Revision as of 21:04, 29 September 2011

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 discussions

What happened to the section with Sjö and me?. I have been away and now I can't find it.

RPSM (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was also being careful not to write things without thinking them thoroughly through first, and I was on the verge of writing something conciliatory, but now the thread has disappeared. Sjö wrote:

You ask if a friend could add some text to the Swedish Shechita article. Maybe I'm not the best person to ask, but my take on it is that if the person is comfortable with making the edit as his or her own, and if he or she is upfront about your involvement, then it will be no big problem. The best thing to do is to ask at the Swedish article's talk page or maybe at the Village Pump sv:Misplaced Pages:Bybrunnen.Sjö (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Sjö's suggestion is that I am permanently blocked forever from editing anything on Swedish WP. I cannot even compose a defence against the blocking I am subjected to on Swedish WP RPSM (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My problems on Swedish WP do not centre around Sjö and he throughout has been civil and, as I see it, acted in good faith. If he thinks it would help for me to respond to anything that is unclear, I am willing to do so at any time. RPSM (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack and abusive language and vandalism by User:Kwamikagami

Please make a note of this abuse by User:Kwamikagami here. He is saying "STOP BEATING YOUR MOTHER WITH A PIPE!!!". Sir, what is this nonsense. Please request a topic ban for this very low quality editor. Foodie 377 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack? I was illustrating the level of rationality Nagarjuna was displaying in his(?) arguments, when he demanded that I "introduce my socks". (Usually people ask "have you stopped beating your wife?", but I don't know if he's a married man.)

Also, you got the quote wrong. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

While kwami's comment may have not been the most judicious, in the context in which is was made it was far below the threshold which requires intervention. Gerardw (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better and clearer if Kwamikagami had asked:

Have you stopped beating your mother with a pipe?

Because Kwamikagami made a mistake and phrased it wrongly, Foodie377 misunderstood his point, and put in a complaint here.

The phrase is to some extent idiomatic. However, I would have thought that people from far away lands should be able to understand it. The phrase does not mean what it literally says. Instead it means: please do not accuse me of things that I am not doing.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes or to be precise it's an illustration of a loaded question in the classic phrase 'have you stopped beating your wife' to which saying both yes and no accepts the premise.Straw Cat (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack, false accusation and edit warring by Kwamikagami

Kwamikagami has engaged in an edit war with me and accused me of all sorts such as "racism" and "bigotry". This person has not been penalised for this. I thought it was reasonable to expect a higher level of standard from an Administrator like Kwami. Here he is referring to me as a racist and bigot: Here and here .

He deleted my edits which have been sourced with notable sources and replaced them with his own as in here: and in the Serer people article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsier (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

He is referring to your contributions, such as I will not have the language and history of my people poisoned as it has been done for centuries.]. This is not considered incivil. Gerardw (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry this comment was made at the same time as Gerardw's.)

Let us start with User:Tamsier's behaviour:

• and where he used the words 'poisoned' and 'desecrated' to refer to mentioning 'Fula' in the Serer language page or mentioning 'Serer' in the Fula language page.
• he refers to "scholars whose comments... are far less than noble mainly influenced by the Muslim Mafias of Senegal".
• where he referred to another editor (User:Halaqah) who appeared to agree with Kwamikagami on some points as Kwamikagami's 'fellow Muslim'
• where he accused Kwamikagami of distorting the Serer language to promote a Fula agenda.
• where he admits that he does not assume good faith when dealing with Kwamikagami, and where he appears to be suggesting that Kwamikagami is abusing of his privileges as an Admin, of seriously disrupting Misplaced Pages, and of consistently exercising poor judgment. In it he threatens to have Kwamikagami's Admin status revoked.

I wish that Kwamikagami had not called Tamsier a paranoid bigot in reply to Tamsier's abusive remarks. But his comment about Tamsier making racist comments about the Fula and bigoted comments about Muslims was probably justified.

Tamsier, if you go up to Mike Tyson and start hitting him, you have only yourself to blame if he hits you back.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification Kwami's comments, while arguably not the epitome of civility, are well within the range of reasonable behavior given the provocation with which they were faced, and personally I don't feel any criticism or action against them is warranted. As well documented by Toddy1 above, Tamsiers' behavior is in need of improvement. Gerardw (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that both Toddy1 and Kwamikagami just read my statements and assumed a lot. I challenge anyone to prove where I have directly said "the Fula language is a desecration or a poison". Such remarks where made in reference to the edit warring Kwami was doing and now Halaqah which is still going on and has now escalated to the Serer people and Serer Religion articles. As evident in the links, I have mentioned couple of times the relatedness of the Serer and Fula languages. I cannot be held accountable when when people take statements out of context and read what they want to read. My remarks where directed at what Kwami was doing to the articles and the kind of game he was playing between the Serer language and Fula language articles. The Muslim Mafia of Senegal is the Muslim brotherhoods of Senegal. They are among the most powerful in Senegal and control information. Since there is a big problem between them and those who adhere to Serer Religion for nearly 150 years, it is vital that they are mention. Sources:

• Elisa Daggs. All Africa: All its political entities of independent or other status. Hasting House, 1970. ISBN 0803803362
• Issa Laye Thiaw. "La Religiosité de Seereer, Avant et Pendant leur Islamisation". Éthiopiques no: 54, Revue semestrielle de Culture Négro-Africaine. Nouvelle série, volume 7, 2e Semestre 1991

Toddy1 also made another error regarding the "good faith" comment. Here is my direct quote:

:"You also brought in Halaqah a fellow Muslim to back up what you were doing. I originally assumed good faith until your behaviour in the relevant articles and other articles became apparent."

This demonstrates that, I initially assumed good faith. However, according to Wiki's policy, you can seaze to assume good faith when it becomes apparent that a person(s) is not acting accordingly. In light of the fact that, Kwami was and still is engage in edit wars with me in reference to all Serer related articles, and Halaqah's own account and edits, who started with the Serer people article after the incident and then moved to the Serer Religion article and is making his way down to all Serer related articles - adding "dubious dicuss" and other templates and disregarding the sources cited in the article. Here , and . I can perhaps understand an editor engaging in edit war but not from an administrator regardless of whether they are acting in the capacity of administrator or not. Once they have the administrator tag on their talk page, one expects a higher level of standard. I do not have the time to be engaged in edit wars especially with an Administrator who has the power to call the troops to his aid. Personally, I'm not bothered by it and just edit as much as I can. I have learned that fast. However, what I am worried about is the damage being done to the articles for not apparent reason other than to engage in war with me. Further, I find it hard to believe that an Adminstrator with all their status can use such language on Wiki and is allowed to get away with it. Very strange. Tamsier (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Tamsier, two uninvolved editors have reviewed the situation, and independently concluded that your behaviour was at fault.

The best thing to do, would be to say that you are sorry, that you feel very deeply about the issues... then try to work with the other editors as best you can. Try to resolve issues with them on the talk page, and accept that some of the time the consensus will not be as you wish it. The use of good sources helps a lot. Some of the time, you need to accept defeat. (The rest of us have to put up with these annoyances too.)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Just drop it. Good luck.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, nobody invited me a Muslim to this. Nice to know Kwamikagami is Muslim and we are apparent in some editing conspiracy. Elisa Daggs not even in print. Edit the article not the chip on your shoulder. Or the Islamic fear. I have issued with this Tamsier editor and am on the verge of reporting him/her for Misplaced Pages:Advocacy and an agenda of anti-Islamic racist propaganda and copy editing across multiply pages. racist edits and POV pushing is evident from most edits.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Halaqah - Never ever used that tone again when addressing me. Indeed you are the one with a chip on your shoulder and your Islamic propagander that you have been pushing for long enough is evident for all to see. If you lack the brain cells or intellect to refer to cited sources that is your problem not mine. Never again use such arrogance when referring to me. I careless who your friends are in Wiki. I hope that is clear.

It is shocking that everyone saw Halaqah's tone which has been here since yesterday yet not a single person Administrator or Editor intervened and told this person such language is uncall for. I now await anyone who dare to try and tell me off about my tone above.

@ Toddy1 - Not in a million years. If the fault was mine, I would have, but since certain people have friends here and can do whatever they wish without repercussions, never. Kwami didn't even have to defend himself, you did all the work for him. Tamsier (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Tamsier, two editors have given you their advice. You're welcome to take it or not but in my opinion it's unlikely that further posting here will having any positive effect. Gerardw (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Halaqah's behaviour and edit war is unacceptable.

It is unlikely any action will be taken against this Halaqah after my previous report experience on this page but I shall report it anyway. This person has persued all my edits including removing my sources and edits as well as templates I've placed on articles and will not stop until made to stop.

• Under religion, islam and Serer religion - deleted my edits which has been thoroughly sourced as well as the actual citation of the author “Fatou Camara” which she referred to as my opinion.
• Deleted the citation and references from authors regarding Islam which she referred to as pure Islamophobia.
• – Removed sourced *Almoravid Islamisation content and expressed their own opinion without sources.

Tamsier (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be editorial disagreement, not a wikiquette issue. You've taken a good first step in discussing on the talk page. If you're unable to come to consensus, consider WP:RFC, WP:3RD, or WP:DRN. Gerardw (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This editor is all over the place doing this with other editors as well, not just me. As evidence take a quick look at their contribution to wikipedia. Just a quick look and see what they have been busy doing, who they have attacked,. The rest of us edit the articles, based on policy. We try our best. We make mistakes, but usually we fight over the quality. This crusade against me and other editors has to stop and i will soon request the user be blocked for a series of disruptive editing (see their log and talk page) which is just interrupting our ability to do our job as seasoned wiki editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Lionelt -- Wikihounding and canvassing to attack me

I find this type of behavior completely inappropriate. User:Lionelt is on the opposite side of a disagreement with me on Talk:Militant atheism, and I, along with several others, have raised concerns about him and another user canvassing for support at the RfC on that page - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Does_this_rise_to_the_level_of_canvassing.3F. Now it appears he is digging through my edit history (see WP:HOUND) to find other people I may have had disagreements with in the past, and canvassing for support against me, as shown int he first diff I posted above. Can someone please explain to him that this is unacceptable. I am hesitant to take this to AN/I because I don't think its at that level but if anyone thinks it belongs there instead please let me know.Griswaldo (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1. It is clearly not "wikihounding" (an attemot to force a person off Misplaced Pages in any improper manner) so let's take that off the table. 2. The issue of CANVASS initially raised was ill chosen where the posts were to projects and not to individual editors. If you wish to rewrite WP:CANVASS that would be needed to make the judgements you seek. 3. If he CANVASSes in order to make an RfC/U appear to be "frontloaded" as to opinions, then that would, indeed, be a major problem (WP:False consensus). The post you cite, however, is not even close to CANVASS in my opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, what else should I call it? He's not simply posting a relevant topic to Wikiproject in that diff at all. He's posting to a thread in which I am in a disagrement with a user, and saying "hey look this editor is having problems with these other people, hint hint." What does Lionelt's post have to do with the thread he posted to? Indeed what does it have to do with Wikiproject:Judaism at all? OK so maybe I chose poorly when it comes to describing what he did, but can you please consider what he did instead of nitpicking about what I called it? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(E/C) As an uninvolved party, I don't see how you can call this "digging through edit history"; the disagreement with Orangemike is easily read if somebody decides to scroll up on your talk page, and Lionelt may have come to Nealdowntome123's talk page the exact same way as you did. I'm assuming good faith on Lionelt's part, yes, but I think you need stronger evidence to accuse somebody of harassment. Furthermore, that's not hounding, and the canvassing situation has already been dealt with on ANI (so there's no reason to discuss it here). m.o.p 15:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Please do not call yourself "uninvovled" given our recent history and my vocal disagreements about how you've handled matters specifically relating to this entry and some of these same editors. 2) You "assume good faith" on Lionelt's part when he posts a comment at Wikiproject Judaism that has nothing to do with the scope of the project or the thread he posted in, but consists entirely of a comment about me as an editor. Seriously? Not to mention that this is a project he does not edit. He clearly went there after discovering the disagreement I had with Debresser either on my talk page or in my edit history. Like I said to Collect, I'm fine with the idea that I've mislabeled what he did, but I'm having a really hard time understanding how you think it is appropriate or in "good faith." Please explain that further.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved because my role is to mediate, not voice opinions. Whether or not others agree with what I say is not up to me. As for Lionelt's edit, I never said it was acceptable, and I never said it was good faith - I said I was assuming good faith when interpreting his intent and judging that Lionelt is not hounding you. Also, please don't put words in my mouth, because I never said Lionelt's edits were appropriate (and, to the contrary, will take them up with that editor in time). m.o.p 16:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You said, and quote, "I'm assuming good faith on Lionelt's part." So what do you consider them if not appropriate? I see no comments about them being inappropriate just this assumption of good faith. So how about you actually comment then on the edits that I raised questions about? Isn't that what one does when a concern is raised?Griswaldo (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

See my above reply: "I was assuming good faith when interpreting his intent". I did not say his editing was good faith. m.o.p 16:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to continue the discussion regarding ANI behavior at ANI. Gerardw (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no one is objecting I will move the whole conversation to ANI.Griswaldo (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User "Wee Curry Monster" refuses to talk

• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Criticism of the UN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. This is one of my first contributions in this Misplaced Pages (though I have, some time ago, contributed to a different Misplaced Pages), so, even though I read the policies about disputes solving, I apologise in advance if there were better places to present this one.

I did one edition in the article Falkland Islands and the user above-mentioned deleted it, leaving but a link to a Wiki policy as explanation. After analysing it, and with the knowledge I had from my previous experience, I concluded his "arguments", if I may call a link to a policy so, were inadequate. I tried, thus, reaching this user by posting on his talk page a message I deemed polite and concise.

Shortly after, I checked the article Criticism of the UN, were I had also contributed, and found that the same user had deleted my contribution there too leaving this time two links to wiki policies. Again, I read these policies, but concluded my contributions were respecting their principles.

I went back to his user talk page to check for an answer before leaving a new meessage, but he had deleted my first commentary there too, this time without even a monosyllabic or cryptic reason... which I didn't miss, anyway.

I don't know how to use a template, so I will be leaving now a personal message to this user warning him about this post.

Thank you very much. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We have ways of making him talk. Though that was a reasonable message you left on his page. I would say it is rather rude to ignore and delete it like that. Let me check the edits first though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 28 Elul 5771 23:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but calling the reign of Peron a dictatorship is a bit POV I'm afraid. Even if it is the truth. It's kind of like how we don't call Osama a terrorist, helps maintain NPOV. As for the second, well, I don't mean to offend, but it's not very notable that the Argentine delegation concurred (not saying Argentina's not a major force, but all the same not a notable event); I don't think it goes against NPOV, but it is a bit newsy given that it's something recent that probably won't have lasting impact. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 29 Elul 5771 00:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

XD, if everything else fails I'll use the suggested technics. XD.

Now, seriously. I certainly agree that, aside from the fact that we may or may not consider Peron or his government a dictatorship, it would not be appropriate to call it that way, simply because he was elected democratically.

The point is that he died in 1973, few years, or months, can't remember, after his third term in presidency began. And what followed for seven years in Argentina was a dictatorship known as National Reorganisation Process, during which Leopoldo Galtieri was named de facto president, in 1982. It is a dictatorship by all means, but if you feel like investigating a bit, well, it is very interesting, and terrible too, that's for sure.

Now regarding the other article, well, I disagree with you. Not because I think Argentinian's participation is more important than that of other countries, but because the criticism of a memeber of the UN towards the existance of permanent Council members, should be regarded as relevant in the context of UN criticism, regardless of a member's size, population, etc.

On the other hand, I admit it is new information, but we are talking about the statement of a UN member's delegation in the General Assembly of the UN, so I don't think it should be regarded as temporary news, at least that's not what reading the policy section suggests. You can also see a statement by a Canadian embassador being cited in the same section of that article.

Well, thank you very much for your answer. What do you say about my contributions. And about this user, shall we make him talk? Haha, peace 190.195.39.223 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC) PS: Some data is wrong, I said the dictatorship began in 1973, but it was 1976, the idea is the same, though. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit of a content discussion, but it might help. You can only refer to it as the leadership of Peron or something else very neutral. Let's take a look at the article of one of the least likable swine in history (none of that Godwin nonsense). See how neutral that lede is in the first paragraph? (I know dictatorship is used later, but that's the kind of NPOV you want). Thankfully you don't have to worry about BLP with regard to Peron as his corpse is rotting in the ground (or w/e became of him), but you want to maintain neutrality as best as possible.

Apologies, I guess I should say it's really more about the recentism now that I think about it. I guess that Canada's delegation;'s reaction had more lasting impact (apologies about the not notable business as that was a misrepresentation of the cited policy), though I don't really know why; truth be told.

Well he can really only come here if he wants to. Cannot force him as far as I know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 29 Elul 5771 01:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I understand this is turning into a content discussion, which I should be having with this user, and not with you, I appreciate your time and help.

But I think you didn't understand me. I never mentioned Peron in my edition in Falkland Islands. I never refered in the article to him, nor his presidency, which ended in 1973, or 1974, when he died, nor did I refer in the article to his vicepresident's government, which lasted for 2 more years until 1976, when a military coup established a 7-year dictatorship, including among its dictators Leopoldo Galtieri, who ruled in 1982, which is the character I mentioned in the article. You can see in Leopoldo Galtieri that he is described as a de facto president, id est, not chosen democratically, and that he ruled during a dictatorship. You can also see that Argentina, from 1976 to 1983 was under a dictatorship in several articles with sources, including, but not limited to: Dirty War, National Reorganisation Process, Argentina, Politics of Argentina, and many more articles.

Isn't there anything we can do to make this user discuss instead of just deleting my contributions? Thanks for your help. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Apologies. I didn't read closely enough (I don't know why I keep doing that). I thought dictatorship, Peron (which shows how limited my knowledge of Argentina is). Hmmm, let's see in this case, you could say, "In April 1982, a few months before the end of a seven-year period of military-rule in Argentina, and four months after Leopoldo Galtieri became the de facto President of Argentina, Argentine military forces invaded the islands leading to the Falklands War." See? Can't be denied that it's military rule then and it's a bit more neutral. I question if using the term junta might be okay, it is a very common term in the English speaking world these days.

Well, if you keep editing and the edits are okay, and he keeps reverting them, it could be considered hounding, which is another term for harassment, but don't go off accusing him of it, because that could violate WP:NPA. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 29 Elul 5771 01:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

All right! Apologies accepted, it happens all the time. I agree to your suggestions and will edit the article now. I'll post here if anything happens. Thank you very much pal! 190.195.39.223 (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bound to happen when the internet is filled with people from the US. :p Alrighty, I hope this helps resolve the issue. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 29 Elul 5771 02:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• While simply reverting a message without commenting would be rude in other contexts, it's considered acceptable practice on Misplaced Pages and considered to be acknowledgement the message has been read.
• While it was good that you started a conversation about the edit, discussion about a particular article best belongs on the article talk page, not another editor's page. Gerardw (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you check my talk page, for about 2 years I've had a message that I routinely delete messages after reading.

I gave an informative edit summary and a link to policy. On the one hand he knows enough about[REDACTED] to bring this to WQA (as he's edited on other wikipedias) but not enough about policy to have taken this to the article talk page.

diff of an editor, bringing issues to WQA in an effort to gain an advantage in imposing content he desired rather than for any real problem. He is now blocked for disruptive editing and for using a variety of IP socks to do so, safe in the knowledge you can't link IP to an account. Do I hear the sound of quacking per WP:DUCK? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no quacking in WQA. The issue at hand is whether there was incivility on the part of Wee Curry Monster (I think not). There are other forums for Ornithology. Gerardw (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

SPI check initiated. Thanks for noting there was no incivility on my part. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello.

Flinders: Thank you again!

Gerardw: Thank you. I will, as you ask, open a thread on the article talk page and try to peacefully discuss there. I appologise for not having done this before. I will from now on.

Wes: I think you're doing a big fuss over a small issue. We didn't have a good start, but we still can get along well. I didn't feel like reading that essay about a duck, but I don't think bringing that kind of element to the discussion helps. I don't wish you any harm, nor I wish, as you just said, to impose content through this board, or by any other means, as I have stated more than once, since I opened this thread. My aim is to be able to talk, discuss, and, eventually add what I think is valuable and relevant information to the article, but not without consensus, something we would only achieve if we can communicate in a respectful manner.

Finally, two things, I have responded to your accusation of puppetry. And I will now leave a message in the article talk page as suggested by Gerardw. Best regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo

• ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Harvard College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this diff an edit I made was restored. I removed "" as it was a TV show, and did not fit "Campus and media publications" as I saw it (a TV show is not published). ElKevbo reverted it, and as I preferred to discuss it rather than revert it out of hand I opened a thread on his talk page. As can be seen, we don't agree, and that's fine, but I will not stand by and have an editor tell me he's going to watch me because of my "limited understanding and laziness". He's gone over the line here, as well as has made an intent to Wikistalk very clear. I believe there have been similar subjective issues with him in the past as well which are also evidenced on his talk page. I would therefore like someone to follow up on this, because there's a pattern. I would also note that a heavy copyedit on the article by a third party (which I didn't see until I had to go get the diff) has more or less negated the entire issue. MSJapan (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was harsh and pointed but I haven't engaged in any activity that steps over any lines. I don't think I even reverted your (second?) edit to the article in question despite disagreeing with it. Accept that people disagree, sometimes harshly, and move on. If I do "Wikistalk" you then by all means take some action. But it's reasonable to keep an eye on other editors - that's why we have public contribution histories - and you need to distinguish between a healthy level of distrust from disapproving editors from actual actions that affect your edits or the larger project. ElKevbo (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This was essentially a content dispute which has now been resolved. The discussion should have taken place on the talk page of the article. Other editors have since intervened to change the name of the section in question to "Publications and media" and rejig this content. Mathsci (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion, I'd say MSJapan's comments if you think the definition of publication is too narrow because it doesn't include TV shows, then you need to pick up a dictionary. and You don't know what something means, so I'm discriminating against "new media"? et. al. were inflammatory and that rhetorical style is best avoided in the future. As Mathsci has noted, the discussion should have taken place on the article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mathsci

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LaRouche movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good day! A content RfC about two months ago obtained consensus to trim some of the pejorative material from the LaRouche movement article. Since then, discussion has been ongoing about how to do this. Mathsci joined the discussion recently and focused many of his comments on other editors instead of just on content: . I asked Mathsci not to make any more personal attacks, and suggested that his approach might not be very helpful. He deleted my remarks without comment, then immediately made a comment similar to his previous ones on the talk page, prompting a rebuke from a different editor. In my opinion, Mathsci's comments have concentrated a little too much on attacking other editors and have unhelpfully raised the heat in that talk page discussion, but I'm open to opinions from uninvolved editors since I'm so close to the subject. Thank you in advance. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 is mis-characterizing the RFC, which simply asked whether a section of the LaRouche movement article should be shorter. He also ignores the personal remarks made by other editor on that page, including his own comments and refusal to engage in discussion. I think this is a bad faith request intended more for strategic or tactical advantage than a sincere desire to improve civility on Misplaced Pages.   Will Beback  talk  07:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why Cla68 has made this report. To see a string of personal attacks by various users, including Cla68, editors need look no further than this page in Cla68's own userspace which he periodically updates and then blanks, presumably in preparation for an RfC/U on Will Beback. The edits to Talk:LaRouche movement of Cla68 and other users—many of them like-minded participants in the recently closed ArbCom case on Manipulation of BLPs—seem to be tightly related to much of what is in the current incubating version of the RfC/U, the purpose of which remains unclear. Nobody is objecting to the consensus to shorten the article and cutting down on excessive detail, as decided by the article RfC. That RfC, however, is currently being used as a pretext for deleting segments of the article based on spurious claims of BLP violations, a completely separate issue, which has not met with any consensus on wikipedia. At no stage will I be editing any articles remotely related to Lyndon LaRouche or his movement. However, I will comment on the reliability and identification of secondary sources and their use, on the misapplication of[REDACTED] policies and on other potential problems, such as WP:TAG TEAM and WP:SPA.As for deleting comments on my talk page, that indicates that I might have read them and is normal talk page etiquette.

This page in Cla68's user space User:Cla68/threat charges at one stage contained attacks on me inserted by an ipsock of serial puppetmaster Echigo mole (talk · contribs) (aka A.K.Nole). Cla68 linked that page at one stage to an ArbCom evidence page, which would have been removed by a clerk if Cla68 had not removed it himself. Cla68 was unconcerned about causing offense to me by keeping the trolling edits of this user. Similarly I would have to agree with Will Beback that this report does not appear to have been made in good faith and might be purely pragmatic, since no civility issues seem to be involved. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cla68/DR draft work page should be deleted rather than just blanked, since the history remains William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and would add that there is no merit whatever to this complaint. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree (although I'm not firm about it) for reasons of transparency; this establishes a history which may be needed/wanted at some point. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Could any of the regulars here please review Mathsci's diffs and comment? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that you are unable to ask them for clarification yourself, either here or on their talk page? That would seem the sensible first step. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought that I had done that by asking him on his talk page not to make personal attacks and suggesting that ad hominem arguments weren't a helpful approach to talk page discussion. When he deleted those comments without responding, then quickly made another such comment on the article talk page, it seemed that outside intervention might be helpful, because I felt that I wasn't getting anywhere. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, your approach was a bit confrontational, don't you think? Far from a polite request for clarification. Second of all, Mathsci has the right to decide whether the discussion occurs on their talk page, or on the article talk page. The fact that they deleted your comments from their own talk page and moved the venue cannot be interpreted as a refusal to discuss or explain. Perhaps if you cool down and formulate your request for clarification a bit more diplomatically without making accusations of making personal attacks or ad hominem remarks, you might get somewhere, and outside intervention would not be needed. You might offer to host the discussion on your own talk page, if Mathsci agrees. The key is for both of you to remain cool, calm and collected. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your input Dominus, but I'd really like to get an opinion from one of the regulars on this board. Again, would one of the regulars here please reveiw Mathsci's diffs and tell me what you think? Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The regulars on this page are Cerejota and Gerardw. Meanwhile, since this report was filed, there has been a constructive response to comments on the article talk page from Jayen466, who has succeeded in condensing content in a way that is acceptable to all users. Mathsci (]) 05:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Off-wikipedia, Cla68 has added comments which indicate that he is not editing here in good faith. He writes, "I assume Mathsci is over 18 years of age and should know better than to use logical fallacies in a debate, especially in a medium requiring collaboration in order to accomplish a goal. If he isn't over 18, then his editing might benefit from some adult supervision." This looks extremely bad. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems disingenuous for an editor to complain about something on-wiki, while engaging in the same conduct he complains about off-wiki. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Now here is an interesting question: Does Cla68's behaviour fall under hypocrisy or under double standard? Hans Adler 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Examining the diffs supplied by Cla68, I see nothing wrong from Mathsci. A frivolous or fractious WQA filing, it appears. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Examining the diffs given by Cla68, I find this is not a frivolous complaint, and that the clear consensus on the LaRouche movement article was to reduce the amount of "stuff" which clutters that article with just about every single factoid findable on Proquest. The accusation that this report was not made in good faith is contrary to Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies - there is a reasonable background for the complaint, and assertions that this should be ignored because IDONTLIKEIT are invalid. I suggest Will reread the discussions about removing all the Proquest factoids and BLP violations, and act in accord with the clear consensus thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether Mathsci was right on the merits is beside the point. This complaint contends that Mathsci wasn't civil, and that is what is lacking in merit. I have no opinion on the substance of his dispute with Cla68. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, an editor involved in editing the article and the previous Manipulation of BLPs ArbCom case, seems to be discussing what he imagines to be a content dispute on the article here. This noticeboard, however, concerns wikiquette assistance, so his comments are off-topic. It's also unclear why Collect is making comments here to Will Beback; but see . (Just for the record, even if it is totally irrelevant here, what Collect says about me is incorrect. I have always supported condensing the article, although not by wholesale deletion justified by spurious claims of BLP violations. As I've said above and on the article talk page, Jayen466 now seems to be condensing content in a way that is acceptable to all users.) Mathsci (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The post was directed to the community at large reading this noticeboard. And I suggest the clear consensus was to remove the "factoid-itis" present in that article, and I am pleased Mathsci agrees that the factoiditis needs to be removed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop putting words into my mouth, That is quite rude. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution