Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:11, 1 November 2006 editHalibutt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,067 edits →{{User|M.K}}← Previous edit Revision as of 18:22, 1 November 2006 edit undoShell Kinney (talk | contribs)33,094 editsm →Open reports: rm M.K. report - please continue discussion in an appropriate placeNext edit →
Line 31: Line 31:
:Close call: I've written a block warning instead of actually blocking because the user had no history of blocks or level 3 warnings prior to today. Post again if problems resume. ''']''' 03:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC) :Close call: I've written a block warning instead of actually blocking because the user had no history of blocks or level 3 warnings prior to today. Post again if problems resume. ''']''' 03:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


==={{User|M.K}}===
The user in question has accused me of several quite nasty things, among them of committing ''ignorant insults'' against Lithuanian nation, committing such insults against Lithuanian language, ''not allowing anything Lithuanian on WP'', pursuing a ''mission of not allowing anything Lithuanian'' in Misplaced Pages, suggesting that ''no Lithuanian toponyms for Vilnius should be used'', that ''there were no Lithuanians living in the area of Central Lithuania''. And so on. In short, the accusations centred around calling me a nationalist, which is what I despise. I asked him repeatedly (] and ]) to either find a single diff supporting the accusations or simply withdraw them (per WP:NPA), but to no avail. The user has been warned by several Wikipedians not to slander other people, but to no result either. Any ideas what could be done? I believe my good name's at stake here. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 14:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:Speaking of diffs, could you please provide some? I might eventually find these edits, but so far digging hasn't given me much luck, and I've got to head off and be busy offline. ] 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::(edit conflicted)Page diffs are a ''lot'' more useful than quotes, especially regarding a dispute that's simmered since July. Looks like an article content ] is long overdue. If you don't get responses there, try ] or formal mediation. I ended up skimming so if there's been any really blatant and raw personal attack post the link here, but this is probably the wrong venue to resolve this problem. ''']''' 16:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::: This is a very reasonable and thoughtful advice. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: Indeed and actually ] came here with empty hands. ] 16:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Could moderator deliver a suggestion - do i have respond here or wait for another step of procedure and btw is my case corresponds with necessary criteria? ] 00:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:I suggest you go to ] and open a request for comment on the page. Start a section at the bottom of the talk page where each side can summarize their perspective on the dispute. ''']''' 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let the diffs speak for themselves then. First the accusations: . . When asked to abide by ] on his talk page, he with an unfounded NPA warning on my talk page accusing me of some mysterious PA against him - yet not providing any proof for his accusations.

When () to provide any diffs or links, or start some official process instead of slandering me, he to the talk page where... he refused to provide such back-up for his accusations. For instance , , , , but also ,
,
and . Not a single diff provided, not a single argument, nothing. Just a campaign to damage my good name. Despite that, M.K in that he already clarified his accusations - which did not happen. At times calling me a , depending on his liking. Not a single diff or link provided so far. Perhaps someone could point me to some better place where I could request some clarification whether casting accusations right out of the blue, apparently only aimed at damaging my good name, is ok with the rules of Misplaced Pages or not? ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 20:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::Most of these diffs are mild expressions of frustration. A few look like neutral statements. Two are worthy of concern: the KKK reference and the t-word in the edit summary. I think the KKK statement was an analogy - a very poorly chosen analogy - rather than a direct accusation. The proper route to go there would be for the offended editor to request a retraction, and to place a level 2 template warning if the request is refused.
::Here at ] I'll intervene if a content dispute degenerates into obscenity or threats. Everyone who follows this thread should be glad that hasn't happened in this instance. Maybe you'll never agree with each other and ]. At Misplaced Pages it's possible to collaborate on a great article without compromising your beliefs as long as both sides are fair and cite sources. Take pride that both sides have, on the whole, remained pretty civil despite a long conflict. That leads me to hope a reasonable solution is possible. You'll find help achieving that solution at another part of Misplaced Pages. This conflict needs to go the route of ]. ''']''' 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Durova, sadly nobody above (as I asked) explain me a procedure. Please note that analogy of KKK is '''not mine''', this insult '''was delivered by ]''' to other user . I '''only quoted''' it once again prove misbehavior of ]. I ask now, that no formal judgment unfolded until mine explanations, these will be swift and overwhelming. ] 09:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I see. I retract that statement then. ''']''' 14:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid I'll need some clarification. Does it mean that casting empty accusations is allowed on Misplaced Pages? From my perspective ''when did you stop beating your wife'' "arguments" are as offensive as outright name-calling, but if that is allowed then perhaps I could start behaving likewise? For instance when in a heated debate against M.K. I could suggest that he's a nazi, he's the main reason why several wikipedians have left the project and that his innate hatred towards my nation makes me sick. I wouldn't have to provide any backup for my accusations since they are not regarded as offensive, rather as poorly-chosen arguments in a debate. Right? ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 08:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::::], I've taken your complaint seriously and read your diffs, then given my honest recommendation. You're welcome to read the other threads on this page to see what standards I apply. Although you may feel deeply insulted on a matter dear to your heart, I can't really use that as my standard for action. In fact - and I say this respectfully - it's a sign to rethink your own participation on an article that evokes such strong feelings. For example, I ''never'' edit ] or ] because my nearest relative was one of the last people to escape from the north tower alive, so I leave those articles to other editors and focus my attention on topics where I can be objective. I don't know why you've ignored my repeated suggestions to pursue dispute resolution. I hope you reconsider those suggestions. Your most recent post to this thread looks like a thinly veiled insult - the sort of thing I do issue formal warnings and blocks for - so please pursue more productive avenues instead. ''']''' 14:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:: It was not a thinly veiled insult and was not meant to be. It was simply an extended question what kind of behaviour is officially classified as personal attack. To make long thing short, I've been called a nationalist, short-minded guy who forced several people out of wikipedia, pursues some fancy mission of persecuting another nation and its cultural achievements. This indeed, as you noted, made me feel severely offended, as nationalism is something I hate and something that in my culture is regarded as somewhere between being an idiot and being a dangerous psycho. There's little difference between calling someone a nazi and a nationalist - especially when one is leftist himself - which is why I demanded any proof (diffs/links) for such accusations. I received none, which is why I decided to report the case here.
:: From your comment above (for which I'm grateful) I understood, that the said case of casting accusations here and there is actually not a personal attack and that I should limit my reports to namecalling and other "classical" attacks. Does it also mean that such tactics of casting accusations on one or another users here and there is acceptable and that I could equally follow the same path without being punished by anyone? To the best of my knowledge of English language, your comment means practically that the type of misconducts persecuted here are threats and obscenities. Fortunately, M.K did not call me names nor did he blackmail me or threaten me. However, I see little difference between calling someone names and calling him names under some disguise. You know, the good ol' "I did not call him a moron, I called him a short-minded nationalist".
:: Also, take note that avoidance, while perhaps a good tactics for the person to offend me, would not really work for me as 90% of my articles are related to history of Poland. If I started avoiding the articles related to the history of Poland, I'd have to give up wikipedia at all. ''<font color="#901">//</font>'']] 18:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


===] === ===] ===

Revision as of 18:22, 1 November 2006

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards


    Red crossThis is a failed proposal.
    Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.
    This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
    Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
    ShortcutThis page is intended to get attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks. It is not intended to serve as a form of mediation or a type of RFC. Only Personal attacks are dealt with on this page, on their own merits in accordance with Misplaced Pages's No Personal Attacks policy

    For editors who want a personal attack situation reviewed:

    1. Consider that in most cases, ignoring the attack is better than requesting sanction against the attacker. Do not report people if you are likewise guilty of hostility towards them.
    2. Make sure the user has actually commited a personal attack. (Please note that "personal attacks" are defined only under the WP:NPA policy. If a statement is not considered a personal attack under the intended spirit of this policy, it does not belong here.)
    3. The editor must have been warned earlier. The {{npa2}}, and {{npa3}} templates may be appropriate for new users; for long-term editors, it's preferable to write something rather than using a standard template. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed.
    4. If the behavior hasn't stopped, add the following header to the New Reports section of this page in the following format:
      ==={{User|NAME OF USER}}=== replacing NAME OF USER with the user name or IP address concerned, with a brief reason for listing below. Be sure to include diffs.
    5. If an editor removes the IP or username and doesn't handle the matter to your satisfaction, take it to the editor's talk page or the administrators' noticeboard, but do not re-list the user here.
    6. NB - Due to misunderstanding of these instructions and/or mis-use of this process, comments not in strict adhereance to these instructions WILL be removed. This page deals only with personal attacks under the policy WP:NPA. Reports deemed to be inappropriate for this page are liable to be moved to an appropriate venue where one exists.


    For those reported on this page:

    1. A reviewer or an administrator will review each report on this page. In dealing with the report, the contribution history of the reported user shall be checked along with the diffs provided in the report. Where no personal attack is evident, then no action will be taken - however, should an administrator see that another seperate issue is evident, appropriate action or advice for that issue may be taken/given at his or her discretion and in line with wiki policy.
    2. Reports on this page stand on their own merits in accordance with Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. As such, disputes and discussions over reports are not suitable for this page except for such comments left by admins or reviewers describing their actions and/or findings. If you notice your account reported at this page, please trust that the administrators and reviewers dealing with reports will deal with it in an even-handed and fair manner on the basis of policy alone. If you feel strongly that another "side to the story", issue, or another piece of information is missing from a report please refrain from posting here, and instead leave your comment on your talk page under the title NPA Report or another other clear and related title. The reviewing party will see this message and take it into account where applicable.

    For users handling assistance requests:

    1. For each of the users linked here, open their contributions and check for personal attacks. Also check if the users have been sufficiently warned for the current personal attack and whether they've continued to commit personal attacks after being warned.
    2. Note that there is an important difference between a user who makes many good contributions and a few personal attacks, and a user whose last edits are (nearly) all personal attacks or other conflict.
    3. Do nothing, warn them again, or, if you are an adminstrator, block the user in question as you think is required. Explain things carefully to the user who listed the attacker if you feel there's been a misunderstanding.
    4. Move the report to the Open Reports section and give an update to the status of the report.
    5. Delete old reports that have been dealt with.

    Please consider adding this page to your watchlist to make life easier for non-administrator RC-patrollers.


    New reports

    Open reports

    Igor21 (talk · contribs)

    The user wrote these texts against me: . .

    You can check the few interventions of this user, which are almost all libels and/or personal attacks. One of the first things he wrote was that I had "paranoid threaths" and that I should be banned forever . .He told all his defamatory stuff to an administrator.

    Later he talked about "silver bullets" against me and, in his last post, started to suggest that I am insane.

    This user and me had lenghty rational and polite debates about the same issue in the spanish version of the article (w:es:Atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004) during the first half of 2006. Once he realized I was also making contributions in the english version, this user started to behave, from my point of view, like the Mr. Hyde to the Dr. Jekyll of the spanish version. Is this could be regarded as important, a spanish fluent administrator could be a bonus.

    I warned the user with the required templates.Randroide 18:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

    Please provide relevant page diffs for the Spanish version. No comprendo perfectamente porque este es me lengua tercera. My sysop powers are limited to the English edition of Misplaced Pages. Durova 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Based on the diffs I did see I've left a note on the editor's talk page - the equivalent of a level 3 warning with constructive advice. Durova 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I never had any problems with this user in the spanish version, so I think that diffs there are not really relevant. I mentioned the issue to give the complete background. I hope that the note you left in the editor´s talk page will be enough. to solve the problem. This issue, as far as I am concerned, is closed. Muchas gracias por su atención. Randroide 08:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, then I hope whatever works between you in the Spanish edition can also work here. Best wishes. De nada. Durova 13:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    VivianDarkbloom (talk · contribs)

    This user has taken it upon themselves to post comments on the talk pages of users that voted for a delete of an article they created. Their comments are uncivil and can even be considered personal attacks. Here is a partial list of the postings: , , , , , . They even begin to get more uncivil as the day wears on . --Kf4bdy 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

    Close call: I've written a block warning instead of actually blocking because the user had no history of blocks or level 3 warnings prior to today. Post again if problems resume. Durova 03:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


    Nandesuka

    User is adopting an aggressive pattern in Talk:Online_creation. User has twice accused me of sockpuppetry, and refuses to allow me to defend myself. Corporate fudiciary 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    Please supply page diffs. Durova 22:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Please see User:Nandesuka/Young Zaphod Sockpuppetry for the context behind this user's claims. I categorically deny that I have engaged in personal attacks. I have categorized this user as a sockpuppet, due to the overwhelming evidence that he is. I'm willing to elaborate on that evidence via email at the request of any admin, mediator, or long-time editor in good standing. Thanks. Nandesuka 22:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, I see context for these claims. Yet I still don't see any page diffs specifically regarding either the original complaint or the response. I've seen two suspected sockpuppet tags in this editor's talk page. Unless I understand why they were placed there (and that shouldn't be done lightly) I'll have to agree that User:Corporate fudiciary was correct in removing them. Regarding Nandesuka's Wikiquette, however, I see at Talk:Online_creation that this editor responded admirably well to an obscene insult leveled by a different user. Durova 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


    Bakaman

    This user is adopting quite an agressive pattern against me in the Koenraad Elst talk page.

    Among other agressions, he made bizarre allegations between me and another user Hornplease: .

    Reply - He (Hornplease) is not a third party. He tried to get Koenraad Elst works banned from wiki, he is no third party like I correctly stated.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    I asked him to elaborate on that. His mere answer was: .

    Reply - No. My reply was here
    At that time of the discussion that was your answer. Your diff is there. TwoHorned 08:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    Then he made the following attack against me: . Needless to say, I'm not related to Muslim Guild.

    Reply - Oh really what about your newfound interactions with Muslim Guild users ,,. The second shows the makings of a cabal.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Writing to someone related with that guild dos not mean I belong to it. I was exchanging info with these users about another disruptive user who has been blocked for his behaviour. I exchange info with many users every day. You still persist in making personnal attacks in your reply. TwoHorned 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    I post a warning on his talk page: .

    He removed it immediately.

    Reply - No diffs were cited.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    The warning was about the on-going discussion. It is not mandatory to put edits in npa2.

    Then goes a more or less racist allegation: .

    Reply - Well you were defining Hindus here and implying I wasn't a real Hindu here. I merely stated that I could care less what some person thousands of miles away on a computer thought of Hindus. Also, European is not a race, its merely a geographical defintion. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    You don't want europeans to participate in the English Misplaced Pages on Indian matters just because they are not from India ? Intesresting. TwoHorned 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    TwoHorned 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    Mild violations of WP:CIVIL - npa2 was the right way to go here. Don't worry that the other editor blanked it and do your best to offer the olive branch before this dispute heats up too much. If you have to post another request for admin action, just refer to the page diff of your warning. Try this essay and put out a WP:RFC or a WP:3O request. Best wishes, Durova 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Please see my factual responses to this hate attack above.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Either way, this isn't at the point where intervention is needed. Please help de-escalate the conflict by avoiding characterizations such as "hate attack." Let's assume good faith that this has been an honest misunderstanding and remember we're here to write an encyclopedia. Durova 02:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    Wizardry Dragon (talk · contribs)

    During a discussion on Talk:BattleTech technology user Wizardry Dragon has repeatedly claimed that I broke Misplaced Pages rules and threatend to get me blocked:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BattleTech_technology&diff=83088509&oldid=82836640 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BattleTech_technology&diff=83953304&oldid=83920082 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BattleTech_technology&diff=84050703&oldid=83998857 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:BattleTech_technology&diff=83954022&oldid=83953785 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:BattleTech_technology&diff=84054948&oldid=84033116 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:BattleTech_technology&diff=84146450&oldid=84103274

    I requested low-key moderation on the Village Pump for the content dispute; User:Durova wrote about Wizardry Dragon's claims: "t doesn't seem that WP:POINT is being violated here. An editor appears to be genuinely concerned about how to describe a part of this fictional world in the article." (This is not an Appeal to authority, but evidence that Wizardry Dragon had opportunity to reconsider.)

    I asked Wizardry Dragon on his /Talk to stop further claims that I broke rules without supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=84217719&oldid=83957729

    In the discussion following (User talk:Wizardry_Dragon#BattleTech) he continues to claim that I break WP rules, again without providing any evidence. He again threatened with a block, added ArbCom to the threat list and claimed that I harassed him. He also said that it was " own problem" if you would take the accusations personally. After I asked once again to stop claiming that I broke WP rules, he added the claim that I broke 3RR (untrue).

    He expressed an apology in the discussion on his /Talk which, being intermingled with new accusations and threats, I cannot take seriously.

    In the discussion on his /Talk he also started to refer me to WP:Guidelines, WP:STYLE, Misplaced Pages:Sandbox and Misplaced Pages:Introduction, claims that I am "disrupting a part of the article", that I "have been warned" and generally leaves the impression that he regards my position as not worth considering.

    (It's kind of ironic that Wizardry Dragon frequently mentions WP:FAITH on his user page and in discussions.)

    217.235.241.172 21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    Ahem,
    The editor must have been warned with the {{npa2}}, and {{npa3}} templates as appropriate. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed.
    This user's basically upset with me that I have reverted his changes in the BattleTech Technology article that were against consensus and has been using various channels to try to implement this change. When attempting to reson with him, he's simply either ignored it, or replied with sarcastic remarks. I've been trying my best to give this user plenty of free reign, and have prompted him frequently to propose a change if he has one of worth, but he has not been forthcoming.
    I don't know what else to say, really. A lot of editors would've written him off as just a disruptive anon IP, but I've tried my best to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith.
    I summarized my objections and offered an apology on my talk page, it was there he replied with the link to this notice. I find it offensive that (s)he's saying that a content dispute is a personal attack, especially since I was never truly warned, except with what I took as a threat:
    Stop repeating your claim that I would infringe WP:POINT. I'm not, and you don't have anything to back up that claim. I will regard any further claims without evidence as personal attacks. User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/UserTalkPage unsigned'
    I think a lot of it is just feelings running high, both on my end and on his/her end, and it's starting to come down a bit and reasonable discussion is occuring. As such, I think this notice is a little premature. Some headway has already been made on the article talk page, and as long as no one escalates it, I think reasonable discourse can and will happen. If there has been anyway in which I could improve, I always welcome guidance and criticism. I know sometimes my tone comes off improperly on the internet, and I've been trying to work on that. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages) 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    I take it that Wizardry Dragon misses the NPA warning. It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=84294604&oldid=84276658
    Wizardry Dragon, don't try to assume what I'm upset about. I'm editing Misplaced Pages far too long to be upset just because someone reverts my changes. Your personal attacks though are not acceptable.
    You can see my reasoning on the discussion page.
    Don't start false claims here. I never said that the content dispute would be a personal attack.
    I would appreciate any constrictive participation from you on the topical discussion page. --217.235.241.172
    Then appreciate it, because it is there. I have already replied there, please go and read that reply if you have not already. If you take a warning as a personal attack, then I'm guilty as charged. I try to warn people when the things they are doing is wrong, rather than just reverting it without explanation. The only reason I mentioned bringing in an administrator (or any third party for that matter) is that we seemed to be at an impasse: you were continually reverting back to your version, and others, myself and AidanPryde included, were reverting back to the old version. Now that some impasse has been made, I don't see a need for a third party, though I am left with a desire to have some input on how I could have handled it better, since this kind of thing happening is obviously not a desirable end.
    I say that you seem to think the content dispute is a personal attack, by the way, since the claims of personal attacks stem from my warnings not to continually revert the article. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages) 22:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, once again: This is about you repeated false statements of fact against me. I never broke a WP rule (during this discussion, that is), and I asked you to provide evidence before making further claims about me. The claims of personal attacks are above, don't invent your own version of my parts of the discussion. --217.235.241.172

    Whoa, this is the Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. You've got a content dispute. Let's give WP:RFC a chance to work and maybe go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. Thanks for being proactive, yet I'm glad this situation hasn't degenerated to the point where things need to come here. Best wishes, Durova 22:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, we have a content dispute. We also have one editor who is making repeated false claims about another. I don't think the two issues are identical or even similar. --217.235.241.172
    I've already suggested mediation, which is a suggestion (s)he has ignored, why, I do not know. I've already apologized for any misinterpretations or coming off harsher than I meant to be. That said, I'm also getting frustrated: why should I be dragged through the mud simply because the other user does not want to accept my apology? Why does this notice continue to persist? It's becoming a personal attack in and of itself. One I don't appreciate. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages) 22:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re: Mediation. Another lie. I have not ignored mediation, in fact I requested low-key mediation even before the PA situation got out of hand.
    Re: Mediation. Here is evidence that I considered mediation even before the shit hit the fan. Here is my response to Durova's suggestion to get mediation. Please retract your statement.
    Re: Apology. See above.
    Regarding Mediation, it was not a lie, you're just misunderstanding what I am referring to. I suggested taking it to the Mediation Committee, which I didn't get a reply to, so I thought you ignored it:
    If you want to make such a controversial change, then I suggest you find compromise, either through talk page discussion, or perhaps, a request for mediation. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages) 00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Time out. Let's not call each other liars. Just go through the dispute resolution process. The personal attacks haven't reached a point where my intervention is necessary, but if people assume bad faith and stoop to name calling then I will issue blocks. Durova 23:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    Stevewk (talk · contribs)

    --Francis Schonken 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Tough call. An admin did use the word "bogus" in reply to a complaint about a 3RR report, although Stevewk quoted the word out of context and his discussion of that on an article talk page was inappropriate. I don't think his behavior thus far merits more than an npa2 warning. The 3RR and the npa3 seem to have escalated an edit war. I've protected Republic per his request, which I think is reasonable. I'll also leave a note on his user talk page. Suggest formal mediation. Durova 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    Categories: