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 Wikipedia: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:

• InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

InaMaka has exhibited what I consider to be a long standing pattern of incivility and hostility towards other editors in both his edit summaries and talk page contributions. [1], [2], [3] Some of InaMaka's more heated interactions escalate to personal attacks and are overall disruptive to Wikipedia and run contrary to consensus building. The same concerns have been brought up by other editors in the past [4], [5], [6] and I have twice attempted to bring my concerns to InaMaka and was rebuffed both times. [7], [8] Recently InaMaka has been reposting other editors' comments on talk pages, characterizing them as hogwash, horse hockey and BS. Gobonobo ^{T C} 02:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inamaka is very strongly advised to be less confrontational. There appears to be an escalating pattern of bad temper here that is bound to lead to long blocks if it continues to get worse. this edit in particular is far more confrontational than it needs to be. Inamaka, you've been a valued contributor for a long time, please find a way to get yourself under better control. Looie496 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out that my response was correct. My comments were badly mischaracterized. I did not in any way state that Dr. Alvida King's views on homosexuality were equal to the view of Fred Phelps. What I stated then and I will repeat here is that attempts to edit Dr. Alvida King's article and make the incorrect claim that Dr. King is a Republican is just as wrong as attempts to edit Fred Phelps article and state that Phelps is a Republican. Neither King or Phelps are Republicans. They are both conservative Democrats. Period. Now, Stonemason89's comment to me was just flat out wrong. He badly, blatantly mischaracterized what I said and called him on it. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said your response was incorrect. I just said you shouldn't have expressed it that way. Losing your temper is not a winning strategy. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns I've raised were not about whose edits were factual, but about breaches of WP:CIVIL. I think that comments such as "You are a smartass," "Your comment above are not relevant to the article in any way so your comment should be eliminated. However, since you spouted off let me attempt to educate you.", "I've dealt with your type before. You are just one more blowhard trying to teach me a lesson." and "I will not apologize for what I wrote. NEVER." demonstrate an unwillingness to engage with other editors in a civil and productive manner. It seems to me that InaMaka treats Wikipedia as a battleground and has created numerous frustrating experiences for editors as evidenced by the issues recently raised at Editor assistance, ANI, WQA, and the BLP noticeboard. I brought this to WQA in the hopes of moving toward a more civil discourse where editorial disputes can be resolved without unnecessary hostility. Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobonobo, you're supposed to notify people if you open WQA sections concerning them -- in this case I've done it for you. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Gobonobo did notify InaMaka under User Talk:InaMaka#Civility. Either way, I wanted to loop this thread into the discussion. Best, Arbor832466 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• RelHistBuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Calvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User RelHistBuff has exhibited what several editors claim to be bullying and claims of article ownership concerning the John Calvin article. Simply put, the article has a right-facing lead image placed on the left side of the article. (See MOS:IMAGES#Images.) Because many editors, both those who watch the John Calvin page and those who are random editors, find such an image odd, they either move it to the right side or replace it with another left-facing image on the right side. RelHistBuff, always careful to avoid the three-revert rule, replaces it with the image he likes best. This, however, leads to various minor edit wars every month or so. Some other editors suggested to put an end to this by replacing it permanently with a left-facing image on the right side. RelHistBuff refuses to consider any arguments in favor of either choice or placement of the lead image. He has used the argument that changes to the image can't be made because his image was used when the article was a featured article (like here and here, and several places on the talk pages). This goes against the very "Featured article banner" at the top of the page, which reads: "if you can update or improve it, please do so." He claims that his image is "classic" and others are not, because he has seen it on the cover of several biographies (like here, and several places on the talk pages). He has issued several hidden text, no edit orders (like here). He has accused other editors of fishing for votes, he has accused other editors of personally attacking him without cause, he has disregarded all attempts at a compromise, he has disregarded all attempts at choosing a different image, he has disregarded all arguments and debates, waited for a week or so, then reverted everything back to his version, claiming his arguments were superior and uncontroverted (see here). His bullying, his attempted ownership, and his attitude has had the effect of driving several editors away from this page. This dispute has been fully documented at Talk:John_Calvin#Image and Talk:John_Calvin#Consensus_for_change (and even Talk:John_Calvin/Archive2009#Image_.281.29). TuckerResearch (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many-versus-one disputes, the most effective approach is for the many simply to impose consensus by reverting the one every time he violates consensus. This puts the recalcitrant editor in the position of either accepting the consensus or edit-warring to a degree that leads to a block. The group should be careful to have the reverting done by a different editor each time, because one-versus-one reverting typically leads to page protection rather than blocking. The advice that I am giving is officially frowned on, but in my experience it is the only efficient way of handling this sort of difficulty, and works pretty reliably. Note that it only works for N-vs-1 disputes; N-vs-M disputes can never be solved efficiently unless they involve BLP or other blatant policy violations. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to deny that there was any bullying on my part. My messages on the talk pages can be found here: [9], [10], [11], [12] (I even apologise to Tuckerresearch on this one for a case of mistaken identity). As one can see, I have always tried to use calm reasoning.

In contrast, please examine Tuckerresearch's posts and note the colourful language and his edit summaries: [13], [14], [15], [16]. I am not doing the bullying, but one might argue that Tuckerresearch may be going a bit over the top.

Secondly, I make no claim of owning the article. Many edits have been made to the article without my involvement and since it became a FA. In fact I even encouraged a recent editor (Ieuan Sant) to make changes!

The issue that Tuckerresearch raises here is simply a disagreement on the choice of the lead image. Only two users, Jonathunder and Tuckerresearch have really been pushing for a change, solely to satisfy a guideline. I have argued why the lead image of the FA version is better; the two have refused to address this argument and have thrown up two inferior images instead. When I noted that the first image that was put up had a dubious provenance and in fact was spoiled by a watermark from the image provider, they ignored my arguments and simply put up another image (which I argued was also inferior due to it being simply a woodcut). In contrast, the FA version image is used on the cover of the three major biographies of Calvin. This image was not chosen randomly as Jonathunder and Tuckerresearch would like to do.

Finally, I do not believe back-and-forth reversions are the solution to the problem. Discussing on the talk page is the solution. If I did revert, I always put edit summaries noting to discuss on the talk page. In contrast, Jonathunder did a reversion without an edit summary: see [17], and even worse he did a rollback, which is supposed to be reserved for only vandalism cases, see [18]. Using a rollback simply to revert and it is obviously NOT a case of vandalism is a violation of the rules for the holder of rollback rights. I will continue to address the disagreement with these two calmly on the talk page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is troubling to see Tuckerresearch using WQA to attempt to advance his cause in a silly dispute over a guideline, specifically a guideline that is laden with contradictions and requires common sense. Perhaps he can find another area to edit, and let writers of featured articles concentrate on more important matters? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fully documented RelHistBuff's actions on the John Calvin talk page. Reverts, hidden text no-edit orders. Read the criteria for bullying:

• Asserting ownership, some examples of which include:

1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include egregious formatting errors.)

2. Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)

• Making "no-edit" orders, such as "hidden text that would not be missed if one attempts to edit the article or section" telling folks "not to edit at all or in a particular manner, or not to edit a particular page or part of a page at all or in a particular manner."

He has told people several times, in edit summaries and on the talk page, not to change things because "his" image was on the page when it was a featured article. (Examples: "The image was accepted as a Featured Article. There is no 'fixing' needed." or "The consensus for the image placement was achieved during the FA process.") This violates the very principle of Wikipedia, and is indicative of ownership behavior. It scares away any unseasoned editor.

Look at one of his reverts here, done unilaterally, with a no-edit order in hidden text. His edit summary stated: "see talk, this is under discussion." Since this has been "under discussion" for awhile now, and every time someone changes the image, he has asserted that in the meantime we must go back to his version. Since the image may always be "under discussion," a perpetual meantime, the implication is that it must always stay his way. Look at some of criteria again for Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article." This is typical of his behavior.

He has accused me of attacking him personally, with no evidence. When I pointed this out, he simply stopped accusing me of attacking him personally. He did not apologize. He apologized for accusing me of canvassing, again with no evidence, but failed to strikethrough the offending passage as requested. Now, on this very page, he accuses me and other editors of not being "real editors" ("No real editors to the content of the article have been chased away"). This is all part of the implications running through his entire edit history and talk page history that he is just a better editor and his opinion is automatically better than anyone else's.

I am troubled too by the elitist and condescending statement of SandyGeorgia that I just go "find another area to edit, and let writers of featured articles concentrate on more important matters." This implies, again, that some editors are just better than others, and how dare we peons disagree with RelHistBuff. SandyGeorgia would rather I go fly a kite, it seems, than deign to think Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." TuckerResearch (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather you focus your efforts on something that makes a difference, and is not a vague and contradictory guideline, where common sense should prevail. This horse is dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us all calm down and gather verifiable facts should we? Obviously, the choice of facts you decide to present will determine what happens next. After seeing all this heat I imagine that wikipedia will be fairly peppered with RfC's and the like regarding this particular alignment of an image in a lead. I leave others to find such discussions. In the meantime, let me start off:

1. The John Calvin article had a left-facing right-aligned lead image during peer-review started 27 November 2008 by RelHistBuff (talk · contribs) as these show: submitted for review and review closed
2. The FAC for this John Calvin article is often cited as agreement that the lead image should remain left-aligned. All parties should carefully read the featured article candidacy submitted by RelHistBuff (talk · contribs) on 14 January 2009 where left-alignment was indeed discussed
3. The John Calvin article had a right-facing right-aligned lead image when presented on 12:49, 27 November 2008, Thursday 08:43, 14 January 2009 as a FAC as this shows. When the FAC closed on 19:14, 10 February 2009 it had a right-facing left-aligned lead image like this
4. The image review during the FAC process was done by Awadewit (talk · contribs)
5. Two other wikipedia articles are often cited as having left-aligned lead images. They are

• Joseph Priestley whose left-alignment is maintained (e.g. diff) by Awadewit (talk · contribs)
• Mary Martha Sherwood whose left-alignement is maintained (e.g. diff) by Awadewit (talk · contribs)

The frustrations on both sides of this debate can be clearly seen. All parties should withdraw and consider if this really is improving the encyclopaedia. On the one hand, those editors remaining calm yet dogmatically refusing to consider alternatives in the face of overwhelming pressure really do need to think. On the other hand, so do those editors resorting to almost uncivil behaviour out of sheer frustration. Neither side is really getting anything out of this and the encyclopaedia is suffering

--Senra (Talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the summary. Alternatives can definitely be considered; I said that I am not wedded to a right-facing left-aligned image per se. If, for example, the Titian was publicly well-known (i.e., seen on book covers), its provenance was well-established (some book sources that gave the description, ownership, and location of the painting), and a high-quality image (without watermark) was available, then I would definitely support it. Talk page discussion would be welcome. But in the meantime, the original image and placement was fine. As I said these are rare cases; you mentioned two others. The hidden text was only meant for good-faith casual editors from moving the image. I will try to put a better explanatory message. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my posts on the talk page, I really don't care which image leads and where it is. My concern was first to note that User:RelHistBuff was telling people they could not change the image, and reverting it, because he believes his image is the "best," he believes his image alone is the "classic" image of Calvin, and his image was the one on there when it was accepted as a featured article. My first post was to merely point out that such arguments are not truly good ones; you can't tell people that it was this way on the featured article so it is this way it must be.

I then suggested, in a calm manner, that a left-facing image be chosen because people may disagree on a right-facing image as the lead, but nobody has a problem with a left-facing image. For my troubles I was again told by RelHistBuff that his image was classic, that it was his way as a featured article, that his image is on book covers, and what is worse, he accused me of personally attacking him just because I disagreed with him. Other editors agreed that a left-facing image would probably lead to the long term stability of the lead section of the article. We were told again, that basically it is RelHistBuff's way or the highway. That his consensus is better than the mere "votes" of anybody else. He continued to accuse me, without foundation, of personally attacking him. When I quoted Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and proved I was not attacking him, he stopped claiming I was personally attacking him but did not apologize. He later accused me of canvassing, without a shred of foundation. He apologized after another user admitted to canvassing (whether it was appropriate or not), but he did not strikeout the offending passage as I requested.

He has since continued to revert any deviation from the lead image that is not his way. He will wait again a few days until things have calmed down and change this current version back to his preferred version. This to me is indicative of ownership behavior. To me his comments have been uncivil and violating Wikipedia:Etiquette. He has driven editors to frustration, he has accused us, on this very page, of not being "real editors." This is uncivil behavior.

My original intent was, read my posts on the talk page, to offer alternatives to the lead image to stop pointless edit wars from happening. Nobody has ever removed his pet image, and I've even admitted it is a great image. They have moved it to another part of the article, but never removed it. Several editors do, however, think a lead image on the left is unsettling and clunky and want to move it to the right. Others move it back to the left. Why not choose an image just as "classic" that everyone agrees should be put on the right. This is all I've advocated, and all I have suggested. I have been met by intransigence, bullying, no-edit orders, claims of personal attacks, claims of canvassing, and claims that no edits should be made to a featured article. This uncivil behavior, indicative of ownership, is all that I am addressing here, not the merits of the lead image.

It matters not that the image was on the left as a lead image when it was approved for featured article status (by User:Awadewit, an ally of RelHistBuff's). I don't care which image leads this article. I will not abide, SandyGeorgia (since you think I am only quibbling about minor issues), a user telling other people to stop editing his article because there is no fixing needed. Or you, SandyGeorgia, for that matter, condescendingly telling people on this very page to leave a supposed "better class" of editors alone. That is elitism pure and simple.

This is only tangentially related to the merits or demerits of a lead image on the left. This is about User:RelHistBuff's clear ownership behavior, his bullying, his incivility, and his lack of etiquette. Please, don't look at the argument over the lead image, read the criteria for ownership, bullying, incivility, and etiquette and judge User:RelHistBuff's actions. Judge mine too. I freely admit sarcasm. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my posts on the talk page, I really don't care which image leads and where it is. Great, that's where I stopped reading this WP:TLDR post; let's all move on to something substantial now. The image business never enjoyed broad consensus, even at FAC, MOS is ever-changing, and this really should stop. Why you continue to pursue something you admit you don't care about is a mystery, and it's also wasting time. Guidelines are guidelines; there's no need for one person to demand an image be moved, and make such an issue of it. See Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Tucker, if you have ownership concerns, I suggest the talk page of WP:OWN or image concerns WT:MOS (where you will find dozens of editors who love to debate this sort of thing), but this is not WQA material, IMO. But I'll tell you in advance, Senra's two examples above tell the broader story of how much concern there is over this issue in general. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you read the post, instead of condescendingly dismissing it, you'd see it is only tangentially related to the lead image and the MOS. It is about the ownership behavior, bullying, and incivility of User:RelHistBuff. But you've already indicated that you don't care what proles like me think, haven't you? TuckerResearch (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've admitted you don't care about the image, so was this situation provoked? It reads that way. Yes, I don't care much for provocative arguments over trivia-- we've got other things to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, we should ignore ownership behavior, incivility, and bullying because you judge the issue to be trivial? I provoked nobody, I stepped in to try and dissuade an editor from bullying. But, i guess as long as SandyGeorgia thinks it is trivial we should all just go home.... TuckerResearch (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only know you've spent an awful lot of (your and other editor) time on something you say you don't care about, and which is a rather minor guideline. That seems disruptive to me, and we can all do something better with our time. I'm done here-- others may have other opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations again on missing the point. This is about the ownership behavior, bullying, and incivility of User:RelHistBuff. A user who just, again (see diff), unilaterally changed the image, claiming consensus was made way back during the FA process and it shouldn't (or can't) be changed. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Content issues should be discussedon the relevant talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These edit summaries by Calton look rather uncivil:

1. 15:12, 10 September 2010 (diff | hist) Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars ‎ (Undid revision 383994702 by Odokee (talk): not vandalism and romaji isn't the same as English, Sparky)

1. 03:11, 15 August 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:76.5.63.243 ‎ (Bye bye, Mr Kohs) (top)

1. 19:03, 26 July 2010 (diff | hist) Countdown with Keith Olbermann ‎ (Reality check: it's conservative. No whitewashing, please.)

1. 02:55, 25 July 2010 (diff | hist) Sylvia's Restaurant of Harlem ‎ (It's a reliable source. Don't like it? Not our problem.)

1. 02:52, 25 July 2010 (diff | hist) Arthur Laffer ‎ (It's a reliable source. Don't like it? Not our problem.)

Special:Contributions/Calton

He has a history of this. While I agree that the edits themselves are ok, the rather uncivil summaries are problematic. Forgive me if this isn't in 100% correct format, I have bad arthritis and its difficult for me to type so I try to do it as simple as possible.

76.5.61.18 (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I find dubious here is "Sparky", but since the edit was in response to edit-warring, I think we have to cut Calton some slack on that one. By the way, it's up to you to notify Calton of this alert; see the page header. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, nothing serious here. Before escalation one needs to demonstrate that you have made a reasonable attempt to solve this problem by communicating directly with Calton.--scuro (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fakirbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Fakirbakir after his edit war in article Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary left in talk page this personal attack: "You!!!! Yes You, 'historians' who teach in the schools, universities. You are foolish, You are not capable to solve problems. Wikipedia is for the layman (for everybody, not just your country). You do not want solutions. You want nothing. I am not able to know what was the true history because of your behaviors (I am not interested in just one historical possibility). I started to hate this system!"

Is here somebody neutral, who takes care of education in civility of this boy? He edited many articles about history and with his "unscholary view", it is hard work for repairing it. --Yopie (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If I am new that does not mean I am stupid. Thank you for your help". The editor is new. He sounds more emotional than unreasonable. "Regardless of the bias I admit maybe Yopies's source is reliable I can accept that, however, I would like to see other point of views (If those sentences have to be here). Until It does not happen, please delete it".

An editor with more experience should first extend an olive branch. Be the better man. Time can be a tool for you, let him cool down and reassure him. Make an honest effort to find common ground. Educate and state how his goals can be achieved. Be kind when stating limitations. If sanctions are to be used sometime in the future you would first have to demonstrate that you have have made the effort. I would recommend a very kind note on his talk page and offer possible ways to go forward.--scuro (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger491127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gustave Whitehead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Talk:Gustave Whitehead, Roger491127 has directed condescending comments to User:Carroll F. Gray. The latest one is where Roger491127 modified one of his talk page entries to insult Carroll F. Gray by calling her uneducated and irrational. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger491127 definitely needs to discuss issues more calmly and refrain from insulting other people. Editors have been blocked in the past for personal attacks less aggressive than these. Looie496 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll F. Gray is not a "her", he is a "him". Binksternet, who reported me to this Wikiquette_alert is a very litigation eager participant in wikipedia who obviously is so eager that he can not even get the gender of the person right of the person he is starting this Wikiquette discussion on behalf of. Note that Binksternet is on the losing end of a discussion with me on the discussion page of Aviation history so instead of debating with me he has chosen to start a process against me here instead. Anyhow, I submit a discussion between me and Carroll F. Gray. Please decide for yourselves who is a more rational person with a sound judgment based on reason and common sense in this discussion.

I have said that Carroll F. Gray seems to lack reason and common sense, and I think that is a sound judgment of his reasoning. If he feels insulted by such criticism it can not be avoided. If you criticize a bad football player and point out his flaws and mistakes he will maybe feel insulted (if he is irrational or uneducated), or he can take the criticism as a rational person and learn something from it, but it must be allowed to criticize bad football players and illogical thinking and a lack of reason and good judgment in a wikipedia editor, in this case a person who call himself an "aviation historian" and has his own web page where the statement in question is the main argument. Here is his web page which is the basis for this conflict http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwhtd.html Roger491127 (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article talk page entries that you brought here. We are not discussing the article topic, we are discussing your style of interaction. Above, you called me a "litigation eager participant" which I consider an insult. I brought this alert here because you tend to insult others in exactly this manner. Such interaction style will get you blocked, so I would recommend changing it. Binksternet (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied your talk page and found that you often use radical means and reports (ackusations) like this to subdue opponents you can not win rational arguments against, that's why I called you "litigation eager participant".

I think it is very unfair of you to delete my quotes which show why I question the rationality and sound judgement of Carroll F. Gray. By the way Carroll F. Gray is also the first person in 109 years to question if Dick Howells article in Bridgeport Sunday Herald was really written by Dick Howell, and he questions if the drawing which accompanies the article was really made by Dick Howell. To what purpose he questions this is beyond my imagination, but it is typical of the kind of thinking I have criticized Carroll F. Gray for. Roger491127 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bring article talk page material here. This place is only for discussion of your participation style. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Doc9871 has deleted my text which I motivated with "To be able to discuss my participation style we need examples of my participation style, I therefor reinsert the example of my participation style you deleted earlier:"

Ok, you can study my participation style on the discussion page of Gustave Whitehead Roger491127 (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:DIFFS here, but we don't paste a lengthy argument from a talk page (where content disputes belong anyway) to this board and then say, "You all analyze it." Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing content here. We are discussing if my style of participation is insulting or hostile, as Carroll F Gray expresses it. I would not react in that way to criticism of my way of argumentation or if my logic was questioned. I would use rational arguments, logic and sound judgement to try to explain my view to the other person, as I have done towards Carroll F Gray, but he takes that as insults and hostility. I have been active in wikipedia for 4-5 years, and in usenet for 20 years, but I have never used foul words or attacked people with insults or hostility. My way of discussion is based on logic, good arguments and knowledge, which sometimes have made a few people very angry, in usenet not in wikipedia, probably because they lack the ability to answer with the same tools. Roger491127 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem is that you seem to have no ability to understand rational arguments and either reply with counter-arguments or admit that your statement is wrong." There's a lot of very smart and rational people on this project... it's a freaking encyclopedia! When dealing with other editors, it's best not to comment on them in a negative way at all. To basically call someone ignorant (but in more "flowery" language) is not acceptable. We are to comment on content, not contributors: it works best that way. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dealing with an editor. I am dealing with an "aviation historian" who has his own web page about Gustave Whitehead, and who's main argument against Whitehead in his web page has been used in the wikipedia article about Gustave Whitehead. I am criticising his argument which is used in the article because it is illogical, strange, unreasonable, etc... This "aviation historian" has now also started to act as an editor of the Whitehead article, defending his own unreasonable argument in the discussion page. My criticism of his unreasonable argument has given him the impression that I am insulting and hostile, which I am not, I just point out how unreasonable his argument is, and because a quote from his web page is used in the article it is important to criticise that argument.Roger491127 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I cannot explain to the aviation historian Carroll F Gray that his argument should be removed from the article my argumentation is intended to explain to other editors why we should include quotes which shows how unreasonable this argument is. His argument is basically that Mrs. Whitehead should have the last word on if he flew or not. Other quotes show that she hated his aviation activities and that she had to take care of the children, the home, the cow, the chickens, the garden and she had to work outside the home too. So his argument is unreasonable because she had absolutely no interest in his aviation experiments and considering how much she had to do she could not have time to watch any flights. Roger491127 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I am not dealing with an editor." This is insulting because Carroll F Gray is indeed an editor here. You put "aviation historian" in scare quotes which is insulting of Gray's on- and off-wiki activities which have to do with aviation history. Your style continues to insult, even here in this discussion of your style. Please adjust your style to a more collegial tone. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Carroll F Gray is not first and foremost an editor, he is a source, a self-appointed aviation historian, and I am discussing if and how his arguments as an aviation historian should be included in the article about Whitehead. But as I explained he has now also become an editor who is defending his own views, which could be labeled as original research when he contributes as an editor. Roger491127 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are working under the limitations of WP:COI, as both of you have a vested interest in the material. Read that guideline, please. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Roger certainly needs to work on the veiled insults, I do see one of his points that could explain his frustration here:

"Aviation historian Carroll Gray commented: 'Perhaps the last word in the matter should be left to Gustave Whitehead's wife, Louise Tuba Whitehead, who never recalled seeing her husband fly in his flying machines.'"[36]

Carroll F. Gray does not have a WP page, so it could be argued he fails WP:N as far as being able to be quoted as an aviation historian. The reference leads to his own website, which probably fails WP:SOURCES under both WP:POORSRC and WP:SELFPUBLISH. And the language of "Perhaps...should" definitely smacks of WP:SYNTH... Doc9871 (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Namecalling is not acceptable. If somebody is behaving badly, Roger can ask for help here or at another appropriate noticeboard. Calling somebody uneducated, irrational, and lacking in common sense is a losing strategy: it won't change the mind of the person you are arguing with and will only prejudice other editors against you. Looie496 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with that 100%, and certainly wasn't trying to deflect away from his incivility. The content issues absolutely need to be addressed - but the insults are what need to be discussed right now. Per the top of this board: "Avoid filing a WQA if... A3) You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced." Can you two work this out on the talk page of the article? I noticed Carroll F. Gray has yet to say anything on the matter here... Doc9871 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, note that Carroll F Gray has not asked Binksternet to start this formal accusation (investigation, or what you call it) against me. This is an initiative taken completely singlehandedly by Binksternet, who has chosen to start this process on behalf of somebody else who has not even asked for it. Roger491127 (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for the abused party to initiate an alert. I saw bad behavior; I initiated the alert. Very simple. I am not taking this action on behalf of the party you insulted, who shrugged it off, I am taking it on your behalf, so that you can change your style and not get blocked for incivility. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of this whole scenario is that Binksternet found that he could not win a discussion with me in the discussion page of Aviation history, so he got angry and looked for a reason to start a formal procedure against me in the wikipedia administration structure. Note that my username Roger491127 is composed of my first name and the beginning of my Swedish identity number, where the first 6 figures gives my birth date, so I am 60 years old and a very experienced contributor in both usenet and wikipedia. My user names over the years have been Roger Johansson, Roger .J, Roger4911, and you can look me up on internet and find that my behavior has always been very factual and civilized. I use reason, logic and knowledge as my tools. I am the total opposite of a young hotspur who gets angry and uses foul words or starts formal processes to get back at somebody.

I can admit that I got a bit irritated at Carroll F Gray who totally ignores arguments based on reason, logic and sound judgement. And I can promise to be more careful with my choice of words in the future. Roger491127 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that this board is described above as an "informal" process, so suggesting this is a "formal procedure ... in the wikipedia administration structure" is simply incorrect. Beyond the fact that this is intended to be an informal spot to seek dispute resolution for civility issues, no one answering in this thread so far is an administrator, myself included. — e. ripley\^talk 14:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't know that. But it reminds me of Franz Kafka's book Der Process ("The trial" in English). The person in that book also had no idea if the process was formal or informal or what it was called, in any case it was some kind of process. Roger491127 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people who participate on Wikipedia would probably agree with you about this noticeboard being Kafkaesque. ;) In any case, without passing judgment myself as I have not evaluated this report, the basic purpose of this report seems to be to have you acknowledge that you have engaged in difficult communications with people, which you have done and said you will work on fixing, so hopefully everybody can move on to building an encyclopedia in a fruitful way going forward. — e. ripley\^talk 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clear up the misapprehension that I was angry for any reason. I am not angry over any discussion with Roger nor have I ever been. I undertook this administrative action to assist Roger in gaining consensus, by notifying him that his style was not collegial, that it inspired opposition. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• John J. Bulten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gadsby: Champion of Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reverted some changes made by JJB because I felt they were awkward and felt as if he were trying to re-impose a lipogram style on the article. This was met with several personal attacks questioning my anti-lipogram leanings and declaring that the only thing I wanted was to put as many e's in the article as possible. I provided examples of several changes that JJB made that I left because I thought they improved the article, and warned both JJB and another editor that they were attacking me by making accusations that had no basis in fact. These attacks have continued and I have brought the situation here as a first step in the DR process. I am looking to get a user to step in and get JJB (and Martin but he left the talk page) to stop insisting that I am only looking at this from an anti-lipogram POV. The situation doesn't support their cries of prejudice. Padillah (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, All,

My participation here was sparked by a very heated and confrontational e-mail received from Roger. So, things began in a contentious atmosphere. It seeme to me that Roger's ultimate objective is to have me remove my comment(s) from my web site, which he finds "ignorant." I came in good faith, with no axe to grind about Whitehead. Roger casts me as being "anti-Whitehead" yet my own view (which I have stated more than once in Discussion, is that Whitehead probably did make short hops - and so, was not a charlatan or a fraud. In his own mind, Whitehead might well have thought he "flew." I mention this as background. I soon realized that the most productive thing for me (the objective being to produce a fair (non-advocating) and verifiable article on Gustave Whitehead, and that is what I have tried to pursue. I have no interest in doing some form of verbal combat with Roger, yet he repeatedly makes personal attacks. Please note that Roger is the one who posted my observation, to which he has a strong objection, from my web site, I didn't. He stated he did so to expose how ignorant, illogical and irrational my mind is. I asked that his personal attacks on National Air and Space Museum Chair of Aeronautics Peter L. Jakab be removed from the Aviation Timeline Wiki entry - Roger had called Jakab a "liar" repeatedly in the discussion there about Whitehead - and an administrator dis remove them. This might also be partly why Roger has such a bad reaction to me. I have not posted any of my "original research" here - I know that is not to be done. It's ironic, therefore, that Roger has seen fit to post what he has from my web site. I am taking the approach that I will address matters of substance that Roger brings to the Whitehead article, but will not engage with him about his continuing insulting and - really what I find - abusive manner. To engage with Roger in some un-ending back-and-forth about my supposed lack of reason and logic is a rabbit hole with no end, and I don't care to fall down it. It's amazing to me that even as Roger writes (above) he will be more careful with his "choice of words," he cannot help but insert "Carroll F Gray who totally ignores arguments based on reason, logic and sound judgement" as justification or as an explanation for his insulting manner. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

A while back I saw that Association football articles were referenced simply as "football", but American football articles were called American football. This didn't make sense, so for awhile I changed Association football articles from "football" to Association football to help avoid POV bias between the two codes. I went to Manchester United with this and another editor said to me, "No, it's an WP:ENGVAR issue, since in Manchester, people call Association football simply as football."

That's fine with me, as long as there isn't a POV, so I figured "Ok, i'll fix the American football articles to put them in line with the Association football articles rather than the other way around." That's when the trouble started.

I opened up an RFC on the issue, and no consensus could be reached either for or against the ENGVAR option or the full code name option, so I went with the ENGVAR option and Cuchullain (talk · contribs) and BilCat (talk · contribs) (who participated in the RFC, but did not contribute any solutions to fixing the problem) started on a campaign to destroy all my attempts to help with the problem.

It's gotten to the point where They're talking about me on their talk page, and whenever I try to bring more people into the RFC or reopen it elsewhere to get a firm consensus for or against anything, they call it "forum shopping".

I'm not sure what to do, or where to place this, I can provide more diffs if needed (diff cataloging isn't my specialty, i'd have to look back), I just want to solve this problem (NPOV between the two codes) and move on. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally brought this to WP:AN, but it's been suggested that I move it here. Bilcat does not want to be part of the discussion, and I want to honor his request from here if that's his wish.