heard that allegation once or twice (doesn't mean it's not more common than I think, but I am a little skeptical).

Juden, if you would like to pursue this further, Storm Rider should be notified of this thread. Let us know what you'd like to do. It looks like Ludwigs has already asked Storm Rider to tone it down. Wikiquette Alerts is not intended to mediate in content disputes, but if you are continuing to have trouble with reverting each other, I could probably take a look (Full disclosure: I was raised Mormon, but have not been affiliated with the church for pretty much my entire adult life, and I hold little sympathy for the organization. I believe I can mediate without allowing a conflict of interest to get in the way, as I do not consider myself to anti-Mormon either, but I am not completely uninvolved either) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I doubt that is going to happen. I just happened to stumble upon this myself. Juden is not interested in any type of cooperative effort to write articles or anything. He has an opinion and POV that he is firmly dedicated to. The only other time he raises his head is when there is contention to be stirred up or added to. Regardless, it might be helpful to insert yourself in some of the editing, if for no other reason then I will not have to hear that incessant whining about civility. I am not familiar with your editing in my years here, but I trust there would not be any conflict of interest. I would enjoy working with you. --Storm Rider 08:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider was aware, since Ludwigs' note. By all means, more eyes on civility patrol will be appreciated. Ludwig's request to tone down the rhetoric went sadly unheeded. Please, by the way, don't mischaracterize my edits: perhaps you have confused them with someone else's. I have never inserted any claim into any article that Joseph Smith was known to have children by his plural wives. - Juden (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not aware. The point is that Jay made a request that I should be made aware if you wanted him to provide assistance; you did not. Nothing more and nothing less. Ludwig made no reference to this bit of nuisance. Please do not state as fact what is in another editor's mind or add further spin to your situation. Again, please do not misstate facts when you don't know something as such. It is best just to refrain from editing at those times. --Storm Rider 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You think you had to be notified of the existence of a thread in which you had already posted? At any rate, I hardly think an attempt to get you to abide by WP:Civility should be characterized as a "bit of nuisance". - Juden (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Juden said: I have never inserted any claim into any article that Joseph Smith was known to have children by his plural wives. While this is technically true, it is terribly disingenuous. See this diff, which is only one of like three (both of you were pushing WP:3RR there at times, by the way). While you technically did not say that he did, there was no mention of this possibility previously, so it clearly is a hint. If I all of a sudden said, in the middle of handling this Wikiquette Alert, "It is not clear to me whether or not Juden beats his wife", do you think that would be fair? Of course not.

Also, since the section in question was providing views either way as to whether Smith did have plural wives, the statement is loaded from that perspective too, because it implicitly confirms that he has plural wives. In fact, forget what I said before, this would be like if I wrote, in the middle of this post, "It is not clear to me how often Juden beats his wife." Um, no. Not acceptable.

Now, if we produce some notable and credible sources that are discussing the possibility, that might warrant inclusion. Until then, though, the loaded statement simply does not belong in the article.

Regarding the allegations of continued incivility, do you have any diffs? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to fairness, no, I do not think your "disingenous" remark is fair. I rather think you're taking diffs out of context. There certainly was mention of this possibility in many previous versions of this article. The diff you cite was my rewording of "Smith had additional wives, but there is no definitive evidence he produced any offspring with them. See Polygamy and Plural Marriages section below" - which was not inserted by me. Further, the article quite clearly indicates that credible sources are considering that possibility - or rather, the article used to! The sources were on that page, as was a section about a Mormon genealogy lab that is working to disprove them, before they were moved to a more obscure sub-article. I think at present they can be found in Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. Little remains in the Smith article about polygamy, as it's been systematically hidden elsewhere and minimized in the main article - one needs to read past his death to find it, and then it appears again in the very last paragraph of the article. With regard to diffs in which Storm Rider has been insulting, they should not be hard to find ( for baiting, for name-calling (actually, just reading his talk page would be better than listing diffs: in his answer to Ludwigs incivility query he manages to continue to insult me, and multiple problems with civility are noted on that page, lest this be depicted as something he's only manifested towards me. ), , for sarcasm and baiting again, etc. ). His edit summaries as well as the edits proper also tend to be dismissive, non-collegial, and insulting. - Juden (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just glancing around at recent contribs, I have a suggestion that I often make to people who just can't seem to stop arguing: Stay away from each other's user talk pages. In fact, this is mutually enforceable: see WP:DRC. I would recommend that if someone's comments on your user talk page are just pissing you off, remove them. (Do not remove comments from someone else's user talk page, only from your own) I occasionally need to resort to this when I find I cannot communicate with someone.

Anyway, just a suggestion. It works for some people, not for others. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good one. - Juden (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I take it then you've read

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Storm Rider (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling the removal of insults an "unconstructive edit" is just another violation of WP:Civility. Thanks for providing further evidence.- Juden (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC) You might want to find a new complaint; that one is getting rather old and people aren't listening to you. Maybe if you jump up and down it will help, but I would actually recommend reading polciies and attempt to first implement them yourself. You may see it as a personal insult; however, that would be a personal problem and it would have nothing to do with my edit. My edit was a warning and should be interpreted as such. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for adding more evidence. - Juden (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

which will soon be gone :) - Juden (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly :) The recent incivility seems to be largely confined to your respective User Talk pages. I believe that the two of you may be unintentionally saying things that set the other person off in ways that would not normally occur. Limiting your interactions may go a long ways to improving the situation. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly less interaction would provide less opportunity for his incivility, but wouldn't solve the basic problem; my concern is that he seems to use rudeness and other forms of incivility as a way to discourage people from editing "his" article by making the editing experience unpleasant if they introduce opinions he disagrees with. And, as you've seen on his talk page, concerns over his behavior arise not only in his interactions with me, but his rudeness is repeatedly a complaint of people other than me, as well. I'd like to see some indication that civility was to be taken seriously here and that using incivility as part of one's editing "bag-of-tricks" has some consequences - or will in the future. - Juden (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can't help out with this anymore. While normally I am pretty good at putting my personal feelings to the side, I am a little pissed off about Mormonism at the moment. My wife's birthday is today, and my parents, who own an LDS bookstore, gave her a book on parenting that is written from a distinctly Mormon perspective. Signed by the author, whom they know, and everything. This was a very nice gesture, of course -- except that my wife and I are both atheists, she is ethnically Jewish, and they know damn well that we aren't interested in their freaking church. Of course, it's not really my parents' fault... they have been conned into believing that this sort of socially inappropriate behavior is "fellowshipping" and is not only acceptable (it's not) but that they are trying to help us.

Add to this the fact that the church leadership decided my adopted sister could not be sealed to my parents (if they are going to con my parents into being rude to their family and giving up 10% of their income, they could at least provide them some freaking emotional comfort, don't you think?!?), and right now, I don't really care whether Joseph Smith's biography contains slanderous information or not. Sorry. Neutrality is important in mediation, and I just can't be neutral right now. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope tincture of time lets the book episode fade into obscurity, and sorry for your troubles. I'm a little shocked that an organization that would seal Mr. & Mrs. Hitler to each other for eternity won't seal an adopted child to her parents, but.... you learn something new everyday... (and, btw - there's nothing slanderous in Smith's article, and that wasn't what this was about anyway :) - Juden (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dilip_rajeev

I'm very disturbed by the commentaries left by this user Dilip_rajeev at an AFD, in which a simply AFD turned into a shouting match between the pro-FLG and anti-FLG camps. For example here he made attacks against another user for wanting to delete the article, suggesting him as a "CCP-hired thug paid to post pro-CCP messages and assault FLG practitioners". In another instance he accused a new user of being a CCP propagandist . The user edits nothing but Falun Gong related articles , and has been blocked 3 times previously for edit warring.--PCPP (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is a highly controversial topic and it is not surprising that editors who have a strong POV on the topic will resort to heated debate & strong language. That said, I don't see a particular wikiquette violation here. The insinuation that an editor is a paid agent of the CCP is perhaps the closest thing here to a personal attack, but Dilip has refrained from direct accusation and, frankly, that kind of conspiracy-mongering probably hurts him more than anybody else. I would be interested to see what others have to say, but as for myself, while I see a heated debate I don't see any clear-cut incivility. Citing a 3RR block from last September, btw, is a canard. Eusebeus (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with this particular user's style of actively preaching FLG and turning the AFD into a debate about FLG itself. Is it possible to gain the attention of some admins to settle the current POV dispute arousing from FLG articles? I've tried to create an RFC but didn't seem to get any attention.--PCPP (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that POV-pushing by any party is problematic, but it is not really a wikiquette issue if it remains at the level of content; a reminder that AfD should remain a focused discussion and not a soapbox could be potentially salubrious. Have you informed the editor of this alert? Eusebeus (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the user is now using a external link (which I find libellous) to accuser another user of "sowing confusion" in wikipedia.--PCPP (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

IP user 216.70.26.237

IP address 216.70.26.237 has been making drastic reversions to articles, including List of programs broadcast by ABC Family and List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. Those edits have been part of ongoing edit wars (see Talk:List of programs broadcast by ABC Family#Article organization and Talk:List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon#Article reorganization) in both articles. Furthermore, he has used the "undo" feature without an edit summary and has used the summary "rv vandalism" to restore his preferred version of the articles. .

Note: I have left a talk page message with this user about a month ago. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add: The above diff was about edit warring. This diff was about the use of "rv vandalism" edit summaries. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? You didn't even talk to me about anything. 216.70.26.237 (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

216.70.26.237, what exactly do you mean by "You didn't talk to me about anything"? RJaguar3 left you this and you wanted to leave him this response. That is considered discussion in my book. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, seriously he/she brought up something from May 28? Talk about old news. I don't see what the problem is so please explain it to me. 216.70.26.237 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to turn this into an argument, but I will say, simply, that you've been making major, controversial, non-vandalism-reverting edits with either the undo function sans summary (which implies that the edit is a simple vandalism revert) or an explicit "rv vandalism" summary. The reason I reported this is, after I left a message 2 weeks ago about the "rv vandalism" summaries, you made another "rv vandalism edit" just yesterday. I fail to see how this is old news at all. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, my misunderstanding. Im sorry, I forgot that you can add a summary after an undue. 216.70.26.237 (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no prohibition that I am aware of about using the "undo" button to change to a preferred version, as long as it does not constitute edit warring. (You may be confusing this with the Rollback function offered to some Wikipedians, and available via scripts like Twinkle -- those features should not be used except for vandalism and other egregious issues)

One other piece of advice I would give is that it is almost always a bad idea to call something "vandalism" unless it is really, really obvious (e.g. blanking an entire page and replacing it with "I like doo-doo!"). Even if someone is making a highly controversial edit that goes against consensus, generally one should avoid calling it "vandalism" as this only serves to fan the flames. So, avoid the V-word when possible.

Does 216.*'s promise to use the edit summary resolve this problem, or should someone look into it more carefully? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:LardleFan

Hi. Please review Special:Contributions/LardleFan as this user has made several personal attacks against me. Thanks. ~AH1 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much the personal attacks that concern me as it is the utter lack of anything constructive to contribute to the project. His contribs are all either vandalism or working on an article for a word he/she made up. This user is headed for an indefinite block sooner rather than later. I will keep an eye, thanks for the heads-up. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll block as vandalism-only account if the disruptive behavior continues. I'm keeping an eye on him now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleo123

User:Cleo123 has treated me in an incivil way. There are multiple instances, but the main one of concern should be those found here. To be upfront, a few admin have contacted me and asked that I file a complaint here about current incivil treatments of myself. I have filed a report of the above user's actions on my talk page and a report on the above user's use of BLP and other policies to justify their behavior. This report is just for incivil comments about myself which the above user refuses to stop.

1. "Now there is a very odd coincidence! Nice edit summaries - very civil. The time stamps and similarity in tactical strategies, will also undoubtedly be of interest to administrators. Perhaps you can explain what would appear to be very uncivil behavior."

An accusation of incivility based on my removing an off topic dispute by the above user that I did not want on my talk page and made it clear in the summary that I was reverting (yet they denied that they could see that I reverted).

2. "You and Tendancer post derogatory remarks about me on a notice board with a link to your talk page."

Claims that I posted derogatory remarks using this as evidence, even though I did not post any derogatory remarks nor even post there.

3. "When I attempt to respond to these false allegations with facts, both of you seem to be reverting me with in seconds of one another. What's that all about? If you truly object to "our dispute" being on your talk page, please, explain why you haven't removed Tendancer's "off topic" remarks?"

Vague allegations of incivility or possible sock puppetry.

4. "As the link from the BLP noticeboard clearly indicates, I was explaining WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP to this disruptive editor for the umpteenth time. Can he be blocked for incivility and disruption? This is getting to be ridiculous."

More claims that I was being disrupted based on my activities here and here.

5. "Now the numerous sources available make it clear that Steve Windom was the victim of defamation that resulted in criminal charges. The incident is currently discussed in a neutral and fair manner in the article. Yet, you have been arguing for a detailed reprinting on Misplaced Pages of the material that a court ruled to be libelous. You have even encouraged a new, inexperienced user to create a free standing article in order to showcase this libel, insisting that Windom who you claim to have contacted in real life, (in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on original research) will have to sue Misplaced Pages if he wants to get it removed! When users attempt to explain Misplaced Pages's libel policy to you, you have repeatedly taken the unusual stance that only actual libel victims are allowed to mention the word WP:LIBEL on Misplaced Pages."

As you can see, the above user claims that you cannot talk about legal cases dealing with defamation, even if numerous news papers reported on it. The above user also condemns any mention of it before they even see it. The above user also challenges John Carter's and my proposal of moving any indepth discussion of the incident (false allegations about prostitution) to a new page in order to remove any WP:WEIGHT issues. The above user then attacks me for contacting the subject of the article in order to determine if they felt that the way we were handling it was "defamation" in order to negate their claims that it was defamation (as only the person in the biography has the right to determine such and not any proxy unless given legal permission to do so). They are then claiming that it is "original research" even though such a thing pertains only to the pages themselves and not to figuring out legal issues behind the pages. They then claim that I don't understand policy. Swatjester's comments on the legality and the legal process of the page can be found here. As he states, it is an issue for OTRS and the Office.

6. "I've said that a court ruled the material in question to be libelous, which it did. I've cautioned you about knowingly reprinting libel on Misplaced Pages as you could be exposing Misplaced Pages to potential legal problems. I think WP:BLP is very clear that libel about living people is to be removed immediately."

Another claim that I would be producing Libel before even seeing what I would right.

7. "You entered the article's discussion late in the game and have been defending the view of an editor who was repeatedly inserting defamatory material into the article."

Claims that I "entered" into a "game" at a time that was "late". Also claims of defamation.

8. "For reasons unknown, you are still on the page fighting like hell to "mediate" a dispute that no longer exists, even going so far as to contact the article's subject and argue for the creation of a separate "scandal" article for reasons unknown."

Questioning my use of mediation between User:Dem1970 and User:Audemus Defendere. As you can note, both of the have stopped their edit war and are no longer fighting in a semi-incivil manner.

9. "I am a disruption? LOL! Sorry, but that is downright amusing coming from a user who has been banned from participating in FAC discussions (for behavior that is strikingly similar to your conduct in this matter)"

The user links here, which you can note that I took a short wikibreak from FA review, and I was not banned. As you can also note, SandyGeorgia, who helps run FAR/FAC stated that I was a good contributor and was opposed to the proposed actions of a vocal minority.

10. "cited by numerous editors for extreme incivility and blocked numerous times."

The above user cites this, which had no real result and did not agree that it was "extreme". They also cite my block log, which dealt mostly with an edit dispute at Treaty of Tripoli which I broke 3RR based on reverting just before 24 hours, an edit dispute at to proposed changes to WP:NLT which community consensus agreed with me on a stopping of the wording from being changed, and a block until I apologized for "tenditious editing" based on User:MSJapan and my dispute over the legitimacy of academic sources which did not involve a 3RR and was disputed by quite a few admin. Do any of these pertain to the situation? No.

That is just one page. There are multiple talk pages that include mostly repetition of the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add - I don't really appreciate these actions. Its one thing to disagree with wording or content, but this is just a string of personal attacks after personal attacks. I stepped in because Dem and Audemus were having a problem and I helped them to work together. What do I get in return? The above. I have more important pages to work on, and all I get is Cleo123 attacking me left and right. I don't have the time or ability to deal with this, and even removing of the attacks on my own talk page result in an attempted revert war by the user. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

78.151.142.191

User: Maunus appears to be in contravention of WP:DRC. S/he has made repeated reverts on my talkpage. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be 78.151.142.191‎ (talk · contribs), not Maunus, who is restoring the warning. There is now a relevant ANI thread, so I am closing the Wikiquette alert and referring there. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to Maunus; I had not realised 78.151.142.191‎ (talk · contribs) was the one making the reverts. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, just so there's a record of it in both places -- it was uncovered at ANI that the IP had legitimately misinterpreted WP:DRC due to some confusing wording (which incidentally was added by some joker called Jaysweet who really needs to learn how to keep the central ideas in his sentences together rather than separated by tangential remarks and numerous commas :/ ). I have fixed the wording. The edit-warring over the comments turned out to be a good faith error.

Other issues were handled at ANI as well, but they are not directly relevant to this alert. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Edit war

I wonder if someone could take a look at this please. There's an edit war going on over a fairly trivial yes/no point, and it has degenerated to very uncivil comments. I do not know the rights and wrongs of the situation, I can't seem to find an answer anywhere, meanwhile the two editors in question are at it hammer and tongs. A resolution and/or a blocking would be very welcome. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that, after weeks of revert warring, this was being addressed by an admin while I typed the above post. Coincidence of the week! Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The admin's actions aside, the fundamental matter has not been addressed and no solution has been found. The main question is whether the lyrics were proper content for the article. The secondary issue involves the behavior of the anonymous editor, who used multiple IPs to evade blocks and continue to engage in disruptive editing and personal attacks. Clearly, said behavior is inappropriate and cannot be permitted. Said anonymous editor has not made a case for the inclusion of the questioned content, and other editors have, in the edit history, made a case against same. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your first point is the point I am struggling with - if there's any actual dispute there at all, it requires someone with a knowledge of fair use etc and whether or not the lyrics are considered essential to the article. The second point you raise, that of the behaviour of the IP editor, is a no-brainer - his remarks and general behaviour are totally unacceptable. Plus, if his is the only voice for the inclusion of the disputed content, I'd venture to suggest his voice be ignored. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on this at Talk:Whiskey in the Jar#Edit war. To cut to the chase, I'd say the Misplaced Pages:Don't include copies of primary sources is the main guideline to consider. The actual behaviour is unquestionably out: e.g. the repeated block-evading IP socks; this ; and the clear history of 74.230.99.202 pursuing RepublicanJacobite across unconnected topics with false accusations of vandalism . Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Note further personal attacks from another IP sock 70.152.204.190 (talk · contribs) - , , . Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Skoojal

The problem I am having is that User:Skoojal is using inappropriate pronouns to describe me; ze is referring to me with female pronouns despite my request that ze stop.

At 23:22, 8 July 2008, I requested that Skoojal stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. At 23:33, 8 July 2008 (eleven minutes later), Skoojal used a female pronoun to describe me, blatantly defying my request. I find this action patently hostile and inflammatory.

It is as inappropriate for Skoojal to make an unfounded claim that I am a certain gender, as it would be for ze to make an unfounded claim that I am a member of a certain religion. I would like to request that someone step in to make this distinct to Skoojal to avoid having to seek disciplinary action against this user. Whistling42 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If I got your gender wrong, I got your gender wrong. So what? That's a mistake on my part, but it's not hostile. Skoojal (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Skoojal of this thread. Hopefully he or she will honor your request. In fairness, he or she may not have noticed your initial request (it was part of another remark and could have been glossed over) so it was not necessarily a "patently hostile and infallmmatory" action on his or her part.

Incidentally, I have a question about this "ze" business. When you said, "...as it would be for ze to make an unfounded claim...", you used "ze" as the object pronoun -- I thought it was only meant to be a subject pronoun? Shouldn't it be "zim" or "zer" or something if it is the object pronoun? Not to get off topic here, but if this artificial ungendered pronoun doesn't distinguish between grammatical subject and grammatical object, it creates more problems than it solves IMO... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, so, apparently Whistling42 objects to the use of the English language, as per here. I don't wish to make a federal case out of this, so my recommendation would be to never refer to Whistling42 using pronouns. This is English Misplaced Pages, and despite what Whistling42 may believe, there is no such word in the English language as "ze", and I am not going to start using a made-up word, nor am I going to ask anyone else to do so. I am marking this thread as resolved, since there is no reasonable request being made here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jay. We certainly have some control over what people will refer to us as that will fit into regular bounds of civility, at the same time, it's simply impossible and unreasonable to refuse not only he and she but also "he or she" and tell people to use a made up word. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of weird for me to be in this position, because I'm actually kind of a stickler about avoiding gender-specific pronouns when I am not sure about the person's gender. I use "he or she" all the time, and in situations where it is appropriate and where "he or she" would be too awkward, I even user the singular "they".

It is quite unfortunate that English does not have a gender-neutral single pronoun (other than "it", which of course is quite insulting when used for a living being). I don't even necessarily object to someone taking it upon themselves to try and propagate the user of a made-up gender-neutral pronoun such as "ze" -- after all, that's how language changes, right? If "ze" were to appear in enough published texts, it could officially enter the language one day, and in theory that's all fine.

But I for one think "ze" sounds forced and artificial, even though I support the concept of a gender-neutral pronoun in theory. So I'm not going to use the word "ze," and it's not reasonable to ask other editors to do so either. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand: it is absolutely inappropriate to use "he or she" to describe a person who has specifically requested not to be referred to as "she" or as "he". If a person refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns on the grounds that they are neologisms, and if they refuse to use singular they due to a belief that it is grammatically incorrect, the only civil option is to refrain from using pronouns altogether. Whistling42 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I normally do not like to argue about such things, but since I am already involved I'll respond. "Absolutely inappropriate" is in your view, there is no hard and fast rule saying using he-or-she is incivil, offensive, inappropriate. I'm not going to get on your case for having an opinion on the matter, even if it is a minority one. I will say that while it is certainly your right to have a problem with such usage, it does not mean that the Misplaced Pages community or internet users in general will comply. In my humble opinion, they aren't being rude or unreasonable, but it appears we disagree on that point. I generally default to "he" on the internet, if I am corrected then I switch to "she". I have never in my memory seen anyone offended by this, even those that choose to stay 100% gender neutral in their online identity haven't complained to me. I believe the reason Jay originally said "wow", which I basically agreed with, is because the request you made didn't seem realistic and will prove to be problematic if insisted upon. In the end, you and I will disagree on considering such usages as uncivil, but it will never be my personal intent to offend you and I will likely go out of my way not to refer to your "gender", though it is totally improbably that the entire community will respond to such a request, and I hope you understand that and it won't continue to create issues with interactions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to echo the portion of Gwynand's comment where he or she promised to personally try to abide by your request. I will do so also. I just don't think you are going to have much luck getting everyone to abide by it, and I don't think the community is going to enforce your request. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did I request that anyone should use "ze" to describe me. If you disagree, please provide a diff of the comment where I supposedly said such a thing. All I stated is that a user should stop using gendered pronouns to describe me. Provided that they do not use "it" or other inflammatory language, the choice is theirs. Whistling42 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Ze is not just a "made-up" word but an attempt by many to find useful non-gender specific pronouns for a variety of reasons. As a default, using someones wikiname is an easy way to avoid these issues instead of making gender assumptions. Banjeboi 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this is flagged as resolved, but for future reference not everyone lives in the LGBT-o-sphere, and transgendered and third-gendered editors that have special requests or requirements for people referring to them should either note that on their userpage or not get too upset when someone mistakenly refers to them in the 3rd person as he or she. -- User0529 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't need to be in the "LGBT-o-sphere" to avoid inferring gender, especially when editing articles related to ... gender and gender variation. We also should only need a civil reminder to avoid using a specific gender pronoun if it's been made clear that doing so is insulting. Simply using non-specific pronouns (they, their, etc.) or a username is all it takes. No need to try to get everyone on board to new-to-them gender terminology. Another possibility is what you just did, he or she, a perfectly reasonable alternative. University-level texts have been doing this since the 1980s so it's not a terribly new concept. Banjeboi 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject... I just want to point out that when I initially responded to this request, I said, "Ah hah, Whistling is right!" and asked Skoojal if he would please address Whistling using "he or she". I thought that was a perfectly reasonable solution, and in fact I already take care to use "he or she" when I am not sure. This only became an issue because, as Whistling said below, Whistling does not accept "he or she" either. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"He or she" is not a reasonable alternative; it enforces a binary and infers that the person identifies as one or the other, which may not be the case. Whistling42 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You will note that this issue has been listed as resolved. Your continuing to persue it is a distraction from more substantive issues. Skoojal (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I request that any further discussion on this matter should take place at my Talk page. I say this only because it is the one place I know where no one can easily come along and insist it be removed. Whistling42 (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

user:Nishidani

Being consistently attacked by user:Nishidani. user:Nishidani has been accusing me all over[REDACTED] recently. He has been accusing me of calling him an antisemite, something I've never done, and I politely explained his mistake to him, he keeps ignoring this and accusing me in order to confuse an administrator and attack me on every occasion. He has called me a terrorist organization fanatic a Lehi aficionado - aficionado means fanatic, fan, enthusiastic follower , which means he claims I'm a terrorist organization fanatic. He's difficult to discuss with because when in content dispute, he claims the other party to be a vandal. He name-called me a myriad of slurs one of which was that I engage in chronic vandalism. To top it all, he now threatens to report me. This is harassment. Recently, I've been stalked by user:Meteormaker, and his attacks against me seem like a personal vendetta, because he is an ally of Meteormaker on several articles. Here he followed me to the stalker's page and spread lies on me. He claims I stalked him on pages I always had watched. He then says "Big blokes aren't supposed to whine, especially about piddling matters" and yet threatens continuously to report me, probably thinking he can trick an administrator into believing that I called him an antisemite. The reason he's doing all that is because he 'lost' in a content dispute in Talk:Lehi (group), where a consensus has reached and he didn't like it. This consensus was already reached in November 2007 and the article had a stable version (about this issue). He now introduced it again, and didn't reply to the issues I've raised and other users' pleas to move on, and instead tried to make it personal again. I want him to leave the personal attacks aside and focus on the content. While he calls my words dreck, which is crap in Yiddish I've always tried to be very polite to him. I said to him "I know you're reasonable and I respect your opinions", and this is what I get. Being called a terrorist fanatic and accused of saying things I've never said. Amoruso (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the way Amoruso has reported our exchanges bears even a minimal semblance of the truth, I do indeed think I should suffer a year's ban. If, on the other hand, in reading closely the contexts he himself cites, one examines the whole record, then I do not think I need reply nor ask the appropriate administrative page for administrative action against him, for he had made the case I would have made, in his own diffs. For the record, apart from calling me 'paranoid', 'suffering from an inferiority' and superiority 'complex' and someone who shares the same views as those of an antisemite, he now takes a remark of mine addressed to another user, Shevashalosh, in which I spoke of 'aficionados of mere hearsay in Lehi circles' as being directed at him. It is true that, subject to the insults documented below, I replied under provocation that the person insulting me with psychiatric labelling was a 'Lehi aficionado', but to make out that my remarking on his constant erasure of all well-sourced information on Lehi terrorism as the sign of an aficionado (fan) of Lehi traditions means that I called him a 'fanatic terrorist', is to maliciously distort the defensive quip, and convert it into a diffamation. He misreports his interlocutors as badly as he does the many reliable sources they adduce to back their edits. I would have reported this whole sad episode, from sheer exasperation, to the appropriate AE page, as I said I would do, but I simply do not know technically precisely how, or on what page the following evidence ( diff antisemitic innuendo), (rumour-mongering on other people's pages that I accused him of being a 'terrorist fanatic'), and (pseudo-psychoanalytic profiling of me as an 'egotist' with an inferiority and superiority complex suggestive of paranoid symptoms at the end of this thread). for diffamation and consistent provocative distortion of my words should be posted in order to enlist the relevant administrative review of Amoruso's hectic baiting manner in my regard. As to dreck, since Amoruso has pretensions to clinical knowledge of Freudian analysis, might I simply note that it is German, and used also in English, and when I use it, I personally think of the following passage from the Viennese master's usage: 'He had argued that the material in the Fliess letters that Freud himself had called Dreckologie, . . was not of value for the history of Freud’s early discoveries.” Young-Bruehl, Anna Freud, 1988 p.297 Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the source I cited, Nisihidani directly called ME a Lehi aficionado - which means terrorist fanatic, not anyone else. Amoruso (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Nishidani, I'm half-following this issue (well, more like 1/30-following) and I think Amoruso may have said a couple heated words as well, but calling out wiki-editors as "a Lehi aficionado such techniques as part of what appears to be a wiki-warrior strategy" is a clear violation of WP:CIV considering both the terms used and the tone. I would suggest striking this comment, accepting that it was out of place and moving away from personally directed commentary (See WP:NPA and also Erosion_of_critical_thinking) and towards bettering the project.

Also, if there are further comments which Nishidani or Amoruso would like the other to tone down or strike, now would be a good time as any to raise that request.

With respect, Jaakobou 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) a bit more. 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, with respect, you are picking on the one phrase I added after being called 'paranoid', and 'egotist', someone with an 'inferiority complex' and 'someone with a superiority complex', not to speak of the many other prior provocations elsewhere, which I disregarded because I read them as attempts to make me loose my habitual cool. There is such a thing as cause and effect, and if you look at the whole thread preceding that last word, you will see who is replying with analytical equanimity, and who is jabbing away, starting with 'don't be ashamed of your bias'. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)', to which I responded with vigour, admitting mine, but suggesting his editing was blatantly biased. Tit for tat. The remarks here have to be read contextually with what occurred on the parallel Lehi(group) page, where every endeavour to argue from sources was met merely with assertions and hearsay, and simnilar provocations, which concluded somedays later with the usual antisemitic insinuations. I don't mind being banned, but I expect that administrative eyes, if they do so, look closely at sequence, and at the quality of rumour-mongering, antisemitic slurs, and pseudo-clinical labelling to which Amoruso descended. Nothing in my remarks to him descends to that level. I think in the end Amoruso will get his way, and as in preceding attacks, I will simply withdraw in disgust from this encyclopedia, since the Lehi articles thread is a disgrace to scholarly discussion. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Nishandi for making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, if their intent was to make you lose your cool, then the Lehi commentary proved their alleged plan was a success. I would suggest you learn from this incident and avoid from getting dragged down by similar situations in the future. Instead, request others to focus on content rather than personal commentary and request uninvolved editors to weigh in.

Hope that will help, Jaakobou 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Cali567

I have been debating about a certain controversial study involving many Argentinian articles. But one of the people who I been debating turned it personal. That user is User:Cali567. This user is accusing me and another user who disagrees with him/her of Sockpuppetry. This user did on Dúnadan's Talk page and now in my talk page. This is really unprofessional for wikipedia. User Cali567 is trying to kill the debate by trying to remove two people who disagrees with him/her. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy and something should be done. Lehoiberri (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of the 'trying to kill the debate by removing two people who disagree with him/her'? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you read Dúnadan's Talk page. Cali567 was clearly trying to instigate an false accusation against me, and Cali567 wanted Dúnadan to be part of this instigation. Cali567 solution to the discussion I had with him/her was clearly getting me ban from Misplaced Pages through a false accusation of Sockpuppetry. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I just notice that you talked to Cali567, and the reply of Cali567 still shows his/her intent. Cali567 didn't mention me, who sent this Wikiquette alert, instead he/she mentions the other user who he/she accuses me of controlling. Lehoiberri (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may, in a situation like this admins will ask for DIFFs to make it easier for them to see what's going on. Just telling them to read someone's talk page or go through their entire contributions list isn't enough direction, even if you feel like it would be obvious. It helps to show uninvolved admins exact instances of the behavior you're referring to, that'll help them quickly. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see, I didn't know what DIFFs were. Okay then, here is the DIFF where Cali567 left his/her message to Dúnadan: , and here is the DIFF which Cali567 left in my talk page: . Lehoiberri (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

IP user 86.136.125.181

IP address 86.136.125.181 is constantly changing US English into UK English. Can someone take a close look? Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like their changes are OK based on WP:ENGVAR. I'm not sure I see any wikiquette problems in any case. --Onorem♠Dil 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like Lycaon needs to read up on his rules before threatening to ban my IP. I'd never consider changing articles on the US, or other 'neutral' articles using US spelling to a different type of English. My edits are more to improve consistency of variety. 86.136.125.181 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max

The issue right now is that there is a disagreement on a criticism section in the article Tucker Max. User:Theserialcomma has been increasingly incivil. Accuses me of vandalism, designates various malicious motives to me. Claims to be assuming good faith but clearly isn't. His lack of civility takes the form of long, rambling posts that briefly address the subject matter in dispute and then attack both my motives and me personally.

User has also been re-adding the disputed criticism section that I (and others) have been removing via WP:BLP, and calling it vandalism. . Also leaving harassing messages on my talk page .

I've tried both reasoning with him and being firm, but neither has worked. Theserialcomma is a new editor and I believe he simply doesn't know better, which is why I posted this here instead of at AN/I. McJeff (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User PainMan

• PainMan (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Just leaving a heads up that I have warned PainMan (talk · contribs) for continued hostility and incivility. I won't bother to detail all of the violations here, but a quick browse through his contribution history (especially in the User Talk namespace) will give a good indication of my concerns. Comments from additional editors might be helpful. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Romaioi

User:Romaioi was identified as a potential sock puppet of Generalmesse, as required User:noclador informed of this and explained the checkuser process on his talk page. The checkuser proved to be negative, although all the other sock puppet suspects proved to be correct. Unfortunately User:Romaioi has taken this extremely personally and in his defence, launched a series of personal attacks against User:noclador. As a result after explaining the checkuser process User:noclador has chosen to disengage with this editor, see . I have attempted to smooth things over but User:Romaioi has seen fit to publish further personal attacks on his talk page. Discussion over the sock puppet accusation have been moved to an archive page User talk:Romaioi/Archive 1. I have urged him to withdraw the personal attacks but he is unrepentant. I can only see this escalating, would someone be able to intervene please. Justin talk 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm looking through it first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So... incorrectly accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet, withdrawing from the ongoing discussion of the accusation, then refusing to apologize for making the accusation, all that isn't uncivil, but having a certain amount of justifiable resentment over a false accusation and besmirching of one's character, that's uncivil? Interesting ethical stance.

User:noclador should go hat in hand to User:Romaioi and offer profound and sincere apologies. If things continue afterwards, then there might be a case for incivility, but until then... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 04:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution