Revision as of 08:10, 15 May 2011

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

Active alerts

User:Flatterworld

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

I began editing (diff) Bashar al-Assad on 7 May 2011 when, in the course of a discussion at another article, certain biographical details relating to the president surfaced that were not part of his article prior to my edit. There has since been a discussion ongoing about how best to handle the added content. Flatterworld (talk · contribs) joined the discussion here, with no valuable input other than to shoot bad-faith accusations from the hip. There is nothing necessarily uncivil about his language, but the nature of his comments undoubtedly runs counter to WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages. The user's Talk page abounds with warnings against similar conduct in the past: , , , , , , and the list goes on and on.

I directed the user to WP:AGF here and here, asking that he strike out the bad faith remarks. He chose to disregard my advice. It is necessary for an Admin to involve himself in guiding Flatterworld (talk · contribs) in how Misplaced Pages envisions healthy interactions between contributors. A 48-hour block, if such a thing can be requested here, would not be an excessive response under the circumstances, though I am open to less severe alternatives.—Biosketch (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think admin action is appropriate I think it's better to go to WP:ANI. This page is really for conflict resolution, although oddly, it often has the opposite effect. Funny old world. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I already left the message here and a notice on the guy's Talk page, so I'll just leave things the way they are and hopefully something constructive'll still come of it. It's a holiday and I don't intend to spend it at home dealing with this, but at least now I know for next time.—Biosketch (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing evidence of incivility on Flatterworld's part. WQA is intended for mutually respectful dialog about specific incidents, not requesting blocks. Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Gerardw (talk · contribs). As incivility was not the issue but rather WP:AFG, I have refiled the incident at the appropriate noticeboard ().—Biosketch (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf

• Damiens.rf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Xiong (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user is on a deletionist rampage, which annoys me slightly. He's wikistalking my contribs, to which I'm indifferent but which certifies his bad faith. He's also tagging my talk page in defiance of my repeated notices and demands he not bug me while on his rampage. Will somebody kindly turn this guy off? Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 10:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's wikipedia's talk page, not yours. He's just notifying you of images for deletion. Please review instructions at top of this page for posting Wikiquette alerts. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Xiong should consider that "delete the cursed tags" and "rm another stupid fucking tag" as edit summaries are just expressing frustration but that "rm assholery" and leaving a message saying "Quit the assholery now" is a sign of an editor who needs to take a break and have a nice cup of tea - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Xiong - I can understand why you find Damiens.rf's contributions annoying. You are handling it in the wrong way. However frustrating it gets, don't be rude to people; it makes you look bad. When you get annoyed - don't post anything - take a break. If you are polite but firm, you can stand up to people like Damiens.rf and win; remember, his contributions annoy the rest of us too. If you are rude to Damiens.rf, he/she will probably win every time.

A second tip; don't delete the notices, etc. that people place on your talk page. Occasionally clear your talk page, and put the removed comments in a sub-page called User talk:Xiong/archive1. It helps demonstrate that you show good faith, and value the comments/tags that other people put on your talk page. That can make people feel good about you. Some of the tags turn out to be useful for navigating to discussions you might want to keep an eye on or contribute to. If somebody is bugging you, it will show up clearly on your talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; I just don't agree with any of that. I want to be left in peace. I especially don't care about any semantic juggling. I'm highly annoyed. Please, somebody switch this off at the source. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 20:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Ebe123 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:67.127.100.144 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

An IP (67.127.100.144 (talk · contribs)) needed help because that User:Orangemarlin wasn't being civil with him and he wasn't conforming with WP:BITE . After, he asked me to start an WQA alert. I warned User:OrangeMarlin about WP:BITE. After, he said that he does not care about that. I said that I was going to start a WQA. It is here. ~~EBE123~~ _Contribs 18:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I put very little stock into the complaints of "new" editors who pop up into some of the project's most hot-button topic areas, immediately taking up a side of the debate, then head to the AN/Is, WQAs, and assorted wiki-alphabet enforcement boards like it is old hat. I have zero involvement in the pseudoscience area, but I have seen this happen quite often in Israel-Palestine and the Obama areas. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been using Misplaced Pages as a source of information for well over a year but I never got the nerve to make an actual edit or comment until last week. I really had a layman's knowledge of acupuncture and was reading the entry merely out of intellectual curiosity. I made a small aesthetic fix to the page and, other than that, found it to be fairly well-written article; that is except for one portion: the lede. I didn't realize is was a hot-button area though I did see a lot of personal attacks flying about. I tried to steer clear of those when I made my first contributions to a discussion ever. I discussed only the actual words we were writing and held firm to my belief that a good lede should have better flow and be more concise than what was in place. At no point did I suggest that I am pro-acupuncture nor pro-pseudoscience. I am neither. I really don't have an opinion on acupuncture, but if anything, after reading the entire article, I'd say I'm more of a disbeliever now. I really can't believe that I've fallen into this suck-hole where I am dealing with blatant personal attacks rather than bettering the writing of the article entry. But more than that, I can't believe the fire and venom spewed by OrangeMarlin at both me and the good samaritan editors who were simply giving me (an admitted noob) a good start at Misplaced Pages. I'm a grown-up and can ignore OrangeMarlin's petty name-calling rather easily but I just think this was a terrible "welcome" to Misplaced Pages and I don't think OrangeMarlin's reprehensible behaviour should be tolerated in a place where professionals come to volunteer our time.67.127.100.144 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of OM being incivil the IP editor. Gerardw (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP's very first edits were to an article that had just been unprotected from a borderline revert/edit-war. It is hardly surprising OM thought it necessary to comment on it, though some editors might have chosen more cautious wording. While ebe123 seems to be a well intentioned respondent to {{helpme}}, the use of wp:Twinkle to troutslap a warning template on an established editor is a gross misapplication of both those tools which must be nipped in the bud. In fact, there should probably be technical mechanisms in TW to prevent it happening inadvertently. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Being an established editor does not confer any special rights. The actions of a user should be met with equal response regardless of how experienced or inexperienced he or she is. In fact, if one of the two should benefit from leniency it is the inexperienced editor, as he or she may not be familiar with WP policies. Which get us back to the point of this particular user being rather unwelcoming towards a news user. Asinthior (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Neither WP:DTR nor WP:TR are policy. In fact, I recently saw a talk page where the regular was offended by a personal statement and told the poster they should have used a template. Gerardw (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Those two are essays. As I wrote above, all users should be treated equally. New users should be met with a more welcoming attitude. And they say there is no cabal....Asinthior (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the incivility is not a matter worthy of invoking WP:BITE and any new editor seeing the massive discussion levels about the article ought reasonably conclude that conflict exists on the article. I suggest a cup of tea is all the IP needs at this point. Collect (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. WP:BITE is meant to prevent hostility against newcomers. Incivility is a form of hostility. If we are talking about a new editor, we cannot assume he or she knew how to behave in a discussion page where conflict is present. Again, the weight of duty falls on the experienced editor to know better than being unwelcoming towards new editors. Asinthior (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of you know what you are talking about. I also don't think this needs to be at WGA given that it is already being discussed on OM's talk page. Prodego 22:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying Tarc is mistaken? Are you saying either WP:DTR or WP:TR is policy? Gerardw (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

1. - Here OrangeMarlin accuses me of edit warring. Hard to believe since it was my second edit ever on Misplaced Pages (and my first was of little substance, just aesthetics). Please note that I had been discussing my changes fully and even stated that I suspected my edit would be undone.

2. - On his talk page, I discussed my grievance with his edit summary comment. I thought I was extending a olive branch and encouraging him to discuss the substance of the article rather than continuing to get mired down in the personal squabble he and other editors had been engaged in. OrangeMarlin threw the olive branch back in my face by mischaracterizing it as a discussion about article content and shouting that he would ignore my comment. Then he deleted it.

3. - I told him that it was not an issue to be discussed on the article talk page as it was more of a personal nature. I asked him not to mischaracterize me nor my point of view. Again he threw it back in my face: "Go Away NOW".

4. Next, I asked for help on how to deal with this editor. You can read that on my talk page . There was mention of opening up an WQA on my behalf, but I didn't think that was warranted. The two editors helping me get started also dropped what I thought was a polite note/reminder to OrangeMarlin. OrangeMarlin did not see it that way. and . That second one was what really bothered me. He called me a "Pro Acupuncture POV pushing IP" and that he doesn't have patience for me. I believe I have illustrated that I am not Pro Acupuncture nor was I POV pushing. If OrangeMarlin was actually participating in the Acupuncture talk page, he would recognize this.

5. - Next when more experienced editors pointed out to him that he shouldn't be treating me that way, OrangeMarlin disagreed and continued to perpetuate the defamatory characterization that I have a pseudoscientific POV. I do not and I defy him to prove otherwise by any of my actions or statements.

6. - OrangeMarlin then went to the talk page of the editor trying to help me wade through this and was unforgivably rude. "I don't give one flying fucking shit about biting or not biting editors" and then accuses me of spamming 12 oncology articles. Maybe he is confusing me with someone else here. The only article I've ever edited was acupuncture and that has nothing to do with oncology.

I am not here to get OrangeMarlin in trouble or anything. I would just like to see his behaviour put in check. Again, I am taking time out of my day (as I suspect we all are) to help improve Misplaced Pages. I don't appreciate this guy jumping down my neck, making me feel unwelcome before I get a chance to really show what I can do here. It is astounding if this kind of behaviour is tolerated.67.127.100.144 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

He asked you several times to discuss the article on the article talk page, not on his talk page. Article discussions belong on article talk pages in most cases. OhNoitsJamie 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

- That's just it. I wasn't discussing the article on his talk page. Please read for yourself. I was discussing his behaviour toward me. I am new, but I've read the talk page guidelines. What I wrote to him is exactly the kind of discussion that doesn't belong on article talk pages but rather user talk pages. At least that's how I understand the guidelines.67.127.100.144 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest you're playing the victim just a little too hard? That perhaps sounds harsher than intended, but there's a time to let things go rather than pressing on and on and on and on, which is disruptive in its own way. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, we ought to be more sympathetic towards the victim. The victim is not on trial. If anyone thinks there is not enough evidence to take any actions against the experienced editor, then just move for closure of this procedure without any sanctions to him or her. Do not criticize the user making a complaint as he or she has a right to do so.

Please remember WP:TINC. I know it's not a policy, but what is not only a policy but a fact is that experienced editors need to be very welcoming towards newcomers. Just the other day everyone (I guess) got a link to a report on WP that showed the site is lacking new users more than ever before. This is why that happens. An experienced editor misbehaved and other editors let it slide and turn against the newcomer. Asinthior (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Gnangarra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I created my account three days ago, and I have been in a dispute with another user. This Gnangarra person came along and made an uncivil and rude warning. See WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL To view the incident go to: User talk:Timbracks13. I'm happy to take advice but I was really surprised by the way he jumped bown my neck and made me feel unwelcome. Timbracks13 (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My advice is:

• accept Gnangarra's advice.
• stay off Timeshift9's user and talk pages.
• every community has its norms and practices. Your account is 4 days old and I'm seeing more WP:DRAMA than editors with years of experience. Slow down and observe how things are done. Gerardw (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I've blocked Timbracks13 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing, of which this seems to have been part. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Users: Ucanlookitup, Adrian J. Hunter, Brettalan

• Ucanlookitup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Adrian J. Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brettalan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tagged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe these three editors have formed a Cabal. I cannot get anywhere with edits on the article for Tagged and it has become really frustrating, the tone in which my edits are received has gotten increasingly negative. I am hoping to resolve this dispute by getting some outside assistance or possibly advice on how to move forward with the article. Thank you.

Ucanlookitup Assumes bad faith of every single editor that has tried to help in last 6 months or more. Aggressively reverts any edits or flags to the article, which are clearly not vandalism. Makes snarky comments like "it don't work that way" and will revert flags without discussion Uses vaguely threatening language calling my comments or edits an edit war and says things like "let's call for protection" .This editor fails to recognize his own bias and has not worked towards agreement.

Adrian J. Hunter Has made inappropriate comments about the subject matter, which makes me question objectivity. For example, an FAQ was created on the talk page that is unwelcoming and overwhelmingly negative way to summarize. Have also noticed that the comments are increasingly negative, like with these edits: "btw it's hilarious that the Inc article complains about poor Tseng getting bombarded by emails"

Brettalan Has reverted my edits at least half a dozen times. Comments on edits I have performed to similar articles like Facebook : "Also, again, the only reason Facebook doesn't have controversies in the lead is because YOU removed them." This user does not welcome new input and I find it intimidating to be followed to other articles. Uses a very rude and aggressive tone with anyone who tries to make changes. NCSS (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing significant incivility. Emphatic dialog is not incivil. Gerardw (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

NCSS, I am sorry you feel that way. You and a handful of other users have repeatedly tried to violate Misplaced Pages policy. I have repeatedly, patiently explained the relevant policies to you, and you and the others have continued to make the same changes and continued to make the same arguments that have already been fully addressed. It was only after my arguments were repeatedly ignored, and after you and others made rather harsh allegations against me and others and then refused to explain or retract those allegations, than I showed any signs of frustration.

I am particularly perplexed by your complaint about being "followed to other articles". YOU specifically brought up the other articles about social networking sites as a reason to change the content of this one. Did you expect me not to look at the articles that you were referring to? I even made a point of refraining from getting involved in the discussion on the Facebook article, precisely so you wouldn't feel that I was making it a personal issue, but evidently I was also supposed to take your argument at face value. I don't see why I should. Why should you be able to remove controversies from the lead of one article, and then use the fact that that article doesn't have controversies in the lead as a reason to remove controversies from the lead of another article on the basis of "fairness"? If you didn't want to be "followed" to the other article, you shouldn't have brought it up!

I would also point out that you and the other editors who are trying to make changes have been asked whether you have any conflict of interest, since Tagged has been known to actively try to influence its coverage here, and you have refused to answer. I think we've been rather civil in not pressing that issue.

The bottom line is that your edits are getting nowhere because they violate Misplaced Pages policy. It is Misplaced Pages policy to include notable controversies in the lead of articles. You've been repeatedly shown that the controversy in question was one of the most widely covered pieces of information about the company, which establishes it as notable. Again, I'm sorry that you feel that those of us who are enforcing that policy are forming a "cabal", but there's really nothing more to it than that this is our understanding of the policy, and no one has addressed our explanations in any substantive way. I think anyone who looks at the matter objectively will see that I've been quite patient and that if anyone is being uncivil, it is you and the other users who are throwing around accusations such as "cabal", "tendentious editing", and "stifling debate" without providing any basis for those charges. Brettalan (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: I think Adrian's FAQ is both accurate and fair. There is certainly nothing uncivil about its tone. What, specifically, do you object to? Brettalan (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time I've been part of a Misplaced Pages Cabal... Looking forward to learning the secret handshake

On a more serious note, to my knowledge, this is the first negative comment that's been made about the FAQ; I'd have thought you'd share your concerns at Talk:Tagged before complaining at this public venue. I had tried to make it welcoming – it ends by urging everyone to be civil and to be patient and kind toward new contributors. On the Tseng diff... well... I really did burst out laughing when I read that article, and I thought anyone familiar with Greg Tseng (presumably anyone watchlisting Tagged) would appreciate the irony. It seemed harmless at the time, but if it was an inappropriate thing to say, then I apologise. Adrian J. Hunter 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys started a cabal and didn't invite me? I'm hurt.

NCSS - I'm sorry if my edit summaries seem snarky to you. It wasn't my intention. In fairness, though, the discussion about having the Attorney General's statement in the lede has been going on since October 2010 with the same group of editors. I doubt there is anything *new* that hasn't been said a few dozen times already. Ucanlookitup (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Newish user continues to abuse other editors

Andrewedwardjudd is a newish user (~1 month, ~500 edits) who has been asked many times to be polite. He has been given leeway as a new user, but a month later, he continues to abuse other editors. I just noticed these two latest personal attacks. , . Could someone explain to him that this behaviour is not acceptable? Many thanks. --LK (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrewedwardjudd, comments about other editors are not helpful. Please focus your discussion on the content at hand. The common WP colloquialism is comment on the content not on the contributor. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor BigK HeX who refuses to discuss anything with me and who earlier accused me of being another editor, accused me of obfuscating when he was muddled up about a simple issue. Lawrencekhoo the editor who has started this alert then deleted my comment referring to Bigk's 'silly behaviour', while failing to draw attention to the abuse i got from Bigk.

Lawrencekhoo and Bigk Hex tend to state a strong opinion as fact, focus on wikilawyering and will not discuss the issues other than making derisory comments about the other editors abilities to read or have the knowledge they have, and then distort the record to abuse their victims attempting to draw attention to their errors created by their strong opinions. They are fond of dismissing citations as fringe no matter how important the source. These two also appear to work in concert with other editors who have less objectionable impact on editorsAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Other editor's behavior doesn't change the standards or expectations. Per WP:TPG, personal attacks on other editors may be removed from talk pages. If you have WP:DIFFs of specific attacks by BigK or LK, you could post them and we'll evaluate the situation. Gerardw (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here on the left you see Bigk Hex accuse me of dishonesty and then you see my reply he is making himself look silly - because Freeloader was obviously muddled up which i addressed a few moments before. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=428709017&oldid=428709006

Lawrencekhoo then deleted this comment and began this alert.

• Abuse in the comment line on the revert http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=428409385&oldid=428395607
• Countless examples of this kind of wording as if editors have to satisfy him while he discusses nothing in the article and he is the law we must follow and conditions he makes are impossible to follow to get a NPOV so he can revert all desired changes acting in concert with LK and others. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=423856910&oldid=423854593
• dispite huge efforts to get editors to discuss their reasons for reversions i get this abuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=422897707&oldid=422873989
• shortly after i arrived at wiki i was accused of being another editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=422354440&oldid=422350102

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Concur that BigK could tone it down a bit on some of the edits. Don't see any wrongdoing LK's part.Gerardw (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not reviewed every edit nor all the talk page discussion. However the edit history ] indicates not understanding the Misplaced Pages model. You (Andrewedwardjudd) are on the very edge of a technical violation of WP:3rr and could be deemed by some to be edit warring as it is. In any event, if you want the article to be changed, you have to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS of other editors to do so. Accusations of dishonesty and references to garbage (Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#What_kind_of_nonsensical_baloney_is_this.3F) are not likely to be successful. It appears BigK, LK, et.al. have made good faith efforts to discuss the issues with you. There are not required to continue to do. The behavior guideline WP:IDHT and the essay WP:TE pertain. Additionally, note that references to wikilawyering are also unlikely to have positive impact on editor's perception of the situation.

Note that all that is happening right now is you're being asked to tone it down. No one is calling for you to apologize or retract anything nor are they calling for anyone to block or ban you from editing. I recommend taking a break to let tempers cool and then deciding if you wish to pursue your editing efforts. If so, polite discussion with lots of WP:RS is your best option.

I'll also note (as you are a new editor and perhaps not familiar with WQA ) that I am not an admin nor a spokesman for WP, just another volunteer editor offering his opinion. Gerardw (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Big K has never once made any good faith attempts to discuss anything with me other than claiming that whatever i have provided, which is not specifically mentioned by him, is fringe and he wants something better and his beginning comment to me was to accuse me of being another editor in disguise. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Thank you for the well-reasoned input, User:Gerardw. You seem to have captured the meat of the possible incivility. Many of the editors are too frustrated to continue when comments such as these from Anderewedwardjudd are laced into nearly every post. BigK HeX (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bigk you have been asked to tone it down and you still refuse to apologise for your behaviour and have never shown any attempt to discuss anything with me so cannot possibly justifiably use your defense of frustration against me. It is simply more abuse against me. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

You can cast yourself as a victim (conspicuously lacking even a shred of evidence), but it will not help you if your intent is to disregard WP policies.

If you think I made comments that need to be "toned down", feel MORE than welcome to post links to them here. I doubt that you will be able to do so, so I will exit this thread now. BigK HeX (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already posted a few diffs of your objectionable behaviour towards me which led Gerardw to comment you should tone down your comments. Dispite that you are still making making slanderous accusations about my honesty which are entirely without foundation. Please stop making things up in an attempt to blacken my good name, it is dishonest on your part and totally unacceptable behaviour. I am only a man and if i have defended myself against your thuggery i offer no apoligies for that. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Reverted harassement?

• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the message by user:Hodja Nasreddin with an edit summary "rv harassment". I would appreciate a clarification where is a "harassment" in this message, because,according to this "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is PA, and "harassment" is a serious accusation. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Being anywhere near WQA is a bad idea for you, Mbz1, after the comments you made about me at T:TDYK. That said, Hodja's comment served no purpose other than to passive-aggressively tell me I don't understand what it means to help others, and such a comment is not going to make me more likely to agree with Hodja's comments elsewhere, as it was apparently intended to do. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting your unwarranted comment about me aside, I am simply trying to understand why you called more than polite comment left at your talk page a "harassment". I am trying to understand it in order to avoid "harassing" you, if I am to leave a message at your talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

WQA is not the place to have friendly conversations about how you can try harder in the future not to harass me. But since we're here, why don't you tell the nice people what you said about me a couple of hours ago? Otherwise, we may as well close. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as you'll tell "the nice people" what you said about me, when you declined my valid DYK.

Please stop bringing DYK matter here, will you? I asked a simple question why an extremely polite message left at your talk page was removed with an edit summary "rv harassment", and I still did not get a direct response for this simple question. Instead I am getting threatened.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I said it had no reliable sources, which was true at the time. Nothing to hide there. (And no, you are not entitled to request that we refrain from discussing your own personal attacks; see WP:PETARD.) I've already explained why the comment was harassment, and claiming that I've made "threats" when my comments are immediately above and anyone can see that they are not is a weird decision. Are we done with this frivolous complaint? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on now, Roscelese, it is not what I was referring to, and you know that. I was referring to this comment, in which you said: that the user, who supported, my valid DYK is my buddy, and declined it again, but that's OK, I forgive you, and sure we could be done with this thread now, but I'd like to ask you to admit that removing a very polite message with an edit summary "rv harassment" was at least an overstatement. That's it, and we could forget about your conduct on my DYK nomination, and archive the thread. I mean anybody could feel irritated, and to say something wrong, but there is nothing wrong in admitting a mistake. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Are we done? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're doing much better. At least you stopped talking about DYK. Now, if you would not like to admit a wrong doing, maybe you would agree to tell me on what subject of harassment this message is under, and I will archive the thread as soon as you respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained why the comment was harassment. Are you going to come clean about your personal attacks, or are we done with this frivolous complaint? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, only I said you were doing better by stopping bringing DYK and me , here we go again. Oh, well...--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see any point in this thread. Referring to the post as "harassment" doesn't seem like anything actionable. Why don't you two just close this up and move on? Dayewalker (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all threads here are actionable. The point of the thread was to prove that Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attacked another editor by removing their message with an edit summary "rv harassment", and to ask her to explain how the removed message is a harassment. She failed to do it. "Harassment" is not a kind of word to use the way she did. It was PA, and now it is time to archive the thread.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Users are entitled to revert comments from the talk page. While the comment "harassment" wasn't necessary, it was a comment about the edit, and was not made in a disciplinary forum such as WP:ANI. While the comment may be considered snarky it certainly doesn't rise to what I would consider a personal attack. The question I have is why were you (Mbz1) looking at the page history, anyway? There's no evidence you and Roscelese were involved in a current conversation. Based on the history of the talk pages, including this inappropriate request by Mbz1 ] and the article content comment by Roscelese ], I recommend you stay off each other's talk pages (except for required notifications). Note also that Misza Bot II will archive the thread when everyone has had their say. Gerardw (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Already ahead of you - I don't comment on Mbz1's talk page, though she often comments on mine. ;) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

@Gerardw, Responding the question addressed to me: I am not sure how you found my absolutely appropriate request to stop hounding my contributions made more than a month ago, and missed another appropriate request made today. And how about wp:AGF? I never look at anybody history. I saw this edit summary in my watch list.

Yeah, right Roscelese does not leave messages at my talk page, she only declines my absolutely valid DYK,deletes 70% of my bran new article, and once in a while nominates articles I wrote to be deleted.

I am voting with both my hand to stay away from user Roscelese. I only would like kindly to ask her to remove her inappropriate decline of my valid DYK nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at the changes that have been made since the last time I declined it, and if it is now appropriate for the main page, I will approve it. Also, what's this about you having my talk page watchlisted? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it pretty amazing and rather cynical that an editor who is one of the most aggressively derisive I've ever encountered on Misplaced Pages, and who thinks nothing of referring to others using extremely contemptuous terms should accuse anyone of incivility over something that the person actually involved found innocuous. The editor who was actually involved, in fact, advised the editor who filed this report not to pursue it, saying "Please take it easy." This report appears to have been filed out of pique because Roscelese has opposed some DYKs for articles written by the filer. This is an improper use of WQA: this report should not have been filed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese has every right to edit an community page. Further review of the reporter's history (e.g. ]) indicates a pattern of conflict with other editors. Additionally the notice on every page is pretty clear: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. I don't see much more to be done here. Gerardw (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks by Mbz1

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mbz1 and I edit in some of the same areas, including DYK and (formerly, before she was topic-banned) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today, as part of a run through DYK, I reviewed and declined an article she had created and nominated. Some changes were thereafter made to the article, but I did not think that they had corrected the problems I had noticed previously, and so, explaining my reasoning, I again declined the nomination. What followed was a vitriolic personal attack, a selection from which is "...user:Roscelese who is very much involved with me over content dispute, who hates me personally, who is now angrier than ever with me because her bad faith AfD of my other article is failing desperately..."

This is only the latest in a string of attacks on me by this user. A limited selection:

• "I do not consider your involvement in my new articles to be one of a good faith attempt to improve wikipedia"
• "I said you do not like me, and your 'editing' on the last 2 articles I wrote was made with the only reason - to make a point of your disliking of me personally. But I see talking to you is useless. You are the one, who likes to create wp:dramas..."
• "Your 'editing' of my articles is a different story. You are doing this to make a point, a point that my articles are bad"
• "your dislike of me personally got to a new high to say the least"
• "you had not a slightest idea what you were doing" (and again)
• "Overall I see in very much involved user:Roscelese's post much more anger toward me personally than the differences that would support her claim to topic ban me"

Mbz1's personal attacks on other users were a large part of what led to her topic ban, so she's clearly aware of Misplaced Pages's NPA policy if she wasn't before. This latest comment, as well as a frivolous WQA report she filed after I declined her DYK, show that it is a continuing problem.

I'd like to have Mbz1 cautioned against personal attacks and reminded to assume good faith. I understand that it's disappointing to have a DYK declined, or to have someone disagree with you in a particularly contentious topic area, but it's something plenty of users experience and somehow manage to avoid going nuclear on other users. Fewer personal attacks make Misplaced Pages a safer environment for everyone.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

While the content above is reasonable, this isn't the best place. WQA (which admittedly we do a poor job of explaining) is best suited to peaceable, mutually agreeable resolution of specific incidents between editors. You (Rosecelese) could draw up a WP:RFCU using the available information. And you certainly have every right to respond to comments about you. However, my advice would be to totally ignore all invalid statements (and refrain from long back and forth threads, as above). Personally, I find it to be far less work and aggravation. Gerardw (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's antics are far, far past the point where the largely-ineffective WQA process could be of any use. RfC/U is pretty much a necessity by now. Tarc (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What can I tell? This entire page, Wikiquette alerts, should be deleted as only inflaming unnecessary passions, and RFCU do not serve any purpose except creating battlegrounds. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise making personal attacks

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, an administrator that I've had several disagreements with in the past, recently showed up on the talk page of an article I just created Radgosc (a place). Some of FP@S initial comments were fine. However, part of the dispute is over the name of the article. One user claimed that the name "Rethra" for the place has "more than 10,000" hits on google books. If you actually look at the google book search for the term, it's pretty obvious that aside the fact that a lot of these hits are to non-English sources, a very large (probably the vast majority of them) is to a medical term; "Rethra" as part of the Urethra (in fact, google books asks you when you do the search: "Did you mean: Urethra ").

I pointed this out on talk and listed several of these medical sources for illustrative purposes (and yeah, ok, I cracked a Beevis and Butthead joke about creative DYK hook titles - I can't see this as being a big deal. I don't think most people would either). Future Perfect collapsed my comments and labeled them as "trolling" . His edit summary stated "call me prudish, but I'm gonna be a WP:DICK here" (I think it's strange to be prudish about the word "Urethra" but put the word "Dick" in an edit summary - I don't think prudishness is the motive here). I restored my comments since I sincerely believe that this is a legitimate argument - the fact that a google search for a proposed name of a place is composed largely of hits for an unrelated medical term.

Future Perfect's response was:

I'm calling a spade a spade. You were disrupting this talk page; don't do this again. You can also get this as an official adminstrative warning from me if you insist.

I don't know what spade is being called a spade here. I was not disrupting the talk page - I was pointing out a very pertinent fact related to the discussion. I regard his "adminstrative warning" (sic) as a bullying tactic. There's nothing to warn me about. I have had run ins with FP@S previously and they sort of go similar. If somebody disagrees with him he reaches for the threat of "adminstrative warning" very quickly.

I very strongly object to having my comments collapsed - they are pertinent to the discussion and there's nothing disruptive about them.

More so, I consider FP@S referring to these legitimate comments as "trolling" to be extremely offensive. Calling someone a "troll" (and calling their comments "trolling" is pretty much the same thing), unless backed up with evidence or supported in some way, is very clearly a personal attack. The fact that this is an administrator making that personal attack, who should know better, only makes this worse.

I would appreciate if someone commented on this and in particular I would like to be able to restore (de-collapse) my comment, remove the offensive label "trolling", and, more importantly, be able to continue discussing an article I had created, without being bullied or threatened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Needless escalation from three sides.Your part in this was creating a separate article on a topic already covered elsewhere and doing it as a content fork rather than a normal spin-out article based on the existing material. I don't know enough about the topic to judge whether this was objectively justified. I do not doubt that you think it was justified, and that Skapperöd thinks it wasn't. So the conflict is not surprising.

Your accusation of stalking against Skapperöd is obviously baseless. You can't expect him not to notice after this on a redirect that must be on his watchlist. One hour later he commented on the talk page of the new article.

I have no doubt that FPAS did his Google Books search correctly and discarded the junk. The stuff about urethra hits for a "Rethra" Google Books search was worth a short mention, but you tried to turn it into more profit than it's worth. FPAS is a linguist. In other words, you overplayed your hand and got the bill for it. You played to the (so far non-existent) galley. It's entirely proper for FPAS to reign that in. He could have shown a little less irritation while doing so, but this report seems to be unjustified. Hans Adler 21:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was less than two hours old before it got redirected - I was planning to add material from the Lutici article but never got the chance. The problem is not with Skapperod responding, but with HOW he responded.

My bringing up the Urethra point for Rethra was a response to the "more than 10,000 hits" argument. It was, and still is a perfectly legitimate thing to point out, particularly since it appears that all but a few of these hits are about the medical term (including "Slavic" in the search term, "kills" about 9850 of these 10,000 hits)

Referring to other people's comments as "trolling" is unacceptable even, or especially, if done by an administrator. I'm sure if the situation had been reversed I would be blocked already. Combined with the "administrative warning" this is a pretty clear cut case of admin bullying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The urethra point was legitimate to point out after Skapperöd's incorrect 10,000 hits point, but it didn't need excessive insistence. Sure it would have been better if FPAS had written "unnecessarily escalating behaviour" instead of "trolling", but given that your first urethra response was directed to him, although he had nothing to do with the 10,000 hits claim and used very cautious, constructive language ("it does seem that a case for 'Rethra' might be stronger than that for any of the "Rad-" versions", my italics), I guess he just got a bit annoyed. Hans Adler 21:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not asking for him to be desyssoped or blocked. I mostly want to restore my comments - which I still think were perfectly legitimate - and especially to remove the offensive personal attack of "trolling" and be able to edit the article and its talk page without being threatened.

I mean, come on, there's an obvious imbalance of power here in that he can "warn me" and even block me if it strikes his fancy, while I can't do the same to him. The only way that we can have a constructive, productive, and most importantly, a FAIR discussion here is if he acts solely in his capacity as a Misplaced Pages editor, and doesn't start waving his admin-block-button six-shooter in my face. Maybe describing it in such a way is also "over playing my hand" but that's what it looks like from where I'm standing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Before this discussion goes on it is worth remembering that Hans Adler, Future Perfect and Skapperod were involved heavily in dispute with Volunteer Marek(who edited than under different account name) before on Wiki regarding issues concerning German historiography(Schieder commission article) so there can be some scepticism regarding neutrality of those involved so far.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans was not involved in that dispute in a partisan role. In fact, if anything he was taking my side. I take his comments as well meant and constructive, even if I disagree with them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently Fut Perf is not going to participate either way so there is little point continuing. I do agree with Hans in that it's not really worth a WQA over. To answer the question though, you could have tried just keeping it collapsed and removing the word "trolling" instead of removing the collapse altogether; if Fut Perf was not ready to accept that as a compromise, then maybe this would be worthwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have brought it up here had he not threatened me. It actually did occur to me to just remove the word "trolling" and keep it collapsed, but I wasn't about to risk getting a spurious block over such silliness. Anyway, it seems someone else undid it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the "threat" was to give an official warning. I don't think that's a genuine threat. Warning someone that they may receive a more serious warning should be taken as a helpful suggestion.   Will Beback  talk  03:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Difference is that I can't issue threats. Anyway, this: is just ridiculous. He's reverting OTHER people who are removing the insult and collapsing. It's pretty much revert warring at this point. Ncmvocalist, do you still think I could have removed the word "trolling" but kept it collapsed and not incurred some kind of vindictive wrath? Will, do you still think that this was merely a "helpful suggestion"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Erikeltic

• Erikeltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VQuakr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Mindbunny (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Erikeltic's edits , , , at User talk:Mindbunny seem unnecessarily incendiary. I attempted to engage the user at their talk page , ; they asked me not to edit there further so I am bringing it here. This editor appears to be editing in good faith: the ideal outcome from my perspective would be guidance from a few more experienced editors on things both of us could have done/can do in the future to minimize drama. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I notified Erikeltic here. VQuakr (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

VQuakr, there isn't anything unreasonable about the way you approached this. I suppose you could have left a bolded note at the top of the WQA that he needs to be notified and that you don't want to do it yourself because of his request, but views can differ on that point. Either way, no biggie. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good thought, thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny never asked me to stay off of "his" talk page and my comments were not incendiary, but valid points that Mindbunny apparently disliked. I make no apologies for making my feelings known, nor should I. Currently the only place for the discussion of his behavior and blocks is on Mindbunny's talk page. Erikeltic 03:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Erikeltic, you said your piece and Mindbunny removed it; that's where it should have ended. There was no good reason for you to be edit-warring on another user's talk page; if anything, it is counterproductive in feeding this type of attention seeking. And contrary to your statement, his block would not have been extended for removing your posts from his talk page - instead, you would have been blocked for this petty harassment. So apology or no apology, the bottom line is this: unless you wish to be blocked, do not unnecessarily edit Mindbunny's talk page again (as you have been within the last 24 hours). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read this thread only after blocking Erikeltic for 24 hours for disruption, as Erikeltic has removed all references to it from their talk page. This is at least no indication that they intend to heed the warnings they've been given here and on their talk page, and therefore I'm maintaining the block as required to prevent continued harrassment.  Sandstein  06:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Aquib american muslim

• Aquib american muslim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been various troubles in the past (Aquib was disappointed by arbcom) but is the current problem: accusations of vandalism, sneaky vandalism, etc etc. Oh, and Changing the definition of Allahu akbar from God is greatest to God is great, as you well know, is to demean God in the eyes of those with Islamic beliefs. It is also a change you came upon by reviewing my edit history. In other words, you have been stalking me and attempting to provoke me. I imagine you are also insulting and provoking other muslims with your action as well. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution