Revision as of 23:19, 8 March 2012

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

Calling "Jewish" a source or an article improperly and without any valid reason

• Jeffro77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John_Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. Jeffro77 refers to the Misplaced Pages article Righteous Among the Nations as to a "Jewish article".
2. I have asked him to avoid this kind of remarks which I find rather abusive. I must say that I misunderstood his initial assertion: I thought he was referring to the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations.
3. John Carter has intervened to say that it's OK to refer to that Encyclopedia as to a "Jewish article" because it is an Encyclopedia with a Jewish learning (sic!).

I have no idea what relevance these remarks have on the topic we were discussing. I perceive this as an abuse. Is there anything that can be done or shall we accept that somebody else refers to the article Homosexuality as to a "homosexual article", to Romani people as to a "Gypsy article", to National Socialism as to a "Nazi article"?

This is not essential but, by the way, both of them keep denying the simple fact that the source (the Encyclopedia) explicitly mentions the religious affiliation of two Jehovah's Witnesses as their motivation for hiding a young Jewish woman during the Shoah. How do you talk to someone who refuses to read the sources while at the same time qualifying them as "Jewish"?

--Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77 and John Carter's remarks are reasonable in the context they were made -- discussion of an article listing individuals who saved individuals of the Jewish faith during the Holocaust. Nobody Ent 11:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ceci n'est pas une pipe seems to imagine that it is somehow offensive to specify the context of an article that is plainly related to Jewish people. I have no idea why he imagines that to be some kind of indictment of Jews or anyone else. Aside from that, no one has 'denied' that the encyclopedia to which he refers makes mention of the religion of a couple of people who helped one Jewish girl. The point is that their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves), because people of any religion are equally likely to consider their religion to be a motive for helping others. Righteous Among the Nations does not give any special attention to the religious affiliation of others who helped Jewish people during the Holocaust, including those who helped hundreds or even thousands of Jews. It seems that Ceci n'est pas une pipe's entire basis for raising this complaint may be a retributive action for his edit not being retained at Jehovah's Witnesses and governments See User talk:Jeffro77#Re and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Notable Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling it a jewish article isn't entirely accurate but it is civil. It would be better described as a "Judaism related article". Comparing calling an aricle jewish to calling an article homosexual, nazi or gypsy is a bit over the top. It seems like your implying they are all pejorative which isn't the case.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77—why are you referring to the Righteous among the Nations article as a "Jewish article"? Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Already answered. Nobody Ent 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it may be slightly more accurate to refer to a Judaism-related article, but Jewish article is entirely valid shorthand for same. The term was used quite clearly to establish context. It should be quite clear that I was not implying that a digital file on a database possesses any particular ethnicity. Sigh.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77 —I think it is not advisable to pigeonhole articles as "Jewish articles". I think such a reference tends to be dismissive of the article so referrenced. An article is a complex entity referring to many identities including in this case non-Jews. Those who extended kindness at great personal risk to Jews during the holocaust, referenced for instance in this section, are also the subject of that article. I'm heartened by your characterization of your language as merely "shorthand" as I understand the exigencies of quickly dashing off written communication on Talk pages. Nevertheless I understand the objection raised here to the encapsulation of a complex topic covered as if it were merely of concern to Jews, as this article highlights many non-Jews as well. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article, 'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The context in which it I referred to as a 'Jewish article' is quite clear. Some of you are behaving as if this is wording I've tried to use in article. Please just stop.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

After this and this - which can well be right and I have not questioned - I have decided to add this in the talk of the Project related to the JWs: if users more skilled/knowledgeable than myself are interested to add this piece of information to Misplaced Pages they have the opportunity to discuss about it, as it is unlikely that I will intervene any longer on this subject anyway, with maybe few exceptions.

Jeffro77 reacted with a certain irritation: «As you've already been told …» which is not exactly an elegant way to talk to anyone. After all, what I have been told is only his opinion (over and over again, actually) - opinion which is objectively wrong, a mere provocation: Jeffro77 is openly denying the content of a source which reports that the two Belarusians in question were «devout JWs» and that «they believed that their deed of rescue was a commandment from God» while Jeffro77 keeps repeating over and over again that «their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves)». What is he trying to say? That the Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations (ERAN) is not a relevant source? He has never tried to explain why, according to him, what the ERAN finds notable should be ignored/discarded. He keeps repeating that the 2 JWs saved only 1 Jew while many others have saved thousands. What is he trying to say? That the two didn't deserve the honorific "Righteous Among the Nations"? That the honorific itself is not especially notable? He proposed to add the two Belarusians in a Polish list (?!). This is the context in which he added that ambiguous inaccurate «Jewish article». If you allow me, I have noted too much ambiguous inaccuracy accompanied by the presumption that he is obviously right and I'm obviously wrong. If he is obviously right, how come he is being so inaccurate and on similar delicate issues?

In English, Jewish article means an article that has been written with a Jewish point of view which, related to a Misplaced Pages article, means that it is a bad article, at least if Misplaced Pages articles aim at being "neutral". The same is true for "homosexual article" or "Nazi article" or any other "x article" of the same kind. It is wrong and there can be absolutely no doubt about this. Together with the rest, included the fact that he keeps defending his inaccuracy, it makes me think it was not a simple accidental inaccuracy, and this will remain my permanent opinion about Jeffro77.

I feel quite disappointed by the kind of comments I have read here. I expect from someone endowed with the slightest common sense to at least say something like: «Jewish article is wrong and potentially very ambiguous. No hard feelings, but please avoid such remarks in the future». But I agree that common sense is not so common after all. 1 Case closed for me. --Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 'denying' anything. I am stating that the religion of the 2 people who helped one Jewish girl is not especially notable. I am also stating that Righteous Among the Nations does not note the religious affiliation of other people who helped hundreds or thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. I am therefore stating that it would constitute undue weight to give special attention to the fact that the religion of these two people is more significant than the religious affiliation of many other people of various religions who helped Jews during the Holocaust. Regarding his further claim that I've suggested the honorific is not notable, I have also previously stated that the numbers for these two should be included at Righteous Among the Nations in the same manner as all the others. The Encyclopedia says that the 2 people considered their religion to be their motive for helping the Jewish girl; that could be said of people of any religion, and does not warrant special attention in the Misplaced Pages article. It certainly would be biased to make a special point of the honorific being conveyed upon JWs when no such special point is made in the article about members of other religions, as if it should be 'surprising' that JWs would receive the honorific.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe seems to be on a crusade about questioning my motives on something for which everyone else clearly recognised the intended context and that such—while not an accurate description for article content—was not objectionable. Jewish article in English means "an article that is of or pertaining to Jews or Judaism." I have no idea why Ceci n'est pas une pipe determines that such an article must therefore be 'bad'. (I should also note that the value judgement Ceci n'est pas une pipe places on 'homosexual articles' as 'bad' is also discriminatory.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have provided clear evidence that Jeffro77 is lying: he says that «their religious affiliation is not especially notable (other than to themselves)» knowing that the ERAN says that, when the situation became extremely dangerous, they kept protecting their ward because «they believed that their deed of rescue was a commandment from God», i.e. their religious affiliation is especially notable for ERAN which mentions only this as explanation for their motive. Since ERAN is not written by the two belarusian JWs, Jeffro77 is lying because he knows that what he is stating is false. Of course that doesn't mean that what ERAN finds notable should be considered notable by Misplaced Pages as well, I have never suggested this automatism.

Since Jeffro77 cannot defend himself from the evidence, he changes subject to deviate from the point: his "undue weight" argument is completely empty, given that I have never proposed to mention the story of the two JWs in Righteous among the Nations. My opinion is that a short paragraph could - not should - be added in some article related to the behaviour of Jehovah's Witnesses during WWII, in particular their very clear and rather compact refusal of the Nazi regime. For an interesting point of view, read here.

The idea that "Jewish article", when referred to a Misplaced Pages article, means "an article that is of or pertaining to Jews or Judaism" is silly and I shall not answer. A "homosexual article" is an article that is of or pertaining to homosexuals? Simply ridiculous. Normal people do not use these expressions unless they intend to be offensive. If they do not intend to be offensive they do not persist defending such ambiguous expressions.

When a user refers to a Misplaced Pages article as to a "Jewish article", the least that can be noted is that, by saying so, he is accusing the contributors of that article of partisanship/dishonesty/disregard for the neutrality policies. If the attached attribute is sensitive - like "Jewish" or "homosexual" - then this is likely to be also abusive towards these communities.

Also, it should be noted that the article in question - Righteous among the Nations - is not a Judaism-related article, being related to the Shoah, Antisemitism, World War II, Israel, Yad Vashem, etc. Certainly not to Judaism, no more than to Jewish atheism (the Nazi plan included the entire Jewish people, not only the followers of the religion called Judaism).

The rest is a ridiculous, totally unsubstantiated accuse made by Jeffro77 against my person («(I should also note …»): I request that it is removed from history.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not lying and expressing an opinion is not a criminal allegation. It is not going to be a good use of your time discussing the article content here; the issue you've asked our opinion on is whether the use of the term "Jewish article" is incivil and there is not a consensus that it is. Nobody Ent 16:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I require that the user withdraws his claim about libel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I also just noticed his statement that I had "proposed to add the two Belarusians in a Polish list". As I immediately explained after I realised I'd made a minor error, I had innocuously thought a place name in his text was in Poland rather than Belarus. I have no opinion or vested interest regarding the politics of Poland or Belarus, and am not aware that the incidental error was "delicate". (However, on closer inspection, the Wilno District was in fact part of Poland at the beginning of World War II.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the false syllogism between the words Jewish and homosexual, words pertaining to nationalities are ordinarily (and non-judgementally) used in the sense of pertaining to. Italian food. French architecture. No one routinely refers to homosexual food or homosexual architecture. The only reason for selecting the term homosexual for such a comparison is to suggest that such a term is inherently negative.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(I just noticed another editor had marked this section as resolved prior to my last comment. I considered deleting the post-resolved comment, but as it is related to a separate attack on my motives, I feel it is better to leave intact, with some adjustment.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We can change it to stuck if you'd like. It appears outside authors have stated their opinions. For something relatively minor like this, findings of WQA just give you an outside opinion. Hopefully you can benefit from the outside perspective.Gsonnenf (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Jeffro77, after resolution, has taken advantage to keep attacking me with ridiculous nonsensical non-arguments, I reckon one last reply is only due.
Now Jeffro77 says that referring to a Misplaced Pages article as to a "Jewish article" is comparable to talking about Italian food (sic!). He must have surely been thinking hard about it.
He also says that for him it is routine to refer to a Misplaced Pages article as to a Jewish article, while for some extraordinarily mysterious reason he agrees with me (and fails to acknowledge it) that "homosexual article" would be an intolerable incivility.
He says: «The only reason for selecting the term homosexual for such a comparison is to suggest that such a term is inherently negative». No way: what do Jews and homosexuals (or Gypsies) have in common? They are both minorities under risk of discrimination: the comparison is only too obvious. Thus also the last desperate attempt to deviate attention from his inaccurate expression evaporates into thin air. --Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

1. You seem to have misused 'sic'.
2. You know (or should reasonably know) that words describing nationalities are commonly used as descriptors, as in the examples provided.
3. I did not say I agree with your negative implication about "homosexual article", I said that to come up with the comparison in the first place suggests a negative view of that topic, and it ignores the stated distinction demonstrating the way in which nationality descriptors are commonly used.
4. Your attack here seems entirely retributive in nature as a result of your edit being removed from an article.
5. I used the term Jewish in an appropriate manner for a Talk page, and everyone else clearly understands the intended meaning. It is not particularly important or relevant that you continue to object. Now please go and do something productive, like complain vehemently about Jewish cuisine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

While Jewish cuisine is a perfectly no-nonsense notion, "Jewish article" - when referred to a Misplaced Pages article - is certainly not. People with non-hostile attitudes don't say that. Polite people withdraw it without any problem, if found ambiguous, they don't persist for days and days.

If Misplaced Pages community accepts your ambiguous expressions, it's perfectly ok for me, I don't live on Misplaced Pages. I don't need assistance to identify your expressions and your obstinacy to defend them as improper: I will remain happy with that.

I find it quite touching that you started by saying that your "Jewish" was related to "Judaism" and now you end up claiming that yours was a reference to a nationality (which, in particular, and of whom? -- I'd be curious to know). But - you say - not to an ethnicity. In short, you don't have yourself the slightest idea of what you meant by that "Jewish article". Whoa! You might find beneficial to do some reading. Also you could try to focus a minute or two on the meaning of that "among the Nations": it's there for a reason after all.

--Ceci n'est pas une pipe (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You incorrectly inferred something about my use of Jewish article. You also incorrectly inferred that my reference to the Misplaced Pages article Righteous Among the Nations was actually about The Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations. You were then upset by your own incorrect inferences. The context of my use of Jewish article was clear from the outset (as confirmed by other editors), yet you continue to claim special knowledge of my thoughts. You have assumed an awful lot. The only thing you have not assumed is good faith.

But let's go step back a bit and look at where I happened to use this supposedly terrible phrase. Was it a frequent characterisation of articles related to Jews or Judaism? No. Was it in an article? No. Was it even at article Talk? Well, actually, no, it wasn't. This shocking phrase was actually used in a single comment in response to Ceci n'est pas une pipe at my User Talk page, directly in relation to establishing the correct context of information Ceci n'est pas une pipe had added to Jehovah's Witnesses and governments. The context of the original 'offensive' statement was "My best guess from the place names was Poland . Whatever the location, it only warrants mentioning within the context of Righteous among the Nations or directly related articles. The account has nothing at all to do with the attitude of governments toward JWs. Nor is there any indication in the account that the action of two JWs is representative of the religion itself. If their status as JWs is relevant in the context of the Jewish article , I have no concern about it being mentioned."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I did not " by saying that "Jewish" was related to "Judaism""; I actually said at this page that a Jewish article means an article pertaining to Jews or Judaism. Distinction between culture, nationality or ethnicity is entirely beside the point, as no negative connotation was ever intended. The fact remains that Righteous Among the Nations is plainly a Jewish topic (in the sense used in the original statement), relating to an honorific bestowed by Jews on people of other nations for helping Jews. If you (or anyone else) imagine that somehow suggests something negative about Jews, that is essentially your problem. I simply do not automatically attribute negative implications to normal English words.

My entire obligation to Ceci n'est pas une pipe in this matter is to acknowledge that he made an incorrect inference about my response to him at my User Talk page. I will proceed to an ANI if he continues to attack my motives.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed what appeared to be a biased summary by Gsonnenf. In view of his own contributions, it seems advisable that Gsonnenf should not close discussions on matters concerned with Judaism. Recently he has been significantly involved in similar matters on this page. His summary seemed WP:POINTY. Please leave it up to disinterested regulars. Mathsci (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WQA editors have already suggested Jeffro77 use the term "jewish related article" instead of "jewish article" when referring multi-cultural articles. Jefrro77 is free to believe what he wants as long as he's not violating wiki policy. If he continues to refer to multi-cultural article as a "Jewish article", and you feel this breaches wiki policy, I would suggest taking it to a message board with binding resolutions. Gsonnenf (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. This noticeboard is being misused by a number of users, beyond the purposes for which it was intended. Please do not restore your biased summary. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, I understand we've had differences on several occasions, but please do not disrupt this WQA process to make a point about your feelings towards me. Thank you.Gsonnenf (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given your own editing history, it is probably better not to involve yourself in this WP:POINTY way. The discussion does not seem to have ended yet. My own view is that on talk pages language is often so imprecise and ungrammatical that this minor nit-picking serves little or no purpose. The imprecision does not involve comments about any particular user on wikipedia. I cannot see how incivility or wikiquette enter here. Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just to recap. The initial reporter made a complaint about two editors, only one of whom has responded here. Nobody Ent did not think the objection was valid. Apart from Gsonnenf himself and the original reporter, the only other editor to intervene has been Bus Stop. Now I have made a statement, more or less in agreement with Nobody Ent. What consensus is there here, except that this is a minor linguistic issue on a talk page that was probably not worth reporting here? Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, I don't see why you see any bias in the resolution.

Opinions

• Not uncivil - Nobodyent, Gsonnenf, Mathsci
• Better referred as X-related article instead of X article - Bus Stop, gsonnenf

I'm pretty much just summarizing here, no WP:POINT at all. Last WQA author besides me (and now you) posted 5 days ago. Also, there is a link to the admin recommending removal of the term libel which occurred during this dispute. Hopefully the authors will stop debating this WQA and do something more beneficial since we concluded the WQA.Gsonnenf (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The original complaint was a misuse of this noticeboard. Since Jeffro77 is still adding comments, I do not see that the matter has yet been concluded. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've exercised my right of reply. The matter can be closed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've retagged the request per the WQA volunteer instructions Nobody Ent 11:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really 'stuck'. The complaint was based on an incorrect inference on the part of the complainant, and the circumstances and correct intended meaning have all been very clearly explained. No further action is necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro77—"Righteous among the Nations" is nominally a Jewish article because included in its material are topics that involve Jews, among other people. But "Righteous among the Nations" is not an article that has a Jewish perspective. If it were, it would probably be in violation of important WP principles such as WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, etc. I don't think it would be incorrect to say that Wiki does not have Jewish articles, Muslim articles, or Christian articles. The choosing of language is of obvious importance. Referring to the "Righteous among the Nations" article as a Jewish article has the unintended consequence of implying that it has a Jewish perspective. Bus stop (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The context of the usage of the term at my User Talk page was unambiguous, limited in scope, and had an intended audience of one. I see no reason to change it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The initial complaint was a valid use of the board. Ceci n'est pas une pipe felt Jeffro77 was being uncivil because he found the comment offensive. The board gave him good feed back that the community did not see it as uncivil. The board also gave guidance for resolving the situation. I'm glad we could give input that helped resolve the situation.Gsonnenf (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gsonnenf, please stop sermonising. Hardly anybody commented, nothing happened, no relevant guidance was given, ... Is it not time to beat your swords into ploughshares? Mathsci (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets continue this on a talk page if you'd like to discuss our disagreement. Gsonnenf (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gsonnenf—you post under a post of mine that: "I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article, 'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths."

I have bolded the word "also" in the above quote.

You are concurring with me in the second half of your sentence but not concurring with me in the first half of your sentence.

You correctly paraphrase me in your assertion "…'jewish' article is not accurate as the article involves people of many faiths".

But you are not at all reflecting anything I said in the first half of your sentence: "I would also recommend calling it a judaism-related article…"

I want to make it clear that I did not "recommend calling it a judaism-related article…" Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Roux at the village pump

• Roux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In a section labelled "Please clarify", study the conversation between me and Roux. Please read the whole discussion and make sure you know both of us well and see if it really makes sense that I'm as bad of a Wikipedian as Roux thinks I am. Georgia guy (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also study all edits Roux has made since then. He even carried it over to my talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please drop this futile bickering. Fences&Windows 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1. I never said you were a 'bad Wikipedian,' I implied that you are not competent to edit here, as you are still raising the same question which someone answered for you six years ago. Fail.
2. When I suggested that you read WP:COMPETENCE, you further indicated how incompetent you are by failing to actually read the page and instead go on some weird clicking to other pages which had absolutely no bearing. Fail.
3. You were required to notify me that you had posted here. You failed at that, too, and I can only guess it's because you appear to have less than no interest in actually reading anything.
4. I will treat this nonsense with the contempt it deserves and will not be watching this page.

→ ROUX ₪ 21:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Georgia guy, why have you brought this here? You aired this at the Village pump. Fences closed the discussion as "going nowhere". And here you are wanting to go nowhere yet again?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up before the Village pump section was closed. I was sent here from my talk page as the right place to go to warn others of Roux's edits. But I have calmed down now. Georgia guy (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, this is my very first time with this particular page. So please help me nicely with good etiquette. Georgia guy (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Just let it go. Stop keeping this topic alive. Don't bring it up anywhere else. Find an article that needs improvement and edit it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Start by assuming good faith on the part of Roux. Start by assuming that other editors who appear to be siding with Roux know what they're talking about. Start by stepping back and thoroughly reviewing the policies and best practices of the community. If you don't throw the first stone and come to the table with an open mind you might just be surprised at the level of good faith other editors are willing to extend to you. Hasteur (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what "on the part of Roux" means?? Does it mean first assume Roux is good?? Please explain. Georgia guy (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me Google that for you... It's an idiom. Are you a native English speaker? If you aren't this might explain some of the difficulties you've had in communicating with various people. Hasteur (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's how I actually did start, for a little while, until somehow I slowly began to believe Roux was bad. (And yes, I'm a native English speaker.) Georgia guy (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• comment From reading the village pump posts, It looks like Roux was a bit rude and uncivil. I would suggest we advise him to be less rude and more civil and then promptly close this thread.Gsonnenf (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Roux needs any advice. He wasn't being rude or uncivil. He was being blunt. He explained. When Georgia guy didn't get it, Roux got frustrated and was more forceful. I'm a big fan of civility, but there's nothing that requires Roux to be warm and fuzzy. And Georgia guy should just give it up. I do agree that this topic should be closed - it should never have been opened.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Roux was being incivil -- would have been better if they had walked away. That said, it was certainly understandable under the circumstances so I'm certainly not going to say anything to them about it. Georgia guy was specifically told at the Village Pump to post to WQA if they had concerns, so the WQA should have been opened. Nobody Ent 00:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

First, there is a difference between being uncivil and it being a better idea to walk away. I agree with your walk away comment. Second, you're right about the WQA suggestion. I missed that; thank you for pointing it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Before all y'all have a merry old time claiming I was rude--I wasn't; as said above I was blunt and there is absolutely nothing requiring me to mollycoddle those who insist on bullshit--you should have a look at this particular bit of nonsense, which is a flat-out and deliberate lie about my behaviour. Prior to today, as far as I know the sum total of my interactions with this editor were when he appeared out of nowhere to revert spam on my talkpage. → ROUX ₪ 08:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether "blunt" or "rude" - I will just ask if the tone used was the most appropriate to achieve a satisfactory close to the initial incident and ask Roux to consider whether a different approach might not have led to a different state where none of us would be here? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Your tone was no different. In fact, you were openly mocking. Is that different somehow? Either way, that is utterly irrelevant to the issue of an editor who is either a very subtle troll or incompetent deliberately lying about me. → ROUX ₪ 19:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on, there's nothing to be gained by ratcheting this up. Don't accuse editors of being trolls or liars. You're just going to attract more attention against you and keep this thread open for that much longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Given how this whole thing started, trolling is almost certainly what's going on. Georgia guy claimed that he'd noticed something while reverting vandalism, then posted to VP.. which doesn't really explain why in the edit summary reverting the vandalism he pointed people to VP when he hadn't even posted a topic yet.

As for calling him a liar, he said something which he knows to be factually untrue. Do you have another word for it? 'Politician' has roughly the same meaning, I suppose. Point being, he comes here whining about me with no basis, but when I point out that he has very specifically made an accusation which is not borne out by anything in the real world, you tell me to shut up. WTF is wrong with you people? → ROUX ₪ 19:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell if Georgia guy is trolling or has genuine issues understanding what vandalism is. I'm sure he's received many definitions from many users. If he is trolling i suggest WP:DENY, if he isn't trolling let someone spend 30 seconds answering his redundant question. It is less disruptive. I again suggest we close this discussion. Gsonnenf (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

People have been trying to explain to him what vandalism is and is not since 2006. WP:VAND contains all the definitions, and several of us have pointed him there, to no avail. At this point it is either trolling or incompetence. → ROUX ₪ 20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I was never trolling. Georgia guy (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You did, however, lie. That is not in dispute--you cannot possibly dispute that you were lying when you claimed I was 'following you around.' You going to retract your lies or not? → ROUX ₪ 20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant when I said you were following me around, I mean that often when I make an edit relating to this discussion, you make one in response. Georgia guy (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Bullshit; 2) do you know what the word 'discussion' means?; 3) Do you know what the watchlist is?; 4) Do you understand that when you are talking about someone, especially when you are doing so dishonestly, they are going to respond?

Go re-read WP:COMPETENCE. Except this time, actually read the bloody page instead of clicking away. That means read and understand all the words from top to bottom. Then re-evaluate whether, given that it's been six years and you still have no clue what 'vandalism' means, let alone your obvious other difficulties with comprehension of really basic things like 'how to use words to say what you claim you actually meant, instead of using words which say something entirely and completely different,' you actually have the skillset required to edit here. For God's sake. → ROUX ₪ 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I read the article and one section says:

Bias-based incompetence: Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate. Try this first before going for a site ban, because some people can make valuable contributions in places other than their pet topic. For some reason, it is very difficult to see your own biased editing, though it is easy to see others' biased editing.

Per the last sentence in this section, I see Roux's editing easily. It definitely appears biased. Georgia guy (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be fucking joking. → ROUX ₪ 21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This thread started with Georgia guy wanting to know if other editors agreed with Roux's negative assessment of him. Not really the right kind of thing to bring to WQA (yeah, I know, someone told him to), but whatever. Then, just because we are at WQA, it devolved into questioning Roux's civility, and to the extent he was uncivil, whether it was justifiable because of Georgia guy's supposed inability to grasp certain concepts. Now, it has deteriorated rapidly with Roux demonstrating that he is uncivil and continuing his attack on Georgia guy as incompetent (which again doesn't really belong here). None of this is doing anyone any good. If someone wants to counsel Roux to get off his high horse, to treat editors with respect, and to stop digging himself deeper into a hole, fine. Otherwise, I don't know why we're here except to witness further pointless unpleasantness.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We're here because GG is incapable of comprehending anything which he is told, including when he is told to go and read the very page which discusses that issue. → ROUX ₪ 21:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• People are actually... discussing this? I thought it was apparent that Georgia guy is a either a troll or perhaps not quite competent. In either case it's getting disruptive. Killiondude (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  • • I'm seriously not a troll. This discussion all began with me posting a serious question at the village pump. Roux responded to it in a biased way. Something to say: I have studied Roux's edits in all WP pages related to this discussion and I can tell that he is someone pretending to be civil. Have you triple-checked this discussion to find out what the truth is?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  • • • My comments in this discussion are biased how exactly? I await a cogent response with breathless anticipation. Thus far you have accused me of following you around (untrue), pretending.. something (also untrue), and now bias. We all know that's untrue as well, and I am going to have to demand that you actually explain precisely how my edits to this discussion are biased, or remove the stupid accusation immediately. Is that crystal clear? → ROUX ₪ 21:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You better watch out, Killiondude. Saying that someone is incompetent--despite the overwhelming evidence--is apparently a personal attack now. At least according to Bbb23. → ROUX ₪ 21:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• This does it. I think it's about time to close this discussion now. Any objections?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I object. You have made multiple spurious accusations. You are now required to provide actual evidence supporting them, or retract them--and quite frankly, issue an apology for making them in the first place. → ROUX ₪ 22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Georgia Guy, per WP:VANDAL: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Roux is correct that an editor with over 6,000 mainspace and six years experience should know this by now, so it's unclear what you were attempting to do at the Village Pump, especially since you said you knew what vandalism is . You said you want to close the conversation -- WQA participation is voluntary so you can just leave this conversation and go back to your content work. To answer you question: Is Roux a good Wikipedian? Absolutely. He's made over 6,000 mainspace edits and is currently under no sanctions. Nobody Ent 22:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, I know what vandalism is; it's exactly what you said. But now let me explain what I was intending to do. Shortly before I made the post, I noticed a new MediaWiki message saying "If you're undoing an edit that is not vandalism..." I was curious on an improvement to the message so that it will be clear than anyone who undoes the edit will know what it means, even Wikipedians who don't know what vandalism is. Georgia guy (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What wording would you propose? Nobody Ent 22:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no real suggestion. Perhaps a phrase "(see the link for details)" added to the text in the MediaWiki message can do. (The word link is a reference to the link that the word vandalism points to. I also suggest that the link should link to the "What is not vandalism" section of the WP:VAND page because that's the section most relevant to understanding the statement the message mentions.) Georgia guy (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact the word vandalism is in the hyperlink color is sufficient indication to the editor they can click on it. What section of the page would be most useful to a particular editor would depend on the editor, don't you think? Nobody Ent 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice the contents of WP:VAND. I know it varies depending on the editor; I agree with you. Go to section 7 in the contents and notice sub-sections 7.1 to 7.13 and that it can be any of those sub-sections of section 7 depending on the editor, but they're all in section 7 and that's where it be linked. Georgia guy (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be good for the person who learns best through lots of concrete examples; there are other people for whom the statement at the top of the page would be best. Also, that allows edits to scroll down and see the table of contents. Nobody Ent 23:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, NE, you want to extend this exercise in how-to-waste-everyone's-time-on Misplaced Pages? As if there weren't countless ways to do that already. So, let's quibble. Having 6,000 edits and not currently under sanctions is NOT necessarily the "definition" of a good editor. I pass no judgment on Roux's article edits, but at this point I've lost any confidence in his good judgment otherwise. He should have stuck to his guns at the beginning when he said he wasn't going to watch this page (was that a "lie", Roux?). Roux wants to have it both ways. He wants to declare GG to be incompetent and yet accuse him of all sorts of things that would only make sense if GG were competent. Everyone should walk away from this topic (including me, and this is my last comment).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not watching this page until GG decided to start lying about me elsewhere. The only things I am accusing GG of--with excellent evidence--are 1) incompetence, 2) lying, or alternatively 3) trolling. One notices that not one fucking person here has asked GG to back up his false and bullshit allegations.n Not one. → ROUX ₪ 08:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the board for Wikiquette assistance and it says at the top: "Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks." I think any prospect of a mutually agreed solution between these two editors has vanished some time ago. It looks as though GG effectively withdrew from this discussion yesterday. Roux, if you want to pursue your own complaint above, it looks like this is not the place for it - suggest you try a board with more teeth. Kim Dent-Brown 08:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying it's perfectly okay for someone to come here, to lie repeatedly, and make baseless accusations without any evidence whatsoever, without anyone saying one fucking word about it? Really?

I'm going to have a lot of fun with this page then. → ROUX ₪ 08:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If that's what has happened, of course it's not ok. But the behaviour needs taking elsewhere, eg to WP:ANI if you feel that strongly about it. But my candid advice is that you are over-reacting and that people's unwillingness to come to your aid is because you make your case in a shrill, over-the-top manner. If you do go to ANI, make your case more calmly. If you stay here and disrupt the Wikiquette board (if that's what fun implies) then WP:POINT will apply. Kim Dent-Brown 08:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you completely failed to understand anything I said. GG has made unsubstantiated allegations about me, yes or no? (hint: he has). Nobody here has asked him to back up the shit he is spewing. Ergo, it is obviously okay for anyone to say whatever they want here without basis and without fear of reprisal. If it is not okay, then please explain why nobody--except, you know, the person he's being a jerk to--has asked him to substantiate what he is saying.

It's either okay to make baseless accusations or it is not. pick one. → ROUX ₪ 09:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A corollary of anyone can edit is that anyone will edit: we can all see what has happened here, and there is no need to drive a stake into anyone's heart to make a point. Please drop the matter—this is just a website, and no benefit would come from taking this any further. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

GG did make, as far I've been able to find, a single unsubstantiated comment regarding Roux's edits, on a third party's (Red Pen of Doom's) talk page. RPoD dealt with the comment well by suggesting GG (paraphrasing here) take a wikibreak. Regarding "okay to make accusations or not": no, Misplaced Pages is not a binary place -- it fact it's most gray. Lack of reaction to GG's statement is not an endorsement of the behavior, rather it's dealing with it as recommended by the policy page, ignoring it.

I concur that it can be difficult to parse out what GG means in some of their posts. The best solutions to that are either strong application of AGF and asking clarifying questions, or keeping in mind that, with few exceptions, we're not required to answer questions from individual editors and that disenaging from an unproductive conversation is always a possible option and frequently the best one. (Agreeing with Johnuniq).

An important connotation of lie is that a falsehood must be intentional; as it is essentially impossible to truly know another's intention when they make a post, it is a term best avoided as unnecessary inflammatory. Nobody Ent 14:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually he's made several, including accusing me of bias--yet another bullshit allegation that none of you lot have bothered asking him to substantiate. As for the lie, of course it was intentional: he claimed I was 'always' following him around when he knew that was absolutely not the case. → ROUX ₪ 17:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears Georgia Guy was asking for people's opinions on what is wp:vandalism because it is a topic that interests him. If he wants to civilly debate the fine points of vandalism with others, that is OK. It is uncivil to be combative in order to stifle his discussion.

"Incivility consists of one of more of the following behaviors: personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours---when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict."

Gsonnenf (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that Georgia Guy lacks the ability to communicate effectively that is required to be an editor here. If this continues, I suggest that a more substantial review of his contributions is called for - A cursory review of the content presented here shows someone who is actively disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Diasystem and Dale Chock

• Dale Chock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aeusoes1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Diasystem

It seems as though User:Dale Chock is attempting to WP:OWN the article diasystem through reversions and talk page hostility. On Feb 19, Dale rewrote the article by adding mostly agreeable content but also deleting a significant portion of cited material. I incorporated the two versions in this edit, which Dale promptly reverted on Feb 23 before adding another mix of mostly agreeable content on March 1. I, again, attempted to reincorporate the content here, as well as clean up what Dale had added, which was then reverted again.

To be fair, this does come amid talk page discussion, but Dale's behavior in the talk page amounts to hostility (even to neutral parties) and a focus on editors (mostly myself) over content. Needless to say, Dale's vested interest in portraying other participants as incompetent means that he finds it easy to dismiss or ignore points made by others. I thus have been unable to edit the article without being reverted and am unable to discuss the matter without being insulted. — Ƶ§œš¹ 22:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• This description closely resembles my own past experiences with Dale Chock. If you review his editing history you will see that almost all of his edits are framed as personal victories over whoever wrote the previous text.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• I started to review, but didn't finish reading his rants, which had little to do with content. Dale became hostile and threatening when I told him he needed to address the content rather than the people. — kwami (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Dale seems to know his stuff content-wise, but still needs time to learn how to interact productively with other editors. I was surprised by his accusatory tone with Aeusoes1, and a little perplexed with his negative reaction to my intervention in the early stages of the dispute. I think this may be an indication of a battleground mentality which will not stand him in good stead in future interactions, and I hope this thread can help him to recognise that he needs to change his behaviour. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• In response to the four preceding comments.
  • AEsos himself got started with the article by tossing out everything in it and starting over, in June 2010—a fact he even acknowledged on Talk:Diasystem sometime late in February 2012. AEsos was virtually the only editor of Diasystem and Diaphoneme for a year and a half (June 2010 to Feb. 2012), ergo his accusation of WP:OWN is an example that the best defense is a good offense.
  • For an example of Dale's participation in linguistics articles that contradicts the above opinions, see two years of editing Mongolian language (31 Aug 2009 to 8 Nov 2011; includes content edits).
  • Strad's intervention was chirpy, premature, and refused to address content issues. He professes bafflement that his behavior was found to be unconstructive.
  • A bullet point list of the content failures by AEsos—seven items—is provided by Dale—me—at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Linguistics#Requests_for_attention 2 March 2012. I had discussed these issues at Talk:Diasystem already in February—giving the lie to Kwami's accusation.
  • Much of the opposition to article discussion by Dale—me—comes from the entrenched current in Misplaced Pages that tolerates misinformation in articles. I recall the celebrity Liz Smith recounting how Misplaced Pages reported her having once been married to someone she'd never been married to, and it took ten months to get Misplaced Pages to clean up its act. If someone were to write at WP that the U.S. Civil War started in 1858; if someone were to describe Einstein as a classical physicist; if someone were to confuse the positions of Darwin and Lamarck, that someone would be slammed, by dozens of Wikipedians, for mucking up article content. That hasn't been happening with linguistics articles, but only because too few Wikipedians participate in the linguistics articles. Notice that the three of the four of you above are three regular participants in the Linguistics Project who have shown little to no academic proficiency in the discipline, and two of those three don't even make content edits, as far as i can tell.
  • Kwami is engaging in backing up a fellow scribe. He and AEsos are two people who spend 365 days a year making housekeeping edits to linguistics articles. First, look at how Kwami joined the dispute:

    "Dale, I didn't bother to read your diatribe. You might try discussing content rather that making personal attacks, as Stradivarius has requested. Otherwise I'll conclude you're being a WP:DICK and revert you. WP is a cooperative enterprise. — kwami (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)"

    Well, by that day, there had been almost two weeks of comments by Dale—by me; so it's impossible to know which one Kwami was referring to. Anyway, next go to the very first two paragraphs of the dispute:

    "This article was poorly researched. It contradicted the verdict of linguists. The notion of diasystem fell into disuse a generation ago. Another academic objection is that one poorly written sentence can be interpreted to suggest that the inventor of the concept himself, Weinreich, was inspired by generative phonology. Of course, when Weinreich published his paper in 1954, generative phonology did not even exist yet. The immediate previous version was seven years in the making (it hadn't been edited in the last 13 months). In that version, there was a conspicuous failure to consult textbooks in the field, or (with the exception of a discipline dictionary) to consult relevant works more recent that 34 years ago, this in a young, fast changing discipline. (An article from 31 years ago was cited only to attribute the use of terminology, and a source from 22 years ago was a dictionary, not a linguistics research work). Moreover, half the article was taken up with a digression on the diaphoneme, although there is already a separate article on that. Dale Chock (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"

    Then read everything in between. You see that Kwami is a bullying administrator. He just refuses to read comments that are there to be read. Dale Chock (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What you routinely do Dale is to arrive at an article where someone has been working, notice something that could be improved, proceed to berate and denigrate those who wrote i,t and then when they react negatively to being demeaned you accuse them of ownership. The reason you didn't have that experience at Mongolian language was not because you didn't act like that but because G. Purevdorj who had written and maintained that article over several years and is a linguist specializing in Mongolian is an extremely agreeable person who didn't react negatively to your antics. You cannot expect all people to react with such angelic patience to your agressive and incivil style of argumentation as he did. Kwami is not a bully, you are. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Maunus, I'm not seeing that at Mongolian language (diffs?). From what I can tell, Dale has indeed been gracious, humble, and professional when editing and discussing at that page. This tells me that he knows the difference between civil and uncivil behavior, though there may be something else going on. — Ƶ§œš¹ 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Dale. I haven't prevented anyone from editing the article, you have. Being the only contributor to an article is not a violation of WP:OWN. Do you really see your behavior in the talk page as civil? — Ƶ§œš¹ 03:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If Einstein had post E=mc on Misplaced Pages in 1916, it would have been reverted as original research. Does Misplaced Pages have an accuracy problem? explains the reasoning behind our policies quite well. So, while we welcome expert editors, it's because experts presumably know what and where the reliable sources are and can provides references to them, and additionally rephrase field specific terminology into explanations understandable to the general reader. The anonymous nature of Misplaced Pages editors and lack of resources means we have no way of distinguishing between the next Einstein and and the next quack. Therefore, aggressively asserting a position, regardless of its veracity, is counterproductive and disruptive. If Dale Chock finds the manner in which Misplaced Pages operates unacceptable I'd recommend they find other pursuits. Nobody Ent 21:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incivility by Defacto

• DeFacto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:DeFacto replaced the existing text in the section Metrication in the United Kingdom#Legal Requirements with his own text. The principal source of original text was a summary of UK legislation which was published by an official UK authority complete with official summary. DeFacto, who has a track record of hostility to metrication, is insisting that his version is more accurate. When I tried to reinstate the original version (here), DeFacto reverted with the comment: "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable (see talk) - more references pending" (15:13 23 February 2012). I refused to discuss the matter with him until I had received an unconditional apology for his behaviour. The best that he did was to restate why he believed his version was better - something which I rejected. After I tried again to reinstate the original version, he revoked, calling the original version "discredited" (19:48 3 March 2012). I demanded an apology, but none was forthcoming.

Immediately before this episode took place, DeFacto's proposals regarding more prominent use of imperial measure in the Hindhead Tunnel article (here) and on WP:MOSNUM (here) had been rejected. He then totally removed a section from the article Metrication in the United Kingdom (since restored) and added banners to four other section (diffs here]. The dispute above was initiated when I removed the banner from the article "Legal Requirements" and reinstated the section that he had removed.

Finally, while I was preparing this argument, Defacto twice trespassed on my userspace and deleted the draft. Martinvl (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for Defacto's deletion of the draft of Martinvl's report , . Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. "Incivility? Oh the irony! I think what you are actually complaining about is my ongoing clean-up of the "Metrication in the United Kingdom" article which, evidenced by your constant mass reversions and attacks, you seem to be asserting ownership of. -- de Facto (talk). 17:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment 2. And talking about "civility"; you posted this entry here, but with scant regard for the etiquette and common decency conventions associated with such reports. You ignored the advice given at the top of the page here in the box entitled "Request etiquette assistance".

• You did not first make "a polite attempt to to discuss the problem with the other editor". Instead you issued inflammatory threats and ultimatums: here and here and in discussion on the article's talkpage here.
• You did not "Try to phrase it in neutral and non-judgemental language". Instead you made the misrepresentative and misleading statement we see above (and learn more about below).
• You did not "Include diffs that show the situation", instead you selected a diff of an unrelated event to do with the 'history' section and one of my recent attempt (Revision as of 19:48 3 March 2012) to restore the article after you corrupted it by dumping into it an old obsolete version of a section, and then dishonestly assigned an edit summary from 15:13 23 February 2012 to it! Do you think people reading this are stupid, or are you hoping that they won't look too closely at your behaviour and realise what the situation actually is?
• You did not even "Notify the involved user(s)". I found out about this after reading this curious comment you gave on your talkpage. Were you afraid that I would expose your agenda?

-- de Facto (talk). 18:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Background. Let's add a background timeline of some events that might explain this witch-hunt:

• 15 October 2011: the accuser received a block for warring on the "Metrication in the UK" article.
• 17 October 2011: a failed mediation attempt by the accuser to get content that I added removed from the "Metrication in the UK" article.
• 10 January 2012: the accuser received a warning for "nonsense ad hominen attacks" against me.
• 17 Februrary 2012: a failed attempt to get me blocked by misrepresenting my edits of the "Metrication in the UK" as reverts; or as the administrator put it: "There was no 3RR violation from what I can tell".
• 3 March 2012: the accuser received a warning for making false accusations of vandalism against me.
• 4 March 2012: the accuser invited 3 other editors (here, here and here) who, possibly because of previous activity on the "Metrication in the UK", might sympathise with the actions to: "be good enough to certify DeFcto's behaviour".

-- de Facto (talk). 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to DeFcto by Martinvl

Q1:Why did I not inform DeFacto that I filing this request?

A1: I honestly believed that when I added his name to the template at the top of the form, he would be informed automatically. I apologise for this.

Q2: Why did I not enter into dialogue with him regarding his changes?

A2: Given what had happened in the previous few days, I judged that he was behaving like a two year old having a tantrum. I treated him accordingly. Uninvolved editors should decide for themselves whether, given the circumstances, I was justified in taking this approach.

Q3: DeFacto’s "Background Material"

A3: We all, including DeFacto, have a past. The issue at the moment is not about the past, but about the present, so bringing up the past diverts attention from the present. The participants in this discussion are uninvolved editors, not the accuser or the accused, so I ask DeFacto to please let them have their say.

Martinvl (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, did you "forget" to try to answer the other 2 points too?

You wrote: "The issue at the moment is not about the past, but about the present". In your account above you introduced an unrelated event in an unrelated article (Hindhead Tunnel) from the past - why?

This report, I believe, is nothing more than an attempt to discredit me - as a reaction to my cleaning up of the article, and my refusal to submit to your threats, intimidation and rudeness in your desperate attempt to keep your original wording in place (complete with characteristic OR/SYNTH and heavily pro-metrication POV).

Please don't treat reviewers here as idiots, if they decide to even entertain your complaint, they will not swallow your bluster. They will: look at the article history and your actions and edit summaries; look at the article talkpage and its history and see your assertions, threats, intolerant language and rudeness; look at our respective account talkpages and their histories and see how bitter you have been. They may even look at your recent contributions elsewhere and see your failed attempt to get me blocked, your failed attempt to mediation to support your opinions and your warnings for ad-hominem attacks and false accusations of vandalism against me and your very recent question on the WP:Verifiability talkpage about allowing the use of OR to discredit a reliable source! -- de Facto (talk). 10:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've reviewed the many allegations regarding this, it appears there is uncivility on both sides. The question is how can we tone down the incivility while still allowing the authors to debate and reach actionable conclusion in a reasonable period of time. Any suggestions? (Also if you are preparing an RfC/U, this wouldn't be the best place to address it.) Gsonnenf (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Accusation in pushing personal opinion

I have no desire to mention anyone's concrete name so far; my question is more general. What is the best way to resolve the following situation:

1. Some user declares that the point I am trying to make is just my personal meme (personal opinion, synthesis, etc) and that this my thesis is not supported by mainstream reliable sources.
2. I provide needed sources, which directly support my statements, and ask my opponent to withdraw his allegations and apologise;
3. My opponent ignores my request and goes into minor details.
4. Upon some time, the ##1-3 repeat as if no sources had been provided by me.

Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you might benefit from some outside voices in working to establish consensus. I've found WP:RfC to be helpful in such cases. —Eustress 19:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem is that RfCs in this area do not lead to any significant external input. In addition, my question is not regarding the content dispute itself. I am asking if such behaviour is acceptable per our Wikiquette rules. To me, it looks like a refusal to get the point. Am I right?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Once you've made reasonable, good faith replies to another editor's queries, your obligation is complete, regardless of whether they understand or like your answer. If Rfc's aren't helpful for the content I'd further suggest WP:DRN ... the volunteers there generally do a good job providing structured discussion and additional viewpoints. Nobody Ent 21:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Xerographica's conduct in relation to articles in the domain of Libertarianism

User:Xerographica (notified) has a problem with WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and making personal attacks in the form of ad hominem political characterisations in relation to articles around Libertarianism. I'd like someone to chat with them about appropriate conduct in discussions. In particular I'd like someone to discuss with them why ad hominem attacks and characterising others' political views is deeply offensive. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 March 2012

Please show diffs and links to where you have tried to resolve this as required in the instructions at the top of this page. - Nick Thorne 00:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for clarifying the procedure I should follow, I'm sorry that I didn't follow this previously:

Direct discussion regarding problem behaviour

Attempts to move discussion back to article improvement by focusing on the editor's positive contributions

I attempted these simultaneously, replying in different sections so as to move discussion away from the problem issue towards non-problem issues. The first did not work, and caused the user to increase their problematic conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the diffs provided above concerning Xerographica particularly problematic in light of a lot of thoughtful and insightful input on the Talk page of the Libertarianism article. I am weighing the improper labeling of other editors as "anarchists" against what seems good quality and thought-provoking and seemingly (to me) knowledgeable discussion there. Bus stop (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

They're developing as an editor; but, this isn't a disciplinary environment to weigh conduct against preventative measures. This is an environment to improve an editor's relationship with other editors (). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Xerographica is guilty of not beating around the bush. Xerographica says "So you're a statist?" in response to "I'm not an anarchist." I don't think this is akin to name-calling. This is shorthand communication because "statist" and "anarchist" are political stances. Bus stop (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a very offensive claim to imply that editors are writing based on their POVs and not on reliable sources; it is also offensive to make assertions about other's politics. Making ad hominem arguments—arguments regarding the character and quality of those you're in discussion with—distracts from making encyclopaedic arguments. It would be an improvement to their conduct, and remove an unnecessary distraction from article process if they stopped doing so. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The edits by X are clear personal attacks and are disruptive to improving the article. TFD (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, I'm not using the term "anarchist" nor the term "statist" in a derogatory manner. Is an editor's political orientation relevant? Obviously it wouldn't be if we were editing an article that had absolutely nothing to do with political ideologies. Nor would it be if the editor in question hadn't offered three experts that all happened to be anarchists. Nor would it be if the article on libertarianism wasn't clearly skewed towards anarchist ideologies. That being said, we've established that outside of the US "libertarianism" can be argued to be synonymous with anarchism while here in the US it is synonymous with limited government statism. So the problem is that we're trying to force one article to cover two very different meanings of the word "libertarianism". As a solution some of us will start working on an article Libertarianism (limited government) that is solely dedicated to limited government statism. --Xerographica (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see all the "ad homs" of which the editor stands accused - and they certainly do not merit a WQA complaint as far as I can tell. Have a large pot of tea folks. Collect (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Think of WQA as place where editors can come to get a pot of tea with a little friendly advice from the waitstaff. Nobody Ent 13:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any serious violations, but its probably a better idea not to refer to a editors as a POV group like anarchists repeatedly. Xero, Your frustration is understandable, but when you start heading towards an uncivil pattern its best to identify then correct. I'm sure you can make your point by referring to alleged content or behavioral violations ( instead of "George Woodcock was an anarchist.... Clearly your biases are clouding your judgement.", try "The anarchists you cite are of minority view, the following citations show this.'" ). I hope this WQA helps to deescalate any conflicts.Gsonnenf (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Concur: Comment on content, not on the contributor Nobody Ent 13:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't full disclosure a good thing? It's kind of hard to go wrong with transparency. The thing is...I already tried your preferred approach...Scope of Government...but clearly it didn't work. The "opposition" wants to pretend that we're not dealing with different meanings of the word "libertarianism". What do they have to gain from pretending that "libertarianism" means both anarchism AND limited statism? Well...they get to use the article on "libertarianism" to promote anarchism. Or maybe I'm just trying to use the article on "libertarianism" to promote limited statism? Or maybe I just think it's ridiculous to pretend that a political ideology could simultaneously advocate both anarchism AND limited statism? Or maybe I think it's ridiculous that there's already articles dedicated to anarchism and anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism but they want to also dedicate the article on libertarianism to anarchism. Do we really need two articles dedicated to anarchism? Anyways, like I said...they can have the article...err...well...continue to have the article on libertarianism...and I'll focus on writing the article on Libertarianism (limited government). --Xerographica (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo—these are all problems of degree. That may seem trite but it especially applies here. You say that "It is a very offensive claim to imply that editors are writing based on their POVs…" These are all Points Of View. Libertarianism, anarchism, statism—are points of view. The subject matter is such that I think the subject matter is very much concerned with "points of view". The subject matter at hand is "points of view". You say "it is also offensive to make assertions about other's politics". In this context it is slightly less so. "Politics" is basically the subject matter at hand. You refer to "character". You refer to "arguments regarding the character and quality of those you're in discussion with". Character is in fact not invoked by Xerographica. He/she merely points out that your arguments are based on political positions. Sorry, but I don't have all that much sympathy for those carping about the accurate designation of the political stances maintained by those encountered in disagreements. There is little "assassination of character." There is just the establishing of nomenclature applicable to positions that are maintained by participants in a disagreement. I hear your complaint but in my opinion your "adversary" is just communicating clearly and not beating around the bush about the factors that in my opinion pertain to the disagreement. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope

Per policy, "as a matter of … effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. The usual exception to this principle is reasonably expressed concerns raised within a legitimate dispute resolution process.

— English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee

Nobody Ent 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"He/she merely points out that your arguments are based on political positions." My arguments are based on the content of multiple high quality reliable sources published in the scholarly mode, each from a different scholarly discipline focusing on the object. The editor in question does not specify taxonomy out of the highest quality scholarly surveys available; and, personal inspiration has no place in taxonomy or analysis of source bias. I do not like being accused of possessing a politics in a pejorative manner; or accused of editing on a political basis. I do deserve this courtesy. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

When using sources, the beliefs of the writers are irrelevant. While these authors may not be neutral (no authors are) we can expect based on the publishers that the facts would be accurate and complete and that it would provide a good summary of the various interpretations as well as explaining the degree to which scholars have accepted different views. I never look up the poltiical beliefs of writers before using their books as sources, because it is irrelevant. It may be that social sciences are tilted toward the left, but that is not something that we can correct here. TFD (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems it has turned into a habit for Wee Curry Monster to attack me (by bad faith accusations and mischaracterization) instead of content whenever I rise a question or proposal. A few days ago he jumped into a discussion at RSN and filled it with bad faith accusations, using 87 words to address the question and 199 to sling mud at me!! This is not the first time he does this. I'm honestly feeling harassed, this defamation process is slowly putting me out of Misplaced Pages... moreover, he's now following as you can see from I don't mind being followed, but I need him to PLEASE stop the defamation!! Nothing constructive can emerge from a conversation where he enters shooting at me... --Langus (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the instructions at the top of this page, when you have followed all of the requirements for filing your issue here than we might have a look at this in detail. However, prima facie your case seems very weak, it does in fact seem that WCM has a point when discussing your actions - and discussing your actions is not ad hom, BTW. Beware the boomerang. - Nick Thorne 23:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG Langus didn't bother to extend me the most basic courtesy of informing me of this thread. I found out about it by a pure fluke that I happened to drop by WP:RSN.

Langus has twice started frivolous thread at WP:ANI seaking sanctions against me. I note that one of these is linked above. Clearly he tried to use WP:ANI to impose content, by reverting content that was stable for 2 weeks and then posting at ANI claiming I was revert warring. It was a fairly blatant attempt to abuse wiki process to impose content.

The post at WP:RSN was not a genuine enquiry about source reliability but another attempt to impose content by having the source declared unreliable. not only shows the authors are respected scholars but gives a clue why he is so keen to have it discredited. Most reasonable editors would not put too much weight on the word of a banned disruptive editor User:Alex79818, blocked indefinitely for persistent sock puppetry and disruptive editing as Langus did at WP:RSN. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, would you happen to have links to the WP:ANI threads? Having more information of past behaviors could be useful. Its usually not very civil to slur or wiki-lawyer against someone, though it happens very often on contentious pages. Its best to limit any such statements to conveying knowledge of past events without assumptions. Also, following someone to other threads can make users uncomfortable even if the edits are productive.

What do you guys think we can do to tone down this wiki war and get more acceptable behavior from both sides? Gsonnenf (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The first time and the second and the frivolous RFC .

As regards the RFC, , the conclusion was my text was a reasonable and cited summary but he has attempted to prevent exactly the same text being used on Luis Vernet, Falkland Islands and Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. Bringing up the same arguments three times on three separate articles and now forum shopping at WP:RSN.

The above is an independent comment from User:Wikifan12345 at 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

I didn't follow him, that happens to be an area where I've edited extensively. If you look at my edits, it happens to correspond with my area of interest. I edited a complete separate piece of the article and he actually followed me see , and . As Nick has already noted above, my comments have a point, I have given him the benefit of the doubt too many times now. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Third Party Input Regarding Accusations of Homophobia

• LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suicide of Tyler Clementi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fae (User:Fæ) has made the following accusation about me. "I am puzzled why you would think that accusations or assumptions of editors being homophobic would ever be acceptable." ]

This seems to stem from her misunderstanding of a discussion between Tryptofish and myself in which I felt that he accused me of bias, and he thought that by "bias" I meant "bias against homosexuals". I never believed that he called me homophobic, and he clearly never called me homophobic. We worked out our misunderstanding in about 40 minutes.

Because I never said that I think accusations of homophobia are acceptable (and in fact, I was the one mistakenly believed to have been on the receiving end of the accusation) I politely asked Fae to remove his comments (note: I don't know if Fae is male or female and am using the generic male pronouns for simplicity only). Fae has refused, while making, what I believe to be, very agressive and uncivil comments about how hard it is to work with me, about my unwillingness to collaborate, and about me exerting ownership of the article. He has also repeatedly rejected my requests to remove the accusation, or at the very least redact it. Discussion here

I have hatted the conversation, but I thought I would seek third party opinions as to whether my request is unreasonable and whether Fae's comments are uncivil and/or should be removed/redacted.LedRush (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Slight factual correction to the above, where LedRush says "Fae has refused" this seems to fail to mention my earlier offer of striking a hypothetical part of the statement than LedRush has objected to, and this was indeed struck 20 minutes before this request was raised (diff). By the way, me being puzzled as to why accusations or assumptions of being homophobic would be an acceptable tone in an article talk page discussion is not quite the same thing as "Accusations of Homophobia" as this request has been (in what appears a rather inflammatory way) been titled. Fæ (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution