Revision as of 16:23, 29 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

User:Romaioi

Continued from archive page:

Thanks for your support Jaysweet. I have made those modifications as per your suggestion. I am not afraid of appearing bitter as long as the truth has been highlighted. I don't look favourably on the kind of flippant behaviour that Noclador demonstrated, regardless of whether it was directed at me or anyone else.

However, I do not know why this page has been archived as I do not consider it to be resolved - I have made several requests as per Ncmvocalist' comments and have not receieved his reply. I have made concessions and recieved none regarding the anti-User:Romaioi negative comments.

Romaioi (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pwnage8 - Berating talk page editors

I have no way of knowing whether a particular incident that caught my attention at random was in fact isolated or not. Please don't discourage people from making good faith alerts for the absence of knowledge that's not available to them. I get the sense I should never bring any concern I have over any aspect of the quality of Misplaced Pages's attention to anybody, at least on or through Misplaced Pages. I apologize for having raised a flag that ultimately led nowhere, but, please, consider the situation from a standpoint other than as a member of WP's elite. Unless you genuinely do want all legitimate criticism of WP to be published elsewhere on the web - if that's the case, kindly ignore my suggestion. 71.231.142.60 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Verbally attacked an editor to a talk page who had suggested the need for a neutral point of view in a particular article. The section descends into mud slinging by all parties. This detracts from Misplaced Pages's good(?) name, and does not help the article gain respect among the public. A new editor was seemingly driven from WP, and although he spoke rudely after a few replies, his ( or her? ) criticism was valid. That criticism will help Misplaced Pages raise the quality of the article to encyclopedic standards, and that's the point to all of this.

When a long standing, ostensibly respected member bites the newbies with "This isn't your kind of place. Your first comment made that very clear. Tootles. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)" I feel this is entirely inappropriate, in appalling taste. Anybody of his standing should be expected to show a minimum level of grace, especially to newcomers.

71.231.142.60 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Criticism_of_Christianity#Problems

My initial comment didn't attack anyone. I saw the troll-like comments the anon posted, and simply said that yes, he shouldn't be editing, like he said, and pointed him to policy. Really, I acted like any editor would've in this situation. If I hadn't provided shortcuts, someone else would've. That's not where the problem escalated. Let's be realistic here.. when a new editor comes to Misplaced Pages to edit a controversial topic, they are most likely here to push their POVs. That's a generalisation based on what I've seen in my time with the project. That is not to say that there won't be editors interested in making articles more neutral/better, because there are people like that, but those are the ones that make sure to familiarize themselves with policy before they start editing. As Wikipedians, we need to assume good faith, but sometimes it's all too obvious what someone is here to do (vandalism-only accounts, for example). Ilkali even thought that the anon didn't raise "the issue in quite the best way". What escalated this is Andrew c's comment. For the rest of the "discussion" the anon tried covering his tracks, then he got mad, and was throwing personal attacks at me. His comment about Misplaced Pages is rather intriguing, and it indicates that he already was turned off by Misplaced Pages before he even posted. That would be a reasonable conclusion based on the nature of his first comment. So that's what happened, in short. I'm not sure why you're posting this now. It's been a month since it happened. Though I probably didn't handle this in the best way, I can learn from this so that it won't happen again. Basically, I ran into a troll who hates Misplaced Pages. Really, not much can be done about these people. He'll come crawling back when he sees how good the article is. I've moved it up my to-do list. One last message to all of you involved: don't whine about how bad the article is, just fix it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, why are we still talking about something that happened a month ago and then ended? I agree Pwnage was a bit WP:BITEy in that circumstance, and he acknowledge as much above ("I probably didn't handle this in the best way"). If this became an ongoing pattern, or if it had just happened an hour ago, we might have something to discuss. As it is, it's old news and not really a Wikiquette Alert. Next time, instead of this page, try here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I brought this up, I feel compelled to answer the question. We're talking about something that happened a month ago because (1) it's not exactly ancient history, (2) it's still visible to all on the talk page, and (3) it's ended, but as far as I'm able to tell, not resolved. Having read the entire exchange, I feel that as a newbie, I should never improve any Misplaced Pages article, as that's just simply not allowed by the in crowd or page owners. The article in question was in desperate need of help. Pwnage chased one potential volunteer away, and seeing how WP is run, I fear the same, should I try to volunteer my time for the betterment of all mankind. Finally, (4), we're discussing this because on the talk page, another member left a link pointing here and suggesting that, if anybody felt it appropriate, the exchange should be reported. I felt it appropriate, and followed said advice.

All I was hoping to achieve is to learn whether or not good faith improvements to Misplaced Pages articles by the general public are encouraged or discouraged. I've learned that they're discouraged, and as well that this alert system is a rubber stamp for some type of WP clique. I was hoping for a more positive end, but I've learned what I need to know, and won't bother you further. 71.231.142.60 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

:On 17th July User:Pwnage8 reverted edit by me on page Avenue Road with comment "Imao- who cares?". As a test I made a further minor edit with no edit commentary (added a space)- the user immediately reverted this. I then made a further minor edit (deleted a superfluous comma) with an edit summary and flagged it minor. User did not revert this. Ning-ning (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No longer relevant (last 50 edit summaries devoid of snarkiness) Ning-ning (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. the anon really does have a hate-on for Misplaced Pages. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The HAL problem still exists

Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I see the section Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Dealing_with_bad_faith_by_User_hAl I started above asking for help has been locked. The reason given is that it has been referred to WP:Suspected sock puppets. But I started the section, and I dont think the problem has stopped. While it is true that some users accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Referring them to WP:SSP does not stop the problems happening on HAl's talk page. I dont want to bring that problem here. I dont want to go into the reasons that one thing or another are not true. But I would like for someone to give me advice or help on ending the discussion that is going no place on hHAl's talk page. If it cant be done here, can someone please recommend a next step for me, not the other side, to take. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You could try WP:ANI. I really don't understand hAl's refusal to try SSP and insistence on blabbing on the talk page. If he's got a problem with the alleged socking, report it. If he doesn't have a problem with it, back off. Right? I just don't understand... Anyway, try WP:ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help you understand his not filing a report a little better. In his own words. "We can´t report that one WP:SSP because you need evidence of sockpuppetingthen. We do not have that.". AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Adam sk

Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't particularly care for the tone of this posting on my talk page. I have done plenty of good work on areas all over the world, and I find it insulting to suggest that I should be editing only a certain area. Biruitorul 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Biruitorul is, so far as I can tell, not anything remotely like an expert on Canadian history, and yet, he goes around unilaterally deleting section of articles on Canadian prime ministers without even letting people with knowledge of the topic discuss it first. I have absolutely no time for users who have a "delete first, ask questions later" approach to Misplaced Pages - I think it's insulting to all of the other users who put in tons of hours of time and effort only to have their work unilaterally deleted. So, quite frankly, I've seen the guy's profile - he's done a lot of good work on eastern European articles, and, more power to him: I'm all in favor of his adding to articles and improving articles in his field of expertise. But I don't approve of his unilateral deleting of entire valuable sections of articles way out of his field of competence and think he should confine himself to making creative contributions to Misplaced Pages and avoid destroying other people's contributions. Adam_sk (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Adam, he didn't destroy anyone's work. Your efforts still exist, and can either be restored or transfered to the Commons depending on the outcome of the discussion. Please refrain from using terms like "destroy", or from suggesting that other editors do not have the necessary expertise to question your edits. Your comments at Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie King were extremely inappropriate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's law at Talk:History of Hinduism

A some people might know, there was a recent edit war between User:Dbachmann and User:Thirusivaperur at History of Hinduism. Dbachmann became blocked for 24 h for breaking wp:3RR, whereas Thirusivaperur became blocked for "48 hours for .. harassment of Dbachmann, in addition to .. general disruption and edit-warring." and also WP:DTTR. By the time another editor had started a section "I am concerned" on User talk:Dbachmann I was looking through the disputed revisions and found myself concerned about something else. I specified my concerns on the talk page of the article. After another editor was of the opinion that my concerns were unjustified I then got this reply from Thirusivaperur:

"True Trips. But User:Zara1709 is appearently from germany, a country with significant nationalism and holocaust history. These guys usually blame all others to be nationalists."

Dbachmann removed this wp:personal attack and informed Thirusivaperur AGAIN on his talkpage about our guidelines on this. However, on the discussion page, Thirusivaperur has refused to apologize and his other behaviour is not encouraging, either. Pending the question whether Thirusivaperur's proposed revision is acceptable, his behaviour hardly is. I would appreciate it if a few other editors could look at this issue, and, if necessary, help to apply Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:Consensus accordingly. Zara1709 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We generally don't force people to apologize :) You mention "his other behavior is not encouraging, either". Do you have diffs of problematic/uncivil behavior, other than the personal attack against Zara1709 for which he has already been warned? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Warren at Talk:Windows XP

To be quite honest I was tempted to let this slide but User:Warren's language and aggressive attitude is making it hard to continue rational discussion at Talk:Windows XP, which is why I've chosen to list this.

Some time ago editors agreed that certain images should remain in Windows XP after User:Warren had deleted the images. Despite my request for explanation of his reasoning Warren never responded. Instead, on 23 July 2008, he again removed the images, ignoring the (albeit limited) consensus leaving an edit summary that contained a profanity. After some discussion, in which he demonstrated aggressive behaviour in the very first line of one of his posts and threated to "write me up" at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems if I continued insisting we abide by consensus I made what I believed was a reasonable request to tone things down.(see last paragraph).

After my request was made he responded with a post, the first part of which was completely irrelevant to the issue, attacking my editing experience and insinuating that he had far more experience. And, of course, the language used was aggressive. For example "And yet, you tell me that I don't understand Misplaced Pages's non-free image policy? You have some damned nerve. You want me to be civil towards you? Start by not questioning my judgement on something you have absolutely no experience with! That sort of shit pisses me off."

For the record, I have sought guidance on the use of the disputed imageas at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#"Overuse" of non-free images - need some guidance but this is not the issue here. My concern is that this user's agressive attitude and refusal to tone the language down is making this issue hard to discuss. While I believe that this user has misinterpreted policy and that we should follow consensus, I have not reverted his edits to the consensus version for now to avoid aggravating this person. I have no desire to get into an edit war but I would like to resolve the issue as soon as possible and I can't see that happening while the agressive attitude remains unchecked. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI AussieLegend, although usually it is not permitted to refactor another user's comments, I replaced one of your diffs above (the one where Warren says "fuck" in the edit summary while removing the gallery) because it was clear you had accidentally copy-and-pasted the wrong diff. If this bothers you, feel free to revert me :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was actually fixing it so there was an edit conflict when I tried to save. I hoped nobody had noticed so quickly. You were obviously too fast for me. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:86.158.239.106 / User:86.158.177.226 Attacks on other editors

The above user is presently labeling any editor that undoes his unhelpful edits anti-islamic, islamophobic, anti-pakistan, pro-india. His comments can be located here, here, here, here, here and here. There are several others but I do not wish to overload the page with his viewpoints. Assistance with this as it is unacceptable to be falsely labeled by anon editors. Knowledgeum (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry nobody got back to you on this sooner. Is this still ongoing? I don't see any contribs from either of those IP addresses in the past three days, but I don't know if maybe he or she has moved on to another IP. Since it's a broad range of IP addresses, it is tough to stop this kind of abuse, but if it's ongoing we'll see what we can do... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sofar there have been none of the same edits on the main article that sparked this, however the protection on the article expires this evening so its possable that as soon as its unprotected anon users will make the same edits, get reverted and continue thier abuse. Knowledgeum (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If I am around I will keep an eye, but I may not be around. If the behavior resumes and you can't find anybody else, here is what I recommend:

1. Continue to revert any unconstructive changes to articles.
2. If the IP makes a personal attack such as those above on your talk page, feel free to remove the comment (see WP:DRC).
3. If the IP makes a personal attack such as those above on anyone's talk page, try your best to explain to him/her about personal attacks and WP:NPOV.
4. If your explanation is not effective, issue warnings of escalating urgency, making sure you use the phrase "final warning" in the 3rd or 4th.
5. After the final warning, if the behavior continues report to WP:ANI.

The problem here is that since it's an IP address, and apparently a user that can access a very wide range, long-term blocks or sanctions are not really feasible. You can try to reason with him/her, and if that fails we can try short blocks. Hopefully the user just gets bored first, though, y'know?

Best of luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Sourced WP:NPOV Archaeological Conclusions from the Bible

I'd like to avoid an edit war about this, so I've posted this alert. One user, Blanchardb, who has already been warned about "willy nilly" deletions before by admin Shirahadasha, is repeatedly deleting sourced WP:NPOV archaeological conclusions based upon a WP:CONSENSUS discussion from the Bible article. See here for details. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I rest my case. -- Blanchardb  -- timed 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ecrasez, I am sooooo sick of your red-text bolded version of the NPOV guidelines, quoted out of context and often not relevant to the discussion at hand. Do you have diffs of the problematic behavior? I am not talking about a link to a section, I want to see specific diffs. Those section are a bit long to read through, and they all are spammed with your red-text out-of-context quote from WP:NPOV -- if I see the latter one more time, my head is going to explode. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony1

Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I noticed Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments on the Australia talk page (Comments by Tony1 ), AussieLegend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comments and comments from myself . I feel that only an Admin can sort this out since I feel that if I comment any further that it would inflame the issue more then it is now. Bidgee (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

131.191.80.124

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

I tried to make Misplaced Pages a better place by reverting a personal attack and I get chewed out by some loser who just HAS to defend his right to the death to be a jerk on someone else's talk page.

You can do whatever you want with this... I am DONE with Misplaced Pages. RainbowOfLight 08:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at this. The IP's comments were indeed rather out of line, and I left him/her a template on his/her page. But I don't see any need to further fan the flames. Rainbow, I suggest that this is just part of the rough that sometimes comes with the smooth. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now he has sent me a threatening email via my website which is linked in my profile. To where should I forward this email, headers intact? RainbowOfLight 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is out of line. Don't reply to the email. (But don't delete it, either.) If nobody else comes by, I'm happy to follow up tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Best to send it to a member of WP:ARBCOM. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I have placed myself on Wikibreak because I've seen a lot of stupidity and rudeness around here lately (people getting irate because I revert their vandalism) and I need a timeout. I will be here to respond to this issue, though. RainbowOfLight 09:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about the harassing email. As angry as I was with RainbowOfLight last night, no one deserves that. Just believe me when I say that I didn't send the email - I don't even know her email address! The timing is unfortunate, I admit, but honestly - I've never threatened anyone, and certainly not her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.124 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathsci

In the course of a dispute at the talk page on Michael Atiyah, User:Mathsci has repeatedly attacked me and other editors personally.

For example, he stated: "... a number of Indian extremists have tried to disrupt this page". The dispute in question has nothing to do with nationality; I have never indicated my nationality and neither, to my knowledge, have other editors involved in the dispute. In my opinion, this extraneous mention of my presumed ethnic origin is tantamount to a racial slur. (What adds notability to this dispute is that just prior to this, User:Mathsci felt the use of the phrase `Eurocentric history' by another user was very inappropriate.)

A second disruptive tactic that User:Mathsci has used is to repeatedly accuse me of being a sockpuppet for another editor User:Bharatveer. Although, there is no evidence for this, User:Mathsci has repeated this allegation here and here.

Nevertheless, I feel that the second transgression is minor compared to the first one. I am new to Misplaced Pages, but I hope that it is not considered `civil' to introduce and insult someone's ethnic origin especially when it is completely irrelevant to the topic. - Perusnarpk (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no User:MathSci. Please could an administrator warn or block the above recently arrived SPA who, unable to insert libellous unsourced material into the BLP of Michael Atiyah (see the postings on WT:WPM, on WP:RSN and on WP:BLP/N), is going on a forum shopping spree across wikipedia. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He has now been given advice on WP:BLP policy by two administrators, User:Slrubenstein and User:Nishkid64. Hopefully the problem should now be resolved. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathsci appears to have been targeted for harassment by a variety of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts. No action is required here. Jehochman 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, User: Jehochman's post above is not neutral. It is easy to verify that my statements above are correct. If User:Jehochman feels that it was appropriate under the circumstances for User:Mathsci to use the ethnic epithet "Indian extremist", please state so. Otherwise, I feel this is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies of no personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusnarpk (talk • contribs)

POV pushing is not welcome on Misplaced Pages, whether polite or impolite. A review of your contributions shows that your account is a single-purpose, disruption-only account at this stage. You can change that by peacefully editing a variety of articles. Please stop campaigning against other editors and show that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Otherwise, you may find yourself blocked to prevent further disruptions. Thank you. Jehochman 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I would happily accept your resolved tag above if you, even briefly, addressed the issue. Are you stating that different guidelines apply to new editors and old editors: that old editors are allowed to launch personal attacks on new editors that include ethnic slurs? Or are you stating that the usage above was justified? If you are stating either of these things, please state that clearly here and I will not remove the resolved tag. If not, please allow other neutral editors to weigh in. thanks,

P.S: I resent your use of the word disruptive and in my opinion, it shows bias. As a new editor, I have participated in a controversial discussion but I have not edited the page itself as a quick review will show. What is `disruptive' about participating in a discussion, and why does it constitute POV pushing? Please show me the appropriate guidelines. thanks Perusnarpk (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are most certainly a disruptive influence, and you should stop. You have been advocating a position that is counter to Misplaced Pages policies. When told that you are wrong, by several experience users, you continue to push and attack. That is not the way things are done around here. I implore you to stop. Jehochman 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the "ethnic slur"?? "Indian extremist" isn't insulting a person's ethnicity; it is insulting their political position. Surely it is okay to say a white power group is Aryan extremists, and doing so does not mean I am picking on their race??? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from experience, I know some people liken the term extremists to terrorists so it's possible to be viewed as incivil, rather than as one side in a content dispute. Even if one were to use a label in a content dispute to describe a 'side' of the dispute, I think a person can come up with a label that is not so bad.

There's obviously a lot of issues going on in this dispute, but overall, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the subject of the WQA (Mathsci) to refrain from throwing that label around in the future. If there are sockpuppetry accusations, they belong to WP:SSP. Any concerns on users should be voiced in the appropriate forum, such as through WP:DR - not an article talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it isn't necessarily uncivil to call someone an "extremist", I'm just saying that it's clearly not an "ethnic slur", and Perusnarpk's continued insistence that an ethnic slur occurred sort of undermines his credibility... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. We should endeavor to use the least inflammatory language possible while maintaining accuracy. Calling somebody an "extremist" is generally not too helpful, but it is not worthy of a block. The editor who came here with the complaint has been exceptionally polite, but their effect on the discussion has been most unhelpful. This thread is really just an extension of the content dispute. The matter should return to the article talk page, and then dispute resolution if that fails. Jehochman 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, if the labelling and sockpuppet accusations has stopped, then what's within the scope of WQA is indeed resolved here - the rest of the issues should be dealt with as you've stated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, given some of the comments above, in my opinion, this was not a comment on my political beliefs since the entire discussion never broached the political beliefs of any of the editors involved. (In fact, my own views are quite the opposite of `Indian extremists'(used in a political sense) and if the expression was used in that sense, I would find it even more offensive.) As far as I can understand, the phrase `Indian extremists' meant precisely that: "a bunch of extremists from India". However, I will not belabor this point now, given the repeated requests of User:Jehochman and the fact that cognizance has been taken of User:Mathsci's lack of civility. For now, unless this repeats, I consider the discussion closed. Perusnarpk (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All I can recall is that Abhimars used the terms "eurocentric" and "exposing Western idols". I have never seen these terms used in the international world of mathematics. I do know Sir Michael personally as well as many of his students, including Graeme Segal, a good friend of mine. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have looked more thoroughly at the talk page of Michael Atiyah.

• Abhimars tells F&f that he is "angry with Raju for exposing eurocentric history and exposing western idols".
• I tell Abhimars:"Please refrain from making personal attacks on Fowler & fowler and other editors, Please avoid using phrases like "eurocentric history" and "exposing western idols". This extremist language suggests you have another agenda..." and end with "Otherwise, why not try editing another WP article some time?"
• An anon IP 67.169.0.250 calls this language "completely natural".
• Perusnarpk agrees with the Abhimars and 67.169.0.250
• I tell Perusnarkp "You and your friends are quite likely to be blocked from editing this encyclopedia if you continue making disruptive edits of this kind. In the meantime please go and look at Atiyah's entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica to get some idea of what a biography in an encylopedia should look like."
• I ask Perusnarkp how he knows about the precise nature of ArbCom restrictions on User:Bharatveer as a newly arrived editor. Perusnarpk does not reply for a few days.

If Perusnarpk had distanced himself from these extremist sentiments, there might have been some point to this wikiquette posting. Otherwise he has completely misrepresented what happened. Any reasonable and experienced WP editor would I think have drawn the same conclusions that I drew from this interchange. However, here and elsewhere, Perusnarpk has gone out of his way to misrepresent those opposing him (notably most mathematical editors) and in particular the first two editors who had the courage to engage with him. It is disgraceful that even now he is allowed to continue his disruption across the wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:91.122.87.1

I'm not sure where to report this, but this anonymous IP who has no edit history randomly showed up and started reverting my changes in two different articles, twice without explanation. I'm pretty sure this is just a sockpuppet of User:Colchicum since the anonymous ip is continuing his revert warring. Krawndawg (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Colchicum says on his userpage that he is from St.Petersburg, and the anonymous IP is also from that region. Krawndawg (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's something. Please reprimand Mr(s?). Krawndawg for the personal attack. This accusation of sockpuppetry and edit-warring is extremely frivolous. St. Petersburg is not a small village, it is the second largest Russian city with slightly less than 5 million inhabitants. Moreover, I was born and grew up in Saint Petersburg (well, Leningrad, to be precise), but I don't reside there. Furthermore, Krawndawg's blatant chauvinistic edits were reverted by three different registered users (me, User:Biophys and User:AlexiusHoratius). A convincing case of sockpuppetry, eh? And who is edit-warring here? I have only made two fully explained reverts: , . I am a long-standing user, who has never violated a rule here. Krawndawg (talk · contribs) has recently made dozens of reverts (having marked most of them as minor edits, by the way, which is very disruptive), including three reverts of that very edit in the article Russia, and has already got a record of blocks for edit-warring, albeit probably still not impressive enough to get the message across that edit-warring is not acceptable. He is obviously trying to game the system to promote his POV. Colchicum (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're only making yourself sound more suspicious. That anonymous IP is obviously another user since his first ever edit was a revert, making use of the edit summary box. Furthermore, it was a revert identical to yours which preceded it by only a few minutes. There may be 4 million people living in St.Petersburg, but there certainly aren't 4 million with internet access who can speak English, who additionally edit on English wikipedia with your same point of view on a specific article at the exact same time. Quite a coincidence I must say. Krawndawg (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about your suspicions and can't help you here. Neither do other Wikipedians AFAIK. But if you persist you will be blocked. Edit-warring is not acceptable. "My" point of view was immediately supported by Biophys, 91.122.xx.xx and AlexiusHoratius (or rather it was me who supported Biophys' viewpoint). Let's face the reality, this point of view is far more popular than you want it to be. And I assure you that a lot of people in Russia speak English, are aware of the existence of English Misplaced Pages and are naturally interested in what is written about their country in the article Russia. Where are you from, by the way? Colchicum (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And yes, (s)he is certainly not new to Misplaced Pages. According to you, 91.122.94.39 (talk · contribs) should probably be the same person (from the same ip range, interested in the same articles at the same time. Apologies are in order, Krawndawg. But the modest intellectual level of your accusations satisfies me best. Colchicum (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously come here to personally attack me and beg for apologies? You haven't proven or dis-proven anything and my suspicions are only greater now that you're trying so hard. I'm almost temped to report that IP to the sockpuppet board to get this figured out, since it is obviously a sockpuppet of someone. Lets just hope it doesn't interfere in anymore of my editing so I don't have to do that. Krawndawg (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets should be reported to WP:Suspected sock puppets. If you would like folks to look at edit-warring, personal attacks, or other behavioral issues, please provide diffs of the behavior in question.

At this point, all I see in this thread is a bunch of random sniping. WQA is not an no-holds-barred arena for you to criticize each other. The above conversation is totally unproductive. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:S. Dean Jameson

After politely asking for User:Blechnic (here) to redact his personal attack ("The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately."), User:S. Dean Jameson entered into an incivil and rude discourse against my person. First, he tried to rationalize the personal attack here by claiming that it is "true", even though the comments are directed at a person's ability to read, which is a clear violation WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA which states that you can only comment on actions, not on people.

Then, S. Dean Jameson insists on the "factual" nature of the comments, here. However, it is obvious that if someone is a complete idiot, WP:CIVIL requires that this cannot be used in conversation, as such are used in attacking other individuals, which is not acceptable. Then, the user tries to bend the NPA policy around here to justify making an attack upon others, which is clearly contradictory to the letter and spirit of NPA.

Then the user tries to claim that I am being incivil by asking for the personal attack to be redacted. You can find instances of that here, here, here, etc. That last one claims that not only does attacking attributes of an individual not constitute as NPA, but that such an idea would be "non-existent" all together, even though the quote above clearly has a person and claims an aspect of their nature.

Something needs to be done about this user. They insist on the right to belittle others because they believe it is "true", and this is dangerous to the community as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• This needs to stop. This user has been called on his/her accusations of "personal attacks." I have at no time been uncivil toward him/her, and would request that this user be reminded that making such accusations in the face of much evidence to the contrary is itself uncivil. This has to stop now. S. Dean Jameson 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Update - S. Dean Jameson now calls me a liar here and claims that "You are NOT allowed to bring up personal attributes of individuals" is wrong, even though NPA reads: "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• You're making things up AGAIN. I never said you were a liar, I said you were making things up. You are. WP:NPA doesn't say what you think it says. S. Dean Jameson 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference between the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note - User S. Dean Jameson is a brand new user (2 months) and probably doesn't understand the proper decorum. This does not need to go to blocks, or any such things. But there does need to be a clear statement for the user to understand that you do not have the right to bring up people's personal attributes in a discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused - you bring up what you believe to b a personal attack by User:Blechnic, which he refutes. SDJ defends Blechnic's position, but makes no personal attack himself, yet you've brought him and not Blechnic, who is meant to have made the personal attack, to this board. What's going on? Fritzpoll (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

S Dean Jameson's actions are argumentative, inflamatory, contributory to the original incivil action: he claims that the personal attack is factual, then resorted to claiming that I was rule breaking, then claiming that I am a liar who doesn't understand the policies. These are personal attacks upon my person, and acts of incivility. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I must point out, Fritzpoll was previously involved (here). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've been here long enough to recognize frivolous, time-wasting accusations of incivility when I see it. That's what this is. Nothing more, nothing less. No one agreed with you about your accusations against Blechnic. I tried to explain to you why. Now you're accusing me of incivility. I must say, you have the problem here, not me. This is my last post to you. Any further communication by you with regards to this matter will be summarily ignored, as is my right. Good bye. S. Dean Jameson 21:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This all seems to have blown way out of control. Just leave each other alone, and go and have a nice cup of tea - both of you are continually escalating your comments in response to each other, when clearly you just don't agree. Let it drop, and move on. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The only person who escalated this was OR. S/he has made baseless accusations against (now) two different editors. As for me, I've already indicated that I will be ignoring any further communications from OR along this line, so I guess I'll have to decline that cup o' tea! ;) S. Dean Jameson 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette of a particular user

User:Randomran directed me here. I believe this to itself be a provocation. SharkD (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with SharkD. He has initiated several RFCs on articles I have worked on, especially recently. In some of those RFCs about article content, SharkD mentioned behavioral issues to some degree. And while I believe them to be based on misconceptions and misinterpretations of my actions, maybe even failures to WP:assume good faith, this right here is the appropriate forum for behavioral issues. So if we want to talk about behavioral issues, we can start with this "provocation" that SharkD thinks I've engaged in. I don't think I've done anything wrong, although I should qualify that. SharkD and I had an edit war or two towards the cusp of 2007/2008. We probably both mishandled it, and that's ancient history as far as I'm concerned. Starting in March/April, I became much more active around wikipedia, and 90+% of my edits have probably taken place since then. Since Spring of 2008, my understanding of policy has been stronger, and even my worst disputes have at least been civil. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the premise... Perhaps one or both of you could provide diffs of the behavioral issues or "provocation"? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution