Misplaced Pages

:Wikiquette assistance: 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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:23, 19 January 2008 editJack-A-Roe (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers8,789 edits →Dreadstar: WP:CIVIL, WP:PONT← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020 edit undoJPxG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators118,942 edits diff links more clear 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Historical document}}
]
{{historical}}
]
]
{{Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/Beginning}}


'''Wikiquette assistance''' was an informal process, ], available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally ].
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 35
|minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive%(counter)d
}}


If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see ].
=Active alerts=


For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see ].
== ] and users ] and ] ==


{| class="wikitable" style="float:left;vertical-align:top;"
{{stuck|These users clearly don't seem interested in contributing constructively. Referred to the ] if further disruption continues. --] (]) 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)}}
| width="300" style="text-align:center;"| '''Search the ]'''
This talk page, ], has degenerated into the most disgusting display of comments- please review the comments on the page by ] and ]. Thank you. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
|-
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
|<inputbox>
</sup> 02:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
type=fulltext

prefix=Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance
* I think this needs to get bumped up to a higher level ..... this has gone a little far beyond simple incivility .... this has gone into overt racism ] (]) 03:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
break=no

width=40
:I concur. I haven't looked through it extensively, nor do I have time right now to examine the edit histories of those two, but they don't seem like people interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, only soapboxing and ranting. --] (]) 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
searchbuttonlabel=Search

</inputbox>
: For easier access: {{user|Humanusticus}} and {{user|Orkh}}. Based on that, I will agree with Chesser and LonelyBeacon's comments. This is a huge breach of ] and Orkh should (and has been) be warned as such. With that, I'm going to give Orkh a friendly notice, but based on the prior histories, I think it will be taken with a grain of salt. If so, just escalate the notices and apply for ANI, which will provide a temporary relief from their complete and utter nonsense, and give the two users time to cool off. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
|}

== User:Ahering@cogeco.ca ==

{{stuck|User in question appears to react to any part of the ] process with hostile, accusatory attacks. The user has no regard for ], nor many other policies, it seems, meaning this one is out of our hands. It is unclear if he doesn't understand the policies, or if he doesn't understand their role, but his incivility doesn't seem to stop. There is an SSP complaint going, and other DR process are already going too, hopefully they will resolve the content problems, and perhaps the user in question will eventually have a change of heart and contribute constructively ''and'' civilly in the future. --] (]) 07:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)}}
This user has a history of writing articles which do not conform to WP protocol. Examples are WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#OR, , ]. In responding to discussions regarding these issues, he has been rude, uncivil, does not assume good faith, and personally attacked those who disagrees with his edits. As my personal expertise overlaps some of the areas in which he edits, I can tell you he is often correct in his technical knowledge when he sticks to objective issues (as oppposed to personal essays), but he continues to advocate that this personal knowledge is more important than proper WP protocols.

Examples are ], ], ], ], ], and ].

Subsequent to the mediator disagreeing with him at ], he has vandalised my , and added sarcastic trollish comments on my talk page, such as ] and ].

] (]) 08:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:Since this is a part of an ongoing content dispute, dealing with his hostility within other parts of the ] process might be appropriate. Mediation is already underway, and administrators have stepped in (e.g. protecting your userspace), so I would say you're already on the right track. Judging by his nonsense "tag team" accusations when he doesn't get the answer he wants, I don't think a reminder of ] is going to help the situation much - unfortunately, with an uncooperative editor that's the best we can do. I would suggest doing your best to participate in the dispute resolution process. If he does not, or does so in a hostile or uncivil way, then things will work themselves like they ought to so long as at least you are participating in the DR process appropriately.

:In terms of the sockpuppetry, I suggest you file a report at the page for ]. It seems pretty clear, since he challenges statements on your userpage, then an anonymous IP does so by vandalizing your userpage, and when you ask him not to vandalize your userpage, he responds by again claiming that you haven't identified yourself or proven that your userpage contains facts (something that is unnecessary). As an unrelated note, his username appears to violate the ] - ironic, since he denies sockpuppetry based on the location of the IP, but his username is (inappropriately) an email address that tells us that he is from Canada (as is the IP). --] (]) 08:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:''follow up'' - I've left a and filed an ] for you. --] (]) 09:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:''further follow up'' - The user has continued to be hostile and uncivil, esp at ]. He's demanded that I reveal my real-life identity (and confront him in person, no less), and has declared that I am out to get him, that I am stupid, and that he has no respect for me. He takes this stance, it seems, with anyone in the DR process that doesn't tell him exactly what he wants to hear. --] (]) 04:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::I left a fairly leghty note on his talk page, maybe it will help. I tried to assume good faith as much as possible. --] (]) 06:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Thank you. I can't explain how my intervention could have motivated this kind of hostile, accusatory, "you're just out to get me" response, let alone anything like "say it to my face" and "I have no respect for you." *sigh* --] (]) 07:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Justinm1978 ==

{{NWQA|No incivility here. The allegation is twofold. The complaining user is upset about what is construed as a COI accusation / personal attack, but it is in fact, a simple observation about the seemingly ] nature of the complaining user's contributions (and the unclear, singular opinions that are given as their substantiation). The complaining user is also deleting others' comments, which is actually not generally okay (unless it's vandalism or patent nonsense etc.). Referred back to the original talk page, where they can (hopefully) talk through their dispute. --] (]) 07:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)}}
], insists that I may not remove the accusations of an anonymous poster on the talk page of an article where a content debate had taken place. This anonymous post claims that I have a personal issue with the article content and that is why I had engaged in the argument about the source citation. Ironically, I was not satisfied with the outcome of the content debate, but chose to withdraw due to lack of support in the interests of maintaining civility. All other parties maintained civility throughout the debate and I cannot understand why Justin wishes to keep this remark on the talk page. Every time I remove the comment, he reverts my edit. ] (]) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
* My two bits: In general, the only time you ever delete anything from an article's Talk Page (I could be wrong, and please correct me, someone, if I am wrong):
:1. Comments you have written, that you regret writing, and want to self-redact.
:2. Comments that are vulgar and personal attacks, and clearly have no bearing on the article.
:I think the statement made on the page was mild, and I'm not sure that it breaches ]. ] (]) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

:I have to agree with Justin that revert is not a personal attack. Mostly ] are defined as insults or comments that exist soley to insult or disparage you. This comment is merely criticism directed at you accusing you of violating ]. As far as civility goes, that comment stays within the civility guideline, as simply directing a comment at you is not considered incivility (to my understanding). --] (]) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*"It makes me think that you have something personal against this particular organization." is suggesting that I am opposing the edit because I have a personal problem with the subject of the article. I find that to be personal. In terms of conflict of interest, there is no accusation of interest other than that I have edited the article in the past. I may not have been so insulted if the comment was not anonymous, but I still cannot see how this remark in any way furthers the discussion. At best it's an unfounded accusation. ] (]) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*See ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::I'm going to agree with the others' assessment here - if I were to go and try to delete a single character from a particular TV show, and had never contributed anything to any other TV related topic, and no one else believed that the character should be deleted, it might seem like there's some sort of reason I want the article deleted that I haven't explained. Saying so is a valid observation. Personal attacks and incivility are often evidenced by inappropriate accusations (e.g. "You're just a vandal out to destroy everyone's hard work") but this is not the same thing. --] (]) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*I have been watching the constant reverts and I agree that it is not a personal attack. As someone who has been the target of many personal attacks because of my constant vandalism reverts, I really don't see that as a personal attack. It may border on it because it's directed to a user. Looking at the history in a way, I actually agree somewhat with what it is said, however is my agreement a personal attack from me against ]? ----<span style="color:blue;font-weight:medium;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">] <sup>]</sup></span> 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:If someone wants to accuse me of a conflict of interest, why not post a thread on my talk page? I would hope such an accusation would be signed by a registered user and give me the opportunity to discuss it with them. If the comment is made in anonymity what purpose does it serve but to place me in a bad light with no opportunity to resolve the posters concern? ] (]) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
::First of all, let's get one thing straight, this is not an accusation of a conflict of interest, it's simply a question about your motivations. A conflict of interest would be if you were ] and you were editing the article ]. It's simply a question about the fact that your edits disagree with a wide consensus of other contributors, and that you're only making this argument in one of many places it would be applicable. Furthermore, no one is required to register a username or to reveal their identity. That should have no bearing on any of this. The opportunity you seek is already there: resolve the content dispute by explaining why you want to do what it is you want to do. Build a ] for what you want, or respect the consensus against it. --] (]) 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:::For what its worth, I tend to agree, in general, that if you have a problem with something an editor is doing, that, in general, you bring it to their Talk Page, but there is no policy that says that is the way it has to be. If the problem is over the editing going on, then I think it is appropriate to discuss it at the article Talk Page, in case another editor sees something happening, and needs to makes a call about how to deal with it. ] (]) 19:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== 65.188.38.31 ==

{{resolved|1=Sock blocked for one week due to incivility, patent nonsense, etc. Please post back if it continues after block. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)}}
] appears to be a typical problem user. On the page ], he repeatedly adds a deletion template in what appears to be dishonest attempt to have a valid and well-sourced article removed. He combines this with personal attacks against various users, , blanking talk pages and deleting reports against him on Administrators' Noticeboard , . ] (]) 10:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:If this is already being reported at the AN, why are you reporting it here? Is there some reason for a second report? --] (]) 10:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|I've warned the user, the article content seems to be safe for now, I've recommended a strong policy of ignoring the incivility, and I'll watch the article and keep an eye on it. If this continues, there's a clear case for an RFC/U or other type of intervention. --] (]) 04:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)}}
I have been tolerating persistent personal attacks from this user for a long time now.

Some brief context: Neil Raden is the husband of ], creator of the ]. I run a website that is critical of the Wiley Protocol and a number of the people behind it. Needless to say, we do not have a friendly relationship, and indeed Neil Raden has previously been blocked for making legal threats against me as well as Misplaced Pages.

Both of us are obviously COI but we have for many months agreed to limit ourselves to the talk pages. You don't have to search them or Neil Raden's history very hard to find disparaging comments about me. I've been putting up with it and letting many of them go unanswered. But...

On December 23, Neil Raden left a “Happy Holidays” note on my talk page wishing that I be maimed (via an old Irish curse).

On January 5, he left more personal attacks and accusations on my talk page which, in this case, I regard as not only categorically false but defamatory (specifically the accusation of interference with a study).

I deleted these comments but he reposted them on his talk page, adding further personal attacks.

Enough is enough.

I want two things: 1) I want these personal attacks to cease, and 2) I want his latest comments on his talk page removed. But I'm not comfortable removing them myself, at least not without outside advice.

Thank you. ] (]) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:I left a note on the user's talk page, but this seems to me pretty egregious. I might suggest filing an ] on the user's behavior. Editing solely to affect articles with a COI and making lots of angry personal attacks and being hostile generally - this is a serious problem. That being said, the best thing to do with someone like that (if they aren't affecting the article's content) is to ignore them. I would suggest taking some time avoiding contact with this person. --] (]) 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you for your effort and advice. I doubt this will resolve it, but it's a first step at least. Thanks. ] (]) 05:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have had an extensive discussion with this user that lead to a flat-out denial of wrong-doing, justification of any alleged wrong-doing based on off-Misplaced Pages goings-on, and accusations hurled at me, all because ] and I asked <s>her</s> him to keep <s>her</s> his behavior in check. --] (]) 07:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:Him. ] (]) 08:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::Right. It's been a long day. --] (]) 08:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Well I'm grateful.
:::I'd been advised repeatedly not to respond to these incidents, to just report them. I was dubious, but, in no small part thanks to you, I'm glad that I finally did follow that advice. It's renewed my confidence in the system here. ] (]) 09:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{NWQA|Editors have been directed to the dispute resolution process. Commenting appropriately on possible POV problems is not incivility, at least not ''prima facie''. ] may also apply, since (unfounded) accusations of trolling have been issued by the complaining party. --] (]) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)}}
] has deleted my edits on Sealand pages - stating that Sealand is a micronation. When this was considered on the discussion page of ], he eventually said :"<i>It is my personal observation that your contributions to this discussion are very much lacking in perspective</i>". ] wrote later: "<i>If one editor (Gene Poole) is being uncooperative, you may want to list the editor at ]. Having said that, Gene_poole, I would advise you not to keep making drastic edits, but rather discuss the issues at hand. — HelloAnnyong 18:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)</i>". Whenever a new solution to the dispute was tested, Gene Poole would not cooperate, and when I thought the dispute could be ended, he would not reply on his discussion page and instead wrote on the discussion page of ] "<i>A single-purpose editor is currently attempting to insinuate an unreferenced, strong pro-sovereignty position into a range of Sealand-reated articles, and this appears to be one of them.</i>" He continued the dispute and now he has resorted to writing insults. ] (]) 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
: {{user|Gene Poole}} and {{user|Onecanadasquarebishopsgate}} ] <small>(]) (])</small> 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
: This seems to be more of a content dispute than anything. Have you tried going through the ]? ] <small>(]) (])</small> 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, I have tried using third opinion and request for comment, but Gene Poole does not cooperate. Also it is not just a content dispute when Gene Poole starts to use insults, and ] states "<i>Comment on content, not on the contributor.</i>"
::] (]) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::That is, in a sense, a comment on the content - the content you are adding is unreferenced, pro-sovereignty, etc. Or at least, that's what Gene Poole is saying. The grammar of the sentence (using you as the subject) is less important than the content of the sentence (which is essentially characterizing your ''contributions'', the content and not you as a person). I am not pleased that this person is not cooperating in dispute resolution, but I'm not sure there's been a breach of etiquette otherwise. Do you have any more ] that would help us see what's going on? --] (]) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have examples of insults:

*"<i>Your eccentric, non-mainstream, extreme minority POV on this subject is entirely unique. It is not supported by any reliable third party reference sources or any other editor. You lack both consensus and credibility, and are in imminent danger of being judged a crank and a disruptive contributor. I suggest you review your position and modify your behaviour accordingly. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</i>"

*"<i>...you are completely lacking in objectivity on a subject to which you appear to be directly personally involved.</i>"

From Kingboyk's discussion page:

*"<i>...he clearly lacks any sense of objectivity on the subject, and also has a profoundly flawed understanding of NPOV.</i>"

] (]) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:These comments do seem to have a fundamental relevance to your contributions, the content that you are contributing. Lacking objectivity and having a direct personal involvement are relevant questions. Again, I'm making no judgment as to whether or not these claims have any merit, and baseless accusations are certainly inappropriate, but on their face, these comments seem appropriate to me, even if they might be a bit harsh in some contexts. Also, ] would make it ''much'' easier for us to examine the context of these remarks, to determine if they are out of place or inappropriate, but at this point, I can say that they are, and so I'm seeing nothing that's really inappropriate. --] (]) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yet they are referring to my opinion in general - this editor has done this throughout the discussion page of the Principality of Sealand. I am not saying that he has to consider Sealand a sovereign state, but he dislikes edits that say that and he considers the existence of an opinion considering Sealand a sovereign state as ludicrous. (])

::Other than that, I have tried using the dispute resolution process. What would be the best way to solve this dispute? What Gene Poole is writing is still unnecessary trolling (]) and he won't cooperate with any of the possible solutions. ] (]) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::This is odd. You are concerned that his more-or-less relevant concerns about your contributions might be too much of an opinion of you, as opposed to an opinion of your contributions (presuming, incorrectly perhaps, that the two are mutually exclusive). And yet you just ''called him a troll''. How can you, on one hand, assert that it is inappropriate to comment about relevant aspects of a user's "opinion in general" as it affects his contributions, but on the other hand, call him a troll outright when he is ''clearly'' not a troll? --] (]) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me - I did not assert that it is inappropriate to comment about relevant aspects of a user's "opinion in general" - actually Gene Poole did this at first - but when I tried to follow the dispute resolution after the debate became an argumentative dispute, he would not cooperate. In WP:TROLL, this is written:

"Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages."

If he does not cooperate, in my opinion it is a deliberate attempt to disrupt editing. WP:TROLL also states:

"The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits"

Recently Gene Poole has been more interested in the dispute than improving the article, and has resorted to criticising my linguistic ability and my comprehension of the subject. This isn't necessarily vandalism, but editing this article has recently become very difficult and progress has consequently been disrupted.

Other than that, I have tried using the dispute resolution process. What would be the best way to solve this dispute?
] (]) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:He has now said that my opinions are of no consequence and he has deleted the alert necessary for WP:WQA from his discussion page, calling it spam.] (]) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

::I suggest you continue to use the dispute resolution process, however, accusing him of trolling is inappropriate. You're exacerbating the situation, whatever he's done, you're not helping. Honestly, if you're using the dispute resolution process correctly, that is the best way to solve the dispute. I don't have time to assess the entire content dispute, but in terms of civility this is open-shut. His comments were relevant, if a bit persistent or harsh. Your response doesn't help, especially when you up the ante by accusing him of trolling, which despite your continued explanation, is patently false. --] (]) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:::This matter is a simple content dispute. The issue revolves around the fact that ] holds an eccentric, highly subjective opinion about the subject, which, on the basis of intimate personal knowledge, he appears to to have direct links with. That POV is not supported by any third party reference source, or any other editor, yet he stridently continues to try to give undue weight and unwarranted credibility to it by writing it into the article and a range of related articles at every available opportunity, falsely representing these actions as compliance with NPOV. Repeated requests for him to comply with policy and cease this behaviour have had no effect. --] (]) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that he was a troll, I said he was trolling - there is a difference. Based on Gene Poole's documented history of sockpuppetry (]), and suspected sockpuppetry (],], I am not really surprised at this state of affairs - consequently thanks for your help, but I think the administrators should take a look at it.

And Gene Poole, for the last time - I AM NOT A SEALANDER!!!, I am not linked with the Principality of Sealand. ] (]) 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== User Ronz ==

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments concerning this archiving should be made at ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{NWQA|1=Please take this case to ] (if not done already) or to ] for further assistance. Case has jumped out of bounds for what can be handled at WQA. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)}}

I've gotten exasperated by ] and have reached (or passed) a point where outside help would be appreciated. This devolves from long-standing hostilities at ] where I tried (with no success) to be the helpful outsider since an RfC, approximately ].
I "suspended replying" to Ronz at my talk and his, with these:


: This edit looks to be escalating problems with me on other people's talk pages. Please consider refactoring: --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:: I've suspended replying to Ronz, cf ] at my scratchpad. Pete St.John (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The link cited "this" is the convo where I gave up trying to talk to him.

Most recently at ] he wrote these:


: Please consider refactoring: --] (]) 20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:: If you refuse to reply, I'll refactor it myself per ] and ]. --] (]) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The item he linked at ]'s talk is from after I'd stopped replying to Ronz, but where he seemed to be harassing someone else as he has been me (IMO).

'''My view of this matter''':

Ronz has pestered me for quite awhile with vague, nonspecific requests; "Please Refactor" is quite typical. He also has repeatedly accused me of not replying to him. I persistently ''do'' reply, with questions about specifically what he means and why and, IMO, longer and more detailed explanations of what I mean, and why, than he ever gives me of what he means, and why. However, my tone definitely does get angrier as this progresses, while he is always scrupulously wikilegalistic. My view is that repeating "Please refactor" over and over like a parrot, and ignoring logic, specifics, facts, citations, etc, amounts to (veiled) harassment. I could easily mistake him for a bot with a short vocabulary of catchphrases ("Refer to wiki policy <this>, <that>, and <the other>", "please refactor") randomly generated in reply to anything. It's infuriating. I thought I could outlast it, but at some point he claimed victory on the basis of my (purported) self-defeating logic, at which point I threw up my hands, here:

: You've made my point for me. Thanks! When you actually want to discuss facts, let me know by actually discussing them yourself. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:: I was going to answer the last iteration of your question, because I finally figured out (part of) the confusion, but I'll let your remark right there settle it. Bye. Pete St.John (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::: So you refuse to discuss the facts? --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

...from ] where I had pasted from my Scratchpad.

'''Upshot''': The (presumably mutual) exasperation is pretty much normal, but the line "please refactor or I will" (refactor my comments on a third party's talk page? Does he mean rewriting my testimony against what I consider his abusive behaviour?) alarmed me. My other goal is to learn more about dispute resolution processes; I'm not seeking banning or blocking (it might be good if we could block users from editting our talk pages, like locking private rooms in MOO; I'd much prefer he debate me on the article talk pages, where it is not necessary at all to explain myself to him, only to third parties). My favorable result would be someone explaining to Ronz that vapid repetition of vague demands is abusive, even when the wording is superficially polite. I think there is even wikipolicy for that somewhere. But I think one way or another this will derail him simply spamming my user space, at least by distracting him with having to explain himself somewhere with a third party listening.

So, sorry if this is relatively minor (particular in proportion to what a huge mess of technicalities, legalisms, and sophistry QW Discussion is) but I gather ths (Wikiquette alerts) is the low-grade, intro-level way to ''kvetch'' and seek help. Thanks, anyone, for trying. ] (]) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

:I would like to comment here as I am having a similar problem. I will be commenting more shortly. ] (]) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

* PostScript: we have a surreal edit-war going at regarding my notification of this Wikiquette item:

I'm trying the (novel, to me) Wikiquette process regarding Ronz, ]. Presumably most interested/concerned parties would be watching here. I consider this a personal setback. ] (]) 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
: Note: Ronz deleted the above notification minutes after I posted it, citing (on my Talk) Canvassing. The specific policy justifying the item is ]. I would suggest, given that we have both given reasons, that some third editor delete or restore, now, and not either of us. Incidentally, I think it highly likely he misread "setback" above as "attack"; look at the context. ] (]) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:: New note: Ronz deleted the above again, adding "harassment" to "canvassing" in the memo field. I consider this as two reverts by each of us, at this point. It might be helpful if any third party chipped in. I have no experience of edit-warring in a Discussion Page but I assume 3RR applies still. ] (]) 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

* Now ] has deleted it, which surprises me as he had just been banned for a couple days over the fighting at QW, but anyway here's the current diff: ] (]) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::SA and others deleting the notice are right; this type of discussion has no place on an article talk page. See ], one of the pages Ronz regularly asks editors to read. ] 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
::: a user from "Third Opinion" opined that the notification I posted was admissable as it stood. Also, we don't want to confuse discussions on pages, with notifications on talk pages. The policy is to inform the discussion page where the argument originates, of the new and better location, e.g. this Wikiquette item, or an ANI, whatever. ] (]) 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: I find your comment (like much of this WQA) very nebulous and it still seems to ignore ] which you may want to (re)read. In the meantime I have replaced the unnecessary discussion on the Quackwatch talk page with a simple notification of this WQA. ] 01:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

===User Ronz - Anthon01's complaint===
My issue is with ] frequent post on my talk page requesting me to refactor my edits. In all most all cases he is wrong and/or not AGF. My first dispute with Ronz is here. It was in response to a statement I made on an AN page. No apology from ] when he was clearly mistaken. I consider this behavior uncivil.

Ronz often accuses me of misuse of the talk page, as ] in regard to a message I posted on the . In this case, the issue that I raised lead to the insertion 4-5 sentences in the CAM article. Here are a few more examples.

An then the complaint of wikistalking. In this instance I left a welcome message for a new user, when one was never left. I left a note on Ronz page letting him know that I left a welcome for the new user and suggested that he consider WP:BITE. He accused me of stalking him. I believe he did not AGF. Although many of the pages I edit on are contentious, I don't feel harassed by anyone else but Ronz. I would like him to stop posting these blunt, sometimes brash, (my perception) messages on my talk page. It seems he often does not AGF, and his comment on his User Page {{quotation | One thing I've tried recently with a great deal of success is to stop assuming that editors will be civil. Not that I don't ask them to be civil, I just don't want to be pulled into drawn-out discussions about it. Misplaced Pages does very little to enforce civility, so we should all expect that some editors here will be incivil}} seems to be at odds with the spirit of AGF. Although it may not be his intention, Ronz's repeated admonishions, require an assumption of bad faith, while ignoring the behavior of other editors who have been recently banned for incivility gives the impression that his attempts at curbing incivility seem biased. If he were right, if it were done in a spirit of cooperation while AGF, I believe these types of exchanges would be less frequent, end more amicably and be welcome. ] (]) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Refactored. ] (]) 02:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:My opinion (as an almost uninvolved editor): too vague (and probably too complicated) for WQA. It's probably better to try and discuss with Ronz and perhaps use ] processes such as an RfC/U. Please note, however, that the latter may backfire if many editors agree with the cautions placed by Ronz on various user talk pages. From what I've seen, chances are that I will too, depending on the diffs expected in an RfC. ] 01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:: I'll go look at the new item, but mention here 1) "almost" uninvolved is disengenuous IMO and 2) what you are calling "various cautions" I'm calling "harassment" and the whole point is to get outside editors to judge between the two interpretations. Even Ronz, who even now can't stop posting "cautions" on my talk pages, purports to welcome outside review. ] (]) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

: I will agree with Avb that this case has become far too complex to be handled properly at WQA. I would try going through the ] fully. A ] may not be too useful in this instance, but a ] may (if not done already). A ] may assist further. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:: As per Seicer I created ] and will notify Ronz, Anthon01 (as disputants) and Seicer (as the advocate for this escalation). ] (]) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::In my experience, asking other users to refactor is a fairly optimistic strategy, and may not be helpful in a hot debate. To take offence at someone's asking you to refactor, though, seems bizarre. If you don't like such a request, simply ignore it. (Surely it is easier to ignore a request to refactor than to ignore an actual personal attack). A request to refactor is like asking for the situation to be de-escalated. If you don't agree, either ignore it or say that you stand by your comments. Taking offence seems to be the least effective response. ] (]) 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I'm not so sure it's that puzzling. (The following is hypothetical.) If you're in a heated dispute with someone and you cross the line, you're already upset about he dispute and now you're also probably well aware of the fact that you've done something wrong. In spite of the fact that we are all mature, civil people most of the time, when somebody crosses the line, it's probably easy enough for them to refuse to admit it - there's a content dispute going on, and admitting incivility sometimes feels like it damages one's position and makes one look like a fool. When the person who you're in a dispute with asks (or sometimes demands) that you refactor your comments, it might feel like they're asking you to "give in" or to make yourself look stupid or wrong in the situation. (End hypothetical). Now, that's not a ''rational'' way to proceed, but I think it's understandable. Sometimes, it's hard to admit wrong, and we should acknowledge that. --] (]) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:note EdJohnson is , for all intents and purposes "wikibuddies" with user Ronz. They exchange pleasantries on each other's talk pages,] ] join together in editing articles ] and support one another in matters of dispute ]. ] (]) 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999
::So? Plenty of people do that. Are you alleging that they are working in collusion to manipulate this process, or to take some other sort of inappropriate action? Otherwise, this is (quite frankly) irrelevant. --] (]) 19:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::And if you're going to come here and drop a bit of "helpful information" on us, as if you're some sort of informing party working to fully disclose the relevant issues, why don't you mention that you are in a mediation case where you are on the opposite side of both Ronz and EdJohnson? If you want to insinuate that their opinions are not independent or impartial, you should be honest about your own. --] (]) 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:::There you go Cheeser1, how's that for full disclosure? But you missed my point- by not publicly revealing that he and Ronz have an ongoing buddyship, the casual reader would assume that this editor is not bringing a bias to the issue. As for my *bias* it consists solely of having been abused by user Ronz, if you call being victimized and harassed as form of bias against your harasser. ] (]) 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

:::: Regarding EdJohnson's hypothetical: It doesn't stop with a request for refactoring. It can continue with repeated requests, and even Ronz refactoring edits himself, when others ignore him. ] (]) 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

===User Ronz - wikieditor9999's complaint===
User Ronz has engaged in a pattern of abuse towards me that violates wiki policies of civility.
I have asked user Ronz to stop editing my talk page- our dispute over an article is now being addressed in an appropriate forum. Nevertheless, user Ronz continues to stalk me at my home page. Most recently, after being told to leave me alone and specifically to stop editing my talk page, user Ronz edited my talk page to sign my name to my own post. This is pure harassment, as user Ronz has no habit of examining talk pages to see if the user remembered to log in and sign their posts- it's ridiculous for Ronz to claim it's for any good reason- it's pure harassment. This is user's Ronz way of saying - "I can use my ability to edit in wikipedia a a way to harass you. I am stalking you, watching you and you can't make me stop editing your talk page, and I will continue to do so for any reason I want to ". I feel harassed, followed and stalked by Ronz and I want it to stop.

During the course of editing an article, user Ronz has engaged in a systematic pattern of anti-social behavior:

'''User Ronz has repeatedly accused''' his opponents during matters of editing dispute of violations of wiki policies which were easily shown to be false. He did this to Julia Sowa, accusing her of a conflict of interest in the editing of the mind mapper category and he has done it to me, accusing me of being a sock puppet because I was new to wiki and did not understand how or when to log in. In neither case has he apologized.

'''User Ronz refuses''' to engage in normal discourse on substantive issues when challenged by other wikipedians. This is at the heart of what it means to collaborate and hwo articles get better. Rather than discuss or defend, Ronz immediately reaches for an adminstartive process, which has the effect of wasting a good many people's time on an issue which could be resolved through dialog.
Instead of dialog, he peppers his fellow editors with staccato messages, like "Please Refactor" which are, as he well knows from being repeatedly told, highly annoying given the total lack of other communication or substantiation of his POV.
Typical Ronz engagment:

"Sorry you don't like it, but I've repeatedly commented about notability and references. Please escalate as you see fit."

"The basis for notability is WP:N. Sorry if I'm being blunt, but I see this situation as very clear-cut. I've made multiple comments above. We need some third-party help at this point."

"I'm going to escalate it if you don't first."


'''User Ronz has''' engaged in "dirty" tactics and "tricks" in order to force his way without discussion. In the instance of editing Cayra, he removed ALL of the article in an edit leaving it an empty shell, while flagged it for having no references.]

'''User Ronz has falsely represented''' during a deletion discussion that the subject of the article was "beta" software. In fact, it was widely reviewed on the web in the places and by the entities one would expect such reviews to appear, and at any rate, it was released software. Ronz has never apologized for misrepresenting this important and fundamental fact.]

'''User Ronz also''' attempts to get his way with newbie editors by peppering their articles with "warnings" which appear, as he is well aware, to be authoritative. By refusing to engage as a peer, user Ronz attempts to portray himself as an authority with vested powers to command which must be met.

'''User Ronz's behavior has scared off''' many potential contributors who created accounts, were confronted with user Ronz's behavior, and were never seen again. Dialer00 and Zabrinski were two newbie editors who naively thought they would participate. Their new article was met with Ronz's warning tags and terse admonishments about its quality and Misplaced Pages Policy violations. The details are on ] talk page.

from Dialer00 ]
<blockquote>
Hello!
I see you're quite new to Misplaced Pages just as I am :)
I appreciate your help in editing Cayra article (honestly, I didn't think someone would help me in that)!
Are you interested in mind-mapping too?
Best regards,
Z.
Zabriski (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
</blockquote>

After being confronted by Ronz, neither Dialer00 nor Zabrinski have been seen or heard from again.

Here is the case of Julia Sova

<blockquote>
Waiting for your response, Kind regards, Julia sova 07:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)<br />

Sorry about that. I forgot to give you the proper warnings on your user talk page concerning your edits. I've done so now. --Ronz 16:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)<br /><br />

Thank you for your answer. I have read WP:EL and WP:SPAM and I still don't see any break of neutrality in adding a screenshot. Maybe you can point it out for me? And I really, really don't understand why the same rules about EL are not applied for ALL links? --Julia sova 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)<br /><br />

What about WP:COI? You appear to be arguing that because you think others are breaking rules, you should be allowed to break rules as well. --Ronz 17:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)<br /><br />

No, I think that same rules should be applied to everyone. If you delete link to 1 website, or screenshot to 1 program, why don't you delete them ALL? Otherwise it makes people think you're favoring one program and not favoring others. Which... brings other questions, too. You know what I mean? Julia sova 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)<br /><br />

I think it's time that you respond to WP:COI. --Ronz 16:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)<br /><br />

</blockquote>

In point of fact and per wiki policy, Julia had no COI whatsoever; she was editing the the mind mapper page.

Reading the above exchange, some would conclude that user Ronz is what in other contexts is known as an ] or ]. A lot of these types are running around wikipedia and the wiki community would be very much better off if, when things get so bad that many people are moved to complain about one, they were removed, since this is really the only way their existence comes to light. I would like to see User Ronz's editing privileges removed.

Here is Ronz's response to my 15th pleading for a reasoned debate with respect to Cayra, an article he contributed nothing to except to destructively edit, flag and harass its creators out the door.

<blockquote>
Ronz, You again edited the page with a flag for notablity without offering a rationale for doing so. I am removing it and will continue to do so until you engage here with a reasoned argument as to why this software is not notable. As I said before, if you will not engage in a substantive conversation about this page and continue to edit it, I will have no choice but to escalate into a procedural solution. 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Wikieditor9999
</br></br>

Sorry you don't like it, but I've repeatedly commented about notability and references. Please escalate as you see fit. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
</blockquote>


] (]) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

:''after being told to leave me alone and specifically to stop editing my talk page, user Ronz edited my talk page to sign my name to my own post. This is pure harassment'' -- Let me stop you right there. That is not harassment. It's common practice. You've ] if you think ''that'' is harassment. You have provided no diffs, and appear to be engaged in a serious dispute with Ronz and others over the existence of an article you edit heavily that appears to be advertising, or at least an unreferenced page about some software that could function as advertising. You even in this matter. Your complaint is frivolous, and I would say ].
:Signing unsigned comments, tagging stub/advertisement/bad articles, using templates to approach new editors about problems, pointing out when a brand new editor edits an AfD, these are '''standard, community-accepted practice'''. And by calling Ronz "an asshole or dick" you've violated the policy that you're here to complain about - ]. You're the one who needs to ], and I strongly suggest you do so. You seem very invested in the Cayra article, but maybe you need to relax and let it go - or improve the article so ] can support its ]. --] (]) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments concerning this archiving should be made at ]. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div>

== ] ==

{{NWQA|Referred to other parts of the ] process. I can't find any incivility here, just a content dispute with a stubborn editor who doesn't seem to want to compromise, build consensus, or talk things over. --] (]) 10:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)}}

In the past few months, a few users have been actively editing the ] (NFP) page, one of whom is ]. Before this dispute began, the article included a statement that an advantage of NFP is that it does not require the use of condoms, which meant that sex could be more spontaneous. This statement was cited with a link that stated that this was a perceived disadvantage of condoms. , stating that it was "irresponsible" to "perpetuate the myth that condoms make sex less spontaneous." In response to this, ] and myself have been digging up multiple sources and posting them to ] to support the claim that many feel that condoms make sex less spontaneous.

When we created a revised wording of the statement that was less ambiguous and more NPOV, Photouploaded tagged it with {{tl|dubious}}, {{tl|or}}, and/or {{tl|citecheck}} and has been restoring those tags repeatedly. Photouploaded apears to take issue with the thebody.com source as being reliable. He has been aggressively removing this citation.

My problems with Photouploaded's behavior are as follows:
#He has declared sources to be unreliable without specifying reasons why they are so.
#When asked to back his opinions about the topic with sources, he has declined to do so.
#He has ignored the debate on the talk page for days at a time and then reverted again without saying anything on talk.
#During the entire course of this dispute, he has not done any research at all on this topic, or if he has, he has not posted any sources he has found on the matter. It would seem that someone interested in improving the article would conduct his or her own research, rather than merely criticizing the work of others.
#Judging by his first diff on this issue, it appears that he is strongly motivated by his own opinions on this matter. It appears that he is POV pushing by repeatedly removing, placing template warnings on, and enforcing an selectively limited inclusion standard on content he disagrees with personally.

Again, a link to the discussion on the talk page is ]. Thanks to anyone who looks at this. - ] (]) 07:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:This is an excellent candidate for other parts of the ] process. However, I fail to see anything her that falls into the bounds of ] or ] or that sort of thing. If the edit-warring continues and this editor refuses to settle the agreement on the talk page, I would suggest filing a ] or seeking a ]. I would encourage you to continue to work within the ]. Propose your new material on the talk page, come to a consensus there about adding it, and add it. If he removes it, post to the talk page and if he doesn't respond, put the consensus-backed material back in. --] (]) 10:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{resolved|I don't really see any civility problems here. Complaining user is mostly upset about a semi-protection request that was not granted, and that lead to him arguing with the admin in question and even a threat of an RfC/U. That's not how a declined semi-prot request should be handled. Both user's conduct discussed at length below. Recommendations for what the complaining user can do given below. --] (]) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)}}
A copy of the relevant discussion and diffs may be found here: ]

I put in a request that ] be semi-protected because of persistent, short-term and long-term vandalism. It was rejected by ], on the grounds that there was "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify such an action." I requested that he re-consider his decision, after noting an anonymous IP and single-purpose account that vandalized just hours after my request was rejected. When I asked him for clarity on this, it upset me to see him say that semi-protection is only granted for "persistent violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, not content disputes," because that's not true. A quick look at ] shows "Temporary semi-protection may be used for: Pages subject to significant but '''temporary vandalism or disruption'''." ] is a violation of ]. I noted this, politely asked for clarity on the matter, cited ''another'' user who ''again'' vandalized the article and attacked me personally, and noted my frustration over the matter.

He then acknowledged it was an "egregious" (to use his own words) violation of ] and a "disruption." He then said "If the problem is long-term," that I find another editor because he was "too busy" to read the edit history of the article and address my concerns. But this claim was in the request for protection he rejected to begin with. He did not apparently review the edit history before rejecting it, has an incorrect definition of vandalism, and when I pointed this out, he ignored me.

So, I did the only thing I could: Brought it here. When I told him of my intention to go to RFC, he characterized it as a "threat" (assuming bad faith) that made him "stop caring" about the matter. Ironically, a few minutes after notifying him of my intent to RFC, I received a warning template from ] (though my talk page specifically requests users not do that) for edit-warring on the article that I ''originally'' intended to ''avoid'' edit-warring over by going to ] before making more than three reverts. ] (]) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:As I understand it, the distinction here is between semi- and full-protection. When he reviewed your request for semi-protection, he looked for a situation justifying semi-protection (i.e. blatant vandalism or ''short-term'' disruption by anonymous I.P.s. He then suggested that you find another admin to review it if the problem was ''long-term'', which would seem to imply full protection (since, as he said, "Semi prot is warranted only for vandalism or biographies which are on the receiving end of persistent violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV").
:I don't think he has committed any Wikiquette violation. Whether is decision not to protect was the right one is another question, and one that is outside the scope of this board. I would recommend that you let drop your dispute with ] and then do one of the following:
:* request full protection on the basis of a content dispute, in the hopes that the anons' inability to edit the article will force them onto the talk page, or
:* re-request partial protection, emphasizing that the anons are being disruptive and are unwilling to bring things to the talk page, so you have no content dispute-related means of solving it.
:I suspect that the first one has a higher chance of success, for what it's worth. ] (]) 19:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:You seem to have mis-characterized much of what {{user|East718}} has said, and I fully support his denial of your protection request. No good faith edit is vandalism, no matter what policy it violates. Additionally, East718 did not acknowledge it as an egregious violation of WP:FRINGE, but stated that ''even'' egregious violations of policy are not vandalism. Semi-protection is not to be used to give somebody the upper hand in a content dispute, and a dispute over content is precisely what is going on here. Hell, East718 even said he'd certify the request for comment on himself if nobody else would. - ] ] 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


:I'm not sure this is the place for you. Let's break this down a little:
:*The edit-warring warning should be ignored if you are reverting vandalism or blatant hit-and-run NPOV/BLP violations. However, if this can (in any way, even slightly) be construed as a legitimate content dispute (even if you're right), you should watch the 3RR (and the spirit of 3RR). For all you know, the page will be locked in the ].
:*Protection: request protection again, and make clear that this is long term Fringe/NPOV problems by IPs who refuse to discuss changes.
:*Feeling "ignored"? He told you he was busy, you have to respect that. Administrators are people too, and he admitted that he could not take a deeper look at he problem (which you did not request as a part of the complaint he declined - I would not fault him for not looking without being told where to look). He told you you could seek help from another administrator, and you can do this - you don't have to go to the official protection request page, if you find an admin willing to take a look.
:*RfC - don't threaten people with an RfC for not responding to you as quickly as you'd like. Even if you meant it in earnest, an RfC is not something you brandish at people like that. It's inappropriate behavior, and an RfC is ''totally'' uncalled for.
:*Civility and personal attacks? That's what the WQA is for and I don't see any real problem here, in terms of that stuff.
:I'd say you should simply go to another admin, like he suggested. He told you he can't help you right now, and it's not up to you to decide that he should take, or should have taken, more time to look into it. If you go to an admin and explain that you need them to look into the page history to assess long-term FRINGE/POV problems, they will do so if they can, and protect as they see fit. Protection is not a cure-all and isn't warranted in all cases - you've gotta show that protection is required, and if there's doubt, an admin might defer to other kinds of conflict resolution. I would also heed what AuburnPilot says above, and maybe restore your ] and move on, because you can resolve this matter without any further issues with East178. --] (]) 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Saying "even egregious violations of policy" as a rebuttal ] an acknowledgment that the violation was egregious. He couldn've just as easily said, "That wasn't an egregious violation of policy." ] doesn't apply in the case of blatant vandalism (aka "'''egregious disruption'''"). His remarks clearly contradict the policy described on ], word-for-word. My intent in seeking semi-protection was not to get the "upperhand" in the debate because I hadn't even edit-war'd over the article yet or engaged in any contentious disputes over it. I just happened to come by, say, "Well, this raises red flags," and I knew the only way I'd avoid an edit-war from anonymous users not discussing their edits was through a request for semi-protect. Turns out I was write since I've had several different users all try to put the ] stuff back in and was then warned over ] by one of them.

::There are ''plenty'' of users with accounts more than four days old who would ''not'' be covered under semi-protection and that's what I applied for. The intent was to avoid vandalism by anonymous users who won't discuss their edits.

:::Please also note that ] who rudely gave me the ] template put the same "egregious" edits back in, backed up with ] sources -- again, fringe sources to support ]. Please also, before assuming bad faith in my case, note my concern that an attempt to address this by adding caveats like "allegedly" and "according to the Austrians" in the lead would constitute a violation of ] in favor of unduly ''criticizing'' ] in the lead. ] (]) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::If he was the original admin that rejected my request for semi-protection, it seems to me that he has some degree of responsibility to justify his actions through discussion. Rejecting my request, making statements which seem to contradict policy, and after only a few brief messages, telling me he's "too busy" and "go see another admin" seems inappropriate. What is another admin going to say? They'll say that East was the one who rejected the semi-protection, so I should take it up with him. It seems like fishing for admins if I have to find one who will either follow policy or at least discuss their actions. ] (]) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Agree with other contributors to this discussion East718 has done nothing that he should be reproached for. He dealt with your request in a polite and businesslike manner (and IMHO made the correct decision). You then demanded that he should devote a great deal of extra time to the issue, and reported him here when he declined to do so. '''You''' are the one that is out of order here. He has been courteous, above and beyond the call of duty, whilst you have been rude and demanding. I would you suggest that you withdraw this report without further delay, and think yourself fortunate that East718 hasn't chosen to report ''you'' here for your rudeness, or elsewhere for wasting everybody's time with vexatious wikiqette complaints ] (]) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no involvement in whatever dispute exists and have no wish to; I'll also let all my posts speak for themselves. I do however advise that everybody chill out, maybe smoke some trees, do whatever else floats your boat and revisit this with cooler heads. ] ]

== {{user|Smith Jones}} ==

{{NWQA|Already being discussed at ] ] (]) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)}}
This user is abrasive at best and uncivil at worse. I ran into him while discussing at ]. He has threatened users with arbitration for vandalism , and occasionally types in caps and (to what it looks like to me) attempts to intimate other users. . I'm not sure if he is just having trouble discussing his thoughts civilally becuase he is new, but attempted messages on his talk page don't seem to have helped resolve anything. --] (]) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Oh my - this fellow is a problem. If you weren't aware, he's also being discussed at ]. I frankly don't think anything we can do is going to help much; you can either wait to see if he gets blocked by an admin (my money would be on that happening at some point), hope that the discussion happening there makes him change his ways, or take it to ]. ] (]) 20:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::i thank you for your kind conern but i ahve arleady addressed all of those old issues and on my talkpages and i have no curent desire to repeat myself over and over again. ] (]) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) Actually, I need to admit that since this was brought up at ] he hasn't done anything egregious. I'd suggest seeing if his relatively good behaviour continues. He does seem to be editing in his own version of good faith. ] (]) 20:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Ahh ok, I was unaware of the discussion at ]. --] (]) 21:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

== randy blacksmoor ==

''moved from talk page''

a user named randy blackamoor is behaving uncivially on wikipedia by , and . someone mentieond that he had ben blocke dbefore and iw as hoping that someone here coudl try and convinces him to stop being uncivil so that hec an avoid another a block. thank you for our time. ] (]) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

: That's ], with an "a", not "s" in the surname. ] (]) 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::thanks i wouldnt want to gets his name swrong . i corrected it just now. ] (]) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree that his behaviour is problematic, and I've left a note on his talk page . We'll see if he responds. ] (]) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: oh yes, me too, I should have said that. He's become uncivil, but patience may prevail. ] (]) 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

: For easier access: {{user|Smith Jones}} and {{user|Randy Blackamoor}}. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:: As a neutral party, edits similar to made by {{user|Randy Blackamoor}} are simply not acceptable. Warnings can be given by ''any'' user, however, blocks are given by administrators only. A warning on its own doesn't stand if it doesn't have merit, but the following edits deserve further inspection on the basis of ] and/or ]: . I don't really care if is legit or not and have no opinion either way, but comments like those will only detract from the editing experience for others and reflects poorly on your editing style. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== SmithJones, again ==

User SmithJones has accused me of putting "spam" on the ] article. This is a baseless accusation which violates both ] and ]. I hope it is dealt with accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Homeopathy#Warning_to_rational_people_on_this_page

::. if you DO have the dievence, please submit it here or at my talk page or at the talk:homeopathy page so that i can correct my mistake, if i made on. ] (]) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::::You wrote: "none of them invovled the kind of personal attacks '''and spam''' that user; blackamoor is currently suspected of"

::::I have not put any "spam" on ] or any other page. No one has "suspected" or accused me of doing so, because it has not happened. These violations of ] and ] should be dealt with appropriately.] (]) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Could we all just agree that ] isn't a spammer? That seems like the shortest route to harmony in this case. ] (]) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::i am very sorry for my mistakes that iand i will remove tem from my comment to avoid causing you any more harm of emotiaonal destress. ] (]) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== User:71.125.25.134 ==

{{NWQA|Blatant ]. Referred to the ]. --] (]) 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)}}

Recently, {{user2|71.125.25.134}} has been acting disruptively in a dispute regarding the article '']''. It all began. I expressed concern that the "Shirt Stores" links section should be removed as it violated Misplaced Pages policy. So I made an entry on the talk page. I waited for two weeks, and since there was no reply, I decided to ] and remove the shirt stores links .

Then, two days later, the IP user reverted my deletion . I responded by leaving a message on his talk page and reverting his addition, but additionally adding a comment to not readd the links without discussion. After that another user, {{user2|Jarjar13}}, readded the shirt stores links claiming prior discussion had resulted in consensus , I amended my talkpage reply and removed the links once again two days later when there was no reply . (Note:Jarjar13 is not involved in this WQA, since he has acted civilly).

Since then, the IP editor has added the links a second time , and I reverted that edit again, with a stern message in the edit summary not to continue this edit warring . A day later, he once again added the links again . It seems that this IP editor is not willing to talk about this anywhere; he is simply edit warring without having a discussion on the dispute. I've done all I can with the talk pages; I don't know what else to do next. <font color="#D00000">'''RJaguar3 | ] | ]'''</font> 04:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Those are blatant spam. You shouldn't even have to discuss it. Take it to the ] board if this single IP user keeps adding them in. --] (]) 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:''Follow up'' - I have the user in question, and I have added ] to my watchlist. If I see this user add spam links again, I will report them for spamming, and they will likely be blocked (and if necessary, their websites will be blacklisted). --] (]) 09:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Editor posting threats and insults ==

], aside from misinterpreting policy due to apparent language differences, has posted a threat to edit war, and venomous name-calling, at ]: "Coward dolt ... I will continue fighting against you as you are deaf discrimianting dolt. ... Get lost." --] (]) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
: {{user|Cculber007}}, {{user|Tenebrae}} -- for future reference. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 15:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
: I suspect it is regarding the following edits: . I gave notice of the incivility, but I don't see anything too major. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 15:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Discussion with uncivil user on ] ==

Hi,

I'm currently having a problem with ] and this user's comments on ]. His comments create an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. He's commenting in a very hostile and uncivil manner and it seems that he does not ]. His first uncivil comments were posted . I then told him about it, but he did not cease to comment in a uncivil manner. (See and ).

Hopefully somebody can help out, so I can continue the discussion (of course him beeing a bit more polite :-) )

<b><font color="13C0E6">]</font></b>]|] 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:To others, it is easier to see the problems by looking at where they were removed. I have left a stern warning on the user's talkpage. If he continues to post uncivil remarks, let us know. --] (]) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::* Thank you, I'll let you know. <b><font color="13C0E6">]</font></b>]|] 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::* Seems like he still does not assume good faith and is still very impolite on the article's talk page. Comments such as ''You are both trying to dodge the facts of the matter.'' or ''Neither of you have addressed the long list of glaring errors and possibly deliberate misrepresentations of facts that pollute this article and prevent it from being informative in any meaningful way. To the contrary, some here seem actively interested in discouraging anyone from noticing the fact that this article, on an important subject that needs to be covered, is a paranormalist's sick joke and little more.'' Are not what I'd call civil and assuming good faith. It creates a hostile atmosphere. I will not post another warning on the user's talk page (although it would probably be appropriate), because I could have a ]; since I'm already involved. I think I need a little bit help here :-)<b><font color="13C0E6">]</font></b>]|] 16:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::* Well, nothing has changed: Now users are beeing accused of insulting him and changing his arguments . Where's the good faith here? It's really frustrating. Any advice? <b><font color="33CC33">]</font></b>]|] 09:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello,

It looks like I need to explain what exactly ] is talking about here, because she isn't fairly representing the case. I invite everyone to take a look not just at my comments but at all the available comments on the UFO discussion page (bear with me because I'm still trying to figure out all the Wikiepdia HTML hotkeys). It is abundantly clear that the UFO article needs massive editing and, contrary to the accusations leveled against me and my brother (who also took part in the discussion), we specifically refrained from immediately setting about touching up the article because we wanted to get the consensus of everyone interested. Imagine my surprise when, because of this, I was accused of being a "sock puppet" and was accused of trying to distort the facts of the UFO phenomenon, an especially infuriating accusation given the glaring bias of the article as is. I am not being "uncivil," I am just very disappointed that an attempt to achieve intellectual consensus on an article that needs to be saved has been warped into a series of baseless personal attacks against me.

] (]) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)jlray
:* Personal attacks against you? Sorry, but you are the one who's making uncivil comments on the article's talk page and does not assume good faith. Nobody was uncivil against you. Filing a case on ] (]) is not a personal attack. I will address all comments concerning the article on its talk page. I hope we can continue the discussion in a civil manner now.

:*To the others, please don't close the discussion yet. Just in case :-) <b><font color="13C0E6">]</font></b>]|] 15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Jlray, the sockpuppet accusations against you were absolutely warranted. Your behavior has been uncivil and inappropriate. Rather than cop to it, you keep referring to these sockpuppet accusations and the state of the UFO article, as if that excuses your behavior. It doesn't. You were accused of sockpuppetry because both you and your brother use the same computer, on different accounts, and make hostile, inappropriate comments of the exact same nature on the exact same pages. And that's ]. Such a situation ''obviously'' merits an SSP complaint, which was made appropriately and in good faith. You need to drop whatever resentment you have about that, clean up your act, and move on. Stop making personal commentary, stop being hostile, and contribute constructively. --] (]) 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, neither of those have any bearing on how the discussion has gone on that page. I happily invite anyone actually interested in looking past the smear here and look at the attitude of the majority of the editors on the UFO page. I am not defending my past behavior as this person is also incorrectly insinuating here, I am trying to explain it. I consider it a courtesy to put up with accusations of this manner that have absolutely no merit of any kind and are utterly baseless, as the record will show. You are free to stew up further rumors and false accusations as you like; I, however, feel more inclined to dodge the mudslinging and endeavor to fulfill my stated aim of being a good Misplaced Pages editor and try to improve that article. You guys have more important things to do than make up new reasons to insult me, and I have better things to do than pretend that they are relevant.
] (]) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray
:Jlray, your efforts to improve the UFO article are much appreciated. However you have made one mistake as far as Wikiquette is concerned. Admit it and move on. ] (]) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:You don't seem to understand: is an unacceptable comment. Filing a WQA report, SSP report, etc - when merited (which in this case, they were) - is not an "insult." Asking you to contribute constructively and civilly is not an "insult." Continuing to ignore ] (which is a policy, and policy is '''not optional''') may result in more serious, administrative action against you. I strongly suggest you reconsider your rejection of such policies and your unwillingness to discuss your conduct. --] (]) 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== {{user|Cculber007}} ==

{{NWQA|1=Placed this at ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)}}
This has been brought up earlier but it is escalating amongst other users. {{user|Cculber007}} has been warned many times and has been blocked previously for ]. Here is a list of DIFFs, also catalogued on my talk page:
* : Belief that any warnings appropriated by users is nonsensical and would appreciate warnings/notices from administrators only, going against ].
* Wholly inappropriate edit summary, per ].
* Creative reuse of a header.
* Ditto.
* (the second message)
* E-mail from Cculber007 ({{user|66.230.200.216}}) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:20 PM: "That is not vandalism, that is my complaint. I think I contact Misplaced Pages about your bad faith. I am not accepting that you think I vandalised your pages but you vandalised my pages. I get news for you, You are not right person for Misplaced Pages. Remove vandalism words and changing to correct. if not, I will call you as vandalism on my pages."
* E-mail from Culber007 ({{user|66.230.200.216}}) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:26 PM: ""You start to make a fire, you do not want to finish this fire but you want to bring more fires." It means you do not want to solve the problem, you want to start flame war against me instead of others. I think you has something against me as a deaf person. This is last time, changing your comments in your pages from vandalism to complaints. If they are spams and vandalism then Misplaced Pages is deaf discrimination. Do a right things and solve them will give you a chance of Mediation Committee."
Just making a list. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 23:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: User has blocks that extend back two years: . He was given "one more chance" for ]. Perhaps I should report this to ANI or AIV? ] <small>(]) (])</small> 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

: Prior reports at WQA (above) have generated the following AGF-vios: . ] <small>(]) (])</small> 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Locke Cole ==

{{NWQA|A checkuser is not a personal attack. The evidence speaks for itself. This is not a civility / personal attack issue. Take it up elsewhere if you believe the checkuser was "faulty." --] (]) 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)}}

Editor ] is personally attacking me and ] on ] as being sock puppets. The case is made more difficult by a ] of "likely" from a checkuser case Locke Cole initiated against me after I reverted inappropriate edits he made to ]. I have asked him to stop attacking me in this way at least twice and placed a on his talk page. As of now, he is continuing to make this false claim against me and another editor rather than addressing the substance of my comments. As I composed this, he placed on my talk page denying his conduct. ] (]) 03:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:Please see ] as well as ]. —] • ] • ] 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Stating the results of a checkuser is not a personal attack. There is nothing wrong with Locke Cole's behavior, unless you have more evidence to report besides this sort of thing. --] (]) 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::Well, from the ] page, there are a number of places where he accuses me and Ray andrew of being sock puppets. While he can say truthfully what the result of a checkuser case is ("Likely"), he cannot use that result to support a further conclusion of sockpuppetry. That is, a "Likely" outcome in a checkuser case is not logically equivalent to sock puppetry. So, it is his opinion that sock puppetry is taking place and the accusation he makes of it is both slanderous and incivil. We have both asked him to stop with the personal attacks and he has not. ] (]) 04:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::First of all, in ] you are 100% wrong (see: ] which outlines exactly why a Warner Bros. press release is not a reliable source when compared to secondary sources - if secondary sources assess Warner Bros. as essentially Blu-Ray exclusive, then that's what they are, even if the press release technically states that they won't officially 100% make the switch until whenever). It also appears that you and an a very small number (possibly just you and one other editor who might be you also) are making these sorts of (incorrect in that case) changes to the article, sometimes with a much larger opposition. A "likely" on a checkuser is ''not'' just a "maybe" or "like, whatever." The fact is, you can't use your numerical weight anymore. The two of you editing to, say, end-run around 3RR (hypothetical example) or to carry twice as much weight in a straw-poll or other consensus-measuring discussion (not so hypothetical) - these are no longer viable for you and this other user (assuming it isn't also you). --] (]) 23:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Racial slurs and consistent profanity. ==

{{resolved|1=Next offence, refer to ]. Gave final notice. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)}}
An anonymous user ( ] (]) ) has been using both racial slurs and consistent profanity in edit summaries. The most recent occurrences are , , , and . Such behavior is way out of line and should not be tolerated. ] (]) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
: {{user|77.42.129.119}}. Taking care of it. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 04:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Gave final notice, since other editors have warned the IP of various infractions. On next offence, refer to ]. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== Diffs for assertions about behavior? ==

{{NWQA|This may not even be a complaint at all, but if it is, I will refer the complaining editor back to the ] noticeboard, where ''editors' behavior is discussed''. I would find it hard to justify using WP:NPA to keep people from ''discussing editors' behavior'' there. --] (]) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)}}
We deal with editors who's behavior ranges from outstanding to borderline anti-social, this means that it's sometimes necessary to call out bad behavior. Certainly the truth as best as we can remember, whether good or bad, should be told. However given that people make mistakes, is it considered "bad" Wikiquette to cite examples of what we mean when describing bad behavior?

For example ] says I have a long history of trolling and goading. Were our roles reversed and I was making a similar comment, I'd actually cite diff(s) so he understood exactly what I meant. (Bearing in mind that I'm not asking to actually discuss what he said about my behavior, only if it would have been better/worse from a Wikiquette standpoint to cite examples.) ] 07:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, can you explain, is this an etiquette complaint? --] (]) 08:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::No, this is forum shopping. My comment was made at the ] noticeboard and was based on the findings of ] as well as the comments {{user|Anynobody}} had made at the relevant AE thread. I suggest that the matter be dealt with where it started, rather than igniting disputes across Misplaced Pages in multiple fora. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:::''Ohhhh'', now I see. This is either forum shopping, or something that belongs on the talk page of this alerts board (if it were an honest "so is this incivility?" question). Regardless, in an ongoing arbitration enforcement discussion, past behavior is ''obviously'' relevant. If this is a complaint, it is frivolous, and if it is a question, then the answer is "no." There is clearly nothing wrong with discussing the behavior of other editors at an arbitration enforcement discussion, citing examples or not. And Anynobody, is completely inappropriate. --] (]) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

<blockquote style="border: 1px solid blue; padding: 2em;">I'm sorry to have to delay an actual reply on the Wikiquette board, but I was blocked for discussing an editors past on the arbcom enforcement board. This isn't a complaint, I tried to make that clear by explaining that I wasn't even sure if there is a precedent for this kind of thing and trying to explain to ] that it mentions but is not about him. (Giving hypothetical situations can add confusion because it may not adequately describe the actual situation in question. As I said, I would have cited examples and it sounds like doing so would not be bed Wikiquette. (I do regret but please understand it can be quite frustrating to be accused of such things without something to back it up.) ] 03:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
</blockquote>

In retrospect I wish I had paid closer attention to where I was posting as indeed this would've been better posted on the talk page. ] 03:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{WQA in progress}}
This user makes it difficult for me to edit productively on Misplaced Pages. He has long had an issue with me, and generally makes baseless accusations that I'm somehow trying to push creationist POVs into articles related to Evolution. I've tried for a long time to simply avoid him, but that doesn't seem possible.

Most recently, he some of my edits to the ] lead that were related to a long discussion with several editors on ]. Note his inflammatory edit comment. I his reversion (once only), referring him civilly to the talk page discussion, and complained politely on his talk page. He promptly my message on his talk page (with some name-calling in the edit comment), my Evolution edits, (ironically) a 3RR warning on my talk page, and left a rude on ] (something about me and another supposed Creationist masturbating each other). This is at least abusive, and could probably be classified as disruptive editing.

For a look at his history of harassing me, and another example of his abuse of Misplaced Pages's systems, see the frivolous he filed against me, and note its by <s>the well-known administrator</s> ].

I really need help dealing with ] in order for me to continue spending my time trying to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Please let me know whether or not this is the right forum for trying to resolve things. Thanks, ] (]) 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:Please note that this complain is a retribution for said RfC, which was endorsed by several well-known administrators. I do not believe that SandyGeorgia is an admin. Gnixon is well-know for utilizing these administrative areas to battle his content disputes rather than gain consensus. There was no consensus to a long-standing FA. Gnixon should be blocked from editing for this type of attacks on my person.] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::Sorry, I was apparently wrong about her being an admin. Whoever looks into this should please be sure to follow the links instead of relying on my and OM's vastly different descriptions. ] (]) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Personal attack again, by implying no good faith that my "vastly different description" is somehow wrong. I am always being attacked personally by Gnixon. I have tried numerous times to work with him, but finally after so many personal attacks by him, I had to file an RfC, which was endorsed by several respected editors. I'm not sure why Gnixon insists on these personal attacks, but I would hope he'd stop. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As an outsider with a strong pro-science (and actually anti-religion) bias I am surprised to find myself on Gnixon's side after reading through some of the material. I think Gnixon's characterisation of ] (started by Orangemarlin) as "frivolous" is correct. SandyGeorgia's ] is well worth reading, regardless of whether she is an admin or not. I think it is fair to say that many of the 74 diffs provided by Orangemarlin have "vastly different descriptions" from what they actually say, and therefore Gnixon has every right in the world to warn people not to rely on them unchecked. It is absurd to call this a "personal attack". It seems that Orangemarlin has lost all contact with reality in his assessment of Gnixon's behaviour and actions, to the point where he interprets even the notification about this discussion . I hope that Orangemarlin comes to his senses before this is escalated further and he has to be ]. --] (]) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:I disagree, at least at first glance, with Hans's assessment of Gnixon's behavior. He ''is'' pushing POV, and it's pretty clear because he's using (among other things) a well-known and strongly-discouraged tactic. Whenever a biologist comments on evolution, and says something that discredits creationism, Gnixon seems to want to qualify it with something like "Dr. Sally Scientist, professor of evolutionary biology '''and well-known/outspoken atheist''' said ''blah blah blah''." Maybe it has to do with the fact that he dismisses some published, reputable academic sources because he considers some biologists to be (a consideration that could be just as easily used to discredit his side of the debate). That's totally unacceptable and does exactly the opposite of what NPOV requires. Gnixon is complaining about OrangeMarlin re-reverting him. Which means Gnixon must have reverted a revert - another big no-no, flying in the face of consensus-building (and meriting a 3RR warning). And OrangeMarlin can remove whatever comments he wants from his talk page.
:Now, is OrangeMarlin making rude comments, probably out of frustration? Yes. Editors do this alot. And that should be dealt with, in this case it may be serious. But I don't think SandyGeorgia's examination of the RfC/U was a resolution to this problem, and it does not let Gnixon off the hook - there is a content dispute, and regardless of how much of the administrative hoop-jumping these two have been doing to report each other and whatever, the underlying issue involves edits like or are blatant POV problems - other edits are more mild, but still do things like chalk up scientifically accepted theories to the author of the reference, instead of presenting them as supported by a consensus in the scientific community. Looking through the history of ] for example shows giant strings of edits by Gnixon, and right in the middle of them he sneaks in ''deleting the entire history section''. Why?? He is constantly reverting the revert, demanding that his changes be accepted (instead of the status quo version), and directing others to the talk page as if his version should stand until a consensus is established (instead of the existing status quo consensus-built version).
:Now, over all, as far as the WQA is concerned, I think this is honestly just another forum they've found to complain about each others' behavior. I recommend mediation, if not arbitration, because the underlying content dispute doesn't seem to ever end and it's resulted in long chains of complaints, reports, etc. I don't know what will happen if/when it's kicked up the ladder though. OrangeMarlin's incivility is not appropriate, but it is no excuse for or endorsement of Gnixon's contributions, and it looks to me like that's what this whole thing is really about. --] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I am sorry that I didn't make it clear enough that I did not actually assess Gnixon's behaviour but only Orangemarlin's. In fact, what you describe is what I ''expected'' to see in Orangemarlin's RfC diffs. But there are 74 diffs, many of which are mislabelled, and most of which seem to be perfectly harmless. I didn't check them all. I am aware that I don't know the full story, and that it is probably hard to know the full story without working on some of the relevant pages for a while. I have experienced the kind of friction that arises when people with vastly different backgrounds work on the same article, especially when laypeople push their pov against experts. Something like this might be going on here, but then Orangemarlin has done a bad job of exposing it; it is not evident to me from what I have seen and I am not willing to get much more involved. I still think Orangemarlin deserves to be punished in the way I suggested (which shouldn't be too bad for a marlin), and I have no idea if Gnixon deserves anything, or if so, what. --] (]) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'd like to respond very briefly. Much of my editing involves trimming things; I know that can be contentious; I try very hard to discuss and get along with everyone. I think of myself as being very pro-science, but I try very hard to keep any personal perspective out of my editing, and I prefer not to talk about my personal views, which would apparently surprise Orangemarlin. Of your references to my edits, I only see examples of trimming things down, except in the admittedly debatable argument for identifying Dawkins as both an expert biologist and an outspoken atheist when referencing his book "The God Delusion" in the context of the creation-evolution conflict. I don't remember editing with you, but you seem to be familiar with me. I welcome and appreciate your comments, and if criticism of my editing is necessary here, I'm open to hearing it. ] (]) 00:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, I forgot to mention that I strongly believe there are boneheads in all fields of science, including one with which I'm quite familiar, as well as in all other professions. I assure you I didn't mean to call any particular scientists or groups of scientists boneheads, rather I was emphasizing that my prior statement in the diff was true of all scientists, as I think you'll agree if you'll please humor me by re-reading the comment. ] (]) 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::A passive aggressive personal attack on me again. You need to be banned for your ongoing personal attacks. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Could anyone tell me how that could possibly be construed as an attack against OM, of all people? I'm sorry this seems to be degenerating, and I'll try to limit my comments here from now on. ] (]) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Another personal attack on me. I'm starting to feel as though I need to file an alert against your continued rudeness against me. However, I try to refrain from using the system unless the problem becomes severe. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This would be the place you'd file that complaint, except that neither of those two comments by Gnixon contain personal attacks. You need to refine your definition of personal attack. -- ] (]) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I second Hans' comment above. I am not uninvolved in this dispute and nor do I edit articles on intelligent design or creationism, which are areas in which I have no particular interest. I am not necessarily taking sides here because I am not familiar with Gnixon or his editing. But as a general principle, I would strongly urge any interested party here to ''thoroughly'' research Orangemarlin's contribs and editing style rather than accepting any assertions made by him at face value. ] (]) 23:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be about civility than editing style? I don't support ]'s incivility, and in that sense, I agree with Hans and Badger, but my (limited) experience with his work is that it is pretty much supported by good references. Any editor's contentions need to be supported by reliable sources. In the case of science articles, that should be either peer reviewed scientific journals, or works closely based on them. I think singling out Orange Marlin like this implies that his assertions are not based on reliable sources, and unless you know something beyond your implications, you should come forward with specific issues regarding his edits. Otherwise, this comes across as bad-faith, implying that this editor is making unfounded assertions. ] (]) 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
:You've misunderstood me. Orangemarlin's ''article'' or "content" editing is always tolerable, usually accurate, and sometimes very good (from what I have seen, at least). He is a committed encyclopaedist. But his attitude to civility is disgusting and his treatment of other editors is frequently - very frequently - offensive and shows scant regard for their feelings, or for that matter for basic standards of decency. The "assertions" I refer to are along the lines of his assertion that Gnixon's post above constitutes incivility and a personal attack , but apparently edits like do not.

:Eh? If you can explain the logic of that then you are most certainly a cleverer person than I am.

:You seem to think that I am commenting on Orangemarlin's article editing style - I am in fact referring to his edits on talk pages and in edit summaries. This is not about religion vs science. This is about Orangemarlin's basic incivility, extreme arrogance, and disregard for the principles that help make Misplaced Pages function- things like WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc etc etc. I am not a proponent of intelligent design nor a creationist (in so far as there's any difference between the two anyway). I am a scientist. But Orangemarlin has no right to treat other editors the way that he does and it should '''stop'''. ] (]) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah .... I see your point now. I am agreement with you. ] (]) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::I admit my faults Badgerpatrol. I am sorry we came to a head against each other at ]. It makes me sad that you have to take Gnixon's side in this matter, because I wouldn't want to force you to support any creationist editor, because you are a scientist. I hope that I can make it up to you somehow. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::(ec w/OM) In terms of OrangeMarlin's conduct, this is absolutely right - his edits may be "right" and his contributions may be good, but his conduct is absolutely not. However, he seems willing to discuss his behavior (see his talk page). --] (]) 00:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually not. As I've stated about 350 times, possibly more, I cannot accept that there is a standard of behavior that can be described as "civil" or "uncivil." Civility is used as a method of controlling free speech, and I will not be a party to it. I do not attack anyone personally, although I'm most willing to point out their poor editing. I completely will admit I do not assume good faith, but I need to be convinced that good faith should be given. However, my sexual metaphor was incorrect, and I shall endeavor to remove it. Please do not accept what I wrote on my talk page as giving into the personal attacks of Gnixon. I will stand up to his attacking. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::OrangeMarlin, you have acknolwedged that your comment was inappropriate - that would be a standard of civility. Unfortunately, you don't get to decide whether or not there are standards of behavior - we have them, and you're required to follow them. Also, please refer to ] - Misplaced Pages makes no guarantee of free speech, but civility policy places absolutely no restrictions on what kind of relevant comments you can make, only how you can make them. Please review ], you may find it helpful. --] (]) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::If OM can agree to deal with me civilly, stop labeling me a creationist (which I view as a baseless attempt to discredit me) and "POV-pusher", and respond to my edits in good faith, then I have no further need of help. However, I have tried repeatedly in the past to secure those courtesies, and have failed. Comments from outside observers are most welcome. (written before OM's post below, posted after) ] (]) 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::But Gnixon, your edits ''are'' pushing a creationist POV. Those labels are well-earned. I am willing to accept that you are editing in good faith, but that doesn't mean your contributions aren't creating biased articles. Commenting on your contributions is not verboten - to say that your edits are pushing a POV is only inappropriate if it's baseless. --] (]) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I suppose I understand your position, Cheeser1, but it's ''at the very least'' debatable whether I'm in fact pushing creationist POV. I've made it very clear that I don't think I am, and I've asserted that it has never been my intention to do so. Not being trained in acting or fictional writing, I would find it difficult to push creationist POV. However, I am trained in science and technical writing, and ''unbiased'' reporting of facts is important to me (although I pointedly don't ask you to rely on claims about who or what I am in real life). Judging from what you've written, we could apparently debate whether a rational observer would infer a slant from my edits. However, having made clear that I resent those characterizations and consider them baseless, one could at least do me the courtesy of saying one ''"thinks"'' that ''"my edits"'' are such and such, or "judges" them to be such and such, instead of stating it as an acknowledged fact. In OM's case, my interpretation is that he deliberately mischaracterizes me and repeats these assertions as fact so that people will believe I'm some sly creationist POV pusher without looking at the facts. I think that is extremely offensive and contrary to the principles of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 01:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::You are what you edit. I don't think denying it changes what people think of your edits, fair or not, because that's so often a tactic of vandals and admitted POV pushers. If your edits are vandalism, you're a vandal (note:hypothetical). If your edits are nonNPOV, then you're editing with a POV problem. If your edits are biased towards creationism, then you're a creationist as far as your contributions are concerned. If you want that to stop, you better start respecting the ]. Your edit history is full of instances where you defy the community standards for consensus building, which is probably the main reason think you're pushing a POV instead of just making bad edits in good faith. --] (]) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I think that's kind of unfair to me. Is this the right place to discuss it at length? I don't want to distract this discussion from the original topic, but if you think this is an important enough element to warrant discussion here, I'm happy to discuss things. ] (]) 02:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::More to the point, the thing I object to is OM going to great lengths to tell everyone what he thinks of my edits and what he believes my motivations are. I don't have a thin skin, but I think it's uncivil for him to deliberately attempt to bias others toward me. Calling me a creationist, a POV-pusher, and a creationist POV-pusher on articles like ] where people are sensitive to those types is a direct attack on my credibility, and it seems to be motivated by personal antipathy to me and a zealous need to guard science, not by the facts. This is obviously an issue of degree, as I don't dispute anyone's right to tell others what they think of my edits. However, I think his behavior amounts to a lot of vindictive name-calling. ] (]) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Vindictive name-calling? Another personal attack against me. What's that? Ten in this thing? I'm starting to feel aggrieved. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::Having looked at the recent history of the ] article I must now say that I agree with Cheeser1 on this. What is going on there must be extremely trying for the experts. The entire situation reminds me of the relation one often sees between children and their parents. The children have a lot of energy for mischief, while the parents try to concentrate on serious work. Eventually the parents get aggressive, and that is wrong and looks completely unjustified to outside observers. But it is very understandable. --] (]) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::For my own part, it would be useful to see examples of edits considered to be POV-pushing. Like Hans, I also have had a (very) quick scan through Gnixon's edits to ] but unlike Hans, I didn't see much to immediately concern me. Note for clarity that I am ''not'' taking ''anybody's'' "side" and I am ''not'' claiming to be familiar with Gnixon's edits. I am only requesting evidence. Can we have some diffs to back up the claims? ] (]) 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Check the failed RfC or some of the diffs I cited (which I pulled out of there). Yes, OrangeMarlin cites alot of stuff that isn't relevant, but he cites alot of stuff that is too. I gave enough examples above to give you some idea, I think. --] (]) 02:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: - I don't understand what's wrong with this comment. I know plenty of scientists, and some (the majority) are very clever and very accomplished people indeed. Equally, some of them are "boneheads", or could reasonably described as such (although it would be rather rude to do so). Scientists are not Gods, they're just people. Similarly, peer review is a good tool but not infallible - some dross does slip through, and the quality of journals ranges from the elite (''Nature'', ''Science'', ''Royal Society'') to the not so good (''New Dworkin Journal of Mammology'', or its non-fictional equivalent). My knowledge of creationism is more or less gleaned from reading the newspaper, but it was my understanding that it does indeed have quite strong support amongst the general public in America and in many other countries. That does not, of course, make it any more true - and neither does Gnixon say that in his comment.
:::::::There's an irony here that I'm disappointed everyone missed, although it's understandable without the context. I was actually writing ''in support of someone who criticized Intelligent Design proponents'' for not having publications. They said "all great scientists" have publications, but in fact, ''all'' legitimate scientists have publications. Thus if ID has no publications in peer-reviewed journals, it's not only that there are no "great" ID scientists, but that there can't be ''any'' legitimate ID scientists (not even of the boneheaded variety). ] (]) 03:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: - This is a major edit and he might have been well advised to discuss on the talk page first (especially on such a sensitive article). But I don't think its a particularly bad edit- the trimmed material was written in a familiar, almost first person style and the given reference is...hardly unimpeachable as a source.
:::::::I don't remember having any problem with the reference, but I thought it inappropriate for that paragraph about "theory" in science to go off on a long tangential lecture about forensics. ] (]) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: - I kind of see your point here but this edit is certainly not unambiguous either. Assuming good faith, he's only adding manifest fact. Richard Dawkins is (arguably) far better known for his views on religion and other supernatural phenomena than he is as a biologist (or at least he is these days, anyway). I believe his chair at Oxford is in "Public Understanding of Science". <small>(I don't know enough about Dennett to comment on what his exact position is.)</small>
::::::Again, I am not familiar enough with this situation to take ''anybody's'' "side" - but I would not in a million years suggest that these edits constitute "blatant" POV. Apart from the last one, which maybe is debatable (although obviously true) I could easily have made those edits myself. Gnixon may be a creationist and a POV pusher who is driving everyone to frustration, but those edits (and a random sampling of those from the RfC, although I have not by any means looked at them all) do not at all demonstrate it to me. ] (]) 02:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::The point is that he's edit warring over this stuff, way out of bounds of WP:CONS. Even if you assume as much good faith as possible, once he starts edit warring, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. If somebody says "revert due to creationist bias" and Gnixon reverts it right back, I can't fathom how there could be a good-faith explanation beyond not understanding WP:CONS, WP:R, etc. --] (]) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::And I can't fathom how there can be a good faith explanation of how it can be justified to call someone a creationist based on edits which do not betray any obvious creationist tendencies. Orangemarlin has shown some contrition tonight and conducted himself in a (comparitively) admirable way, and on that basis, I (genuinely) don't want to appear to be laying into him. But ] only works if everyone is willing to assume good faith and discuss issues in a calm and rational way to build or adjust consensus. "Calm and rational" does ''not'' describe my experience with Orangemarlin and some of his regular editing colleagues (none of whom have weighed in here so far btw, and I think the discussion is much the better for it). Gnixon shouldn't edit war (has he broken the 3rr?) but sadly I very much doubt if his edits or points for discussion would have got a fair hearing on talk. I know from bitter personal experience that it is extremely difficult to get OM and his associates to actually respond constructively to substantive argument in a balanced and constructive way. ] (]) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I agree that edit warring is bad, and there have probably been times in the past when I've too vigorously defended edits in the article instead of on the talk page (but I suspect that's true of many or most editors). I'm always trying to do better; I've never been accused of violating 3RR; I've never been warned or had any action taken against me for anything. While undoing OM's recent revert may not have been the best response, I don't know any policy that it violated, especially given my interpretation that it was done completely in bad faith. For a well-trod article like Evolution, obviously the best response was just to leave a note on the talk page and let someone else undo what OM did. I'll do that in the future. ] (]) 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Undo what I did? You mean you're attacking me personally for making a good faith reversion? I'm tiring of these personal attacks. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict) Just take , which removes the following from the lede: "It encountered initial resistance from religious authorities who believed humans were ] set apart from the animal ]" (among other things). The justification was: "changes to tighten last paragraph of lead. Dropped mention of Wallace w/o lying. Dropped mention of early resistance from religious corners as non-essential. Still a little wordy." This is inappropriate because this controversy was historically extremely important. And as we all know, in the US it is still not over, although the exact contested points are evolving. (It's even beginning to spread to the UK and Germany.) This is a minor point, but there is currently a revert war going on on it. Another example is , which also resulted in a fight. This would be easier to defend. I am not saying it is inappropriate behaviour to make such edits. I am saying that the editors who are trying to defend reason against the simplistic religious POV must be feeling like the parents in my analogy. The children are continuously asking for lots of little things and making a drama if they don't get them. It seems to be easier to just concede a point without a fight; but then they get bolder and demand more and more. This kind of thing is very enervating, but also very hard to prove, because every single instance looks like it is not a big deal. --] (]) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::And, to make that clear, while I can understand how some parents resort to beating their children for this behaviour, it doesn't just look bad, it's also morally wrong. That's why I wanted to ] (or feed?) Orangemarlin. --] (]) 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hans, I can see what you mean and why that might be the case - it is difficult to take edits out of context and judge them, and the sum of the parts may be greater than the individual edits themselves, which is why I'm being fairly careful with how I phrase things. Gnixon has not explicitly made crystal clear here what his actual position is (although I do appreciate that this is a debate about Oranagemarlin's incivility, not Gnixon's personal beliefs). In isolation, the edits you quote indeed are no big deal (the second one I might have made myself, and the first I can certainly see a justification for, and in general he seems to make his arguments in a constructive and reserved fashion), but if it is pre-supposed that Gnixon is a creationist POV-pusher (i.e. if initial good faith is put aside) then obviously they take on a different tone. I would however like to see the evidence that he actually ''is'' a creationist POV-pusher rather than just an ''a priori'' assumption. (Either way, it doesn't excuse name-calling and gross incivility). ] (]) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::But Hans, while I agree with your assessment of the sensitive nature of Evolution and the parents/children analogy, I don't know that it applies here. The fight you refer to was started by OM's reversion of my edit, and the last time I checked the page, everyone was happy when someone else changed things back to exactly my version. Regarding those cuts which you thought were "inappropriate", those changes were made in consistency with wide consensus that the Evolution article should avoid prominently discussing the creation-evolution controversy---how could going against the creationists' "Teach the Controversy" strategy in this case be construed as a pro-creationist POV push?? I agree that these issues are subtle, which is why I hoped to keep this action focused on specific, overt acts of incivility. However, I understand if people think broader things should be discussed. ] (]) 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Reverting long-time stable verbiage is hardly an attack on you. But your continued attacks on me are becoming troublesome.] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, but this is much more detail than I ever wanted to go into. So just a brief reply before I go to bed. To stay in my analogy, if there is a consensus among the children that they all need icecream instantly then it doesn't necessarily mean that the parents should give it to them. They must not beat the children, and they shouldn't use foul language, but if they give in the children will demand a playstation next week. --] (]) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, but if there is a consensus among Misplaced Pages editors that the article must have ice cream, then by Misplaced Pages's basic principles, the article gets ice cream! (Totally off-topic, but I couldn't resist.) Thanks for weighing in, Hans, and sorry this thing ballooned. ] (]) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found many of these comments helpful. I would really appreciate if even more people (preferably totally uninvolved) would weigh in. Thanks, ] (]) 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:I may not be totally uninvolved, as I have clashed with Orangemarlin on religio-political articles, but I would like to fully endorse Badgerpatrol's view of the situation.
:Certainly OM frequents articles that attract controversial editing, and some of the people he deals with really are trolls or sockpuppets, but this does not excuse his behavior. He fans flames and creates enemies, when a more respectful approach might defuse conflicts and guide others towards productive editing. This is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, especially given the high-profile location of his activities, in that editors inclined to be reasonable are driven away and the rest are turned into warriors. He needs to realize this and change his ways.
:He clearly is highly intelligent, and is (I have heard and do not doubt it) a productive encyclopedist. He is also (by his own testimony, which rings true) a successful businessman. Thus I cannot believe that he is incapable of realizing the problem here and becoming a better citizen. --] (]/]) 05:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::{{user5|Orangemarlin}} should apologize for the comment he made at ]. Ulitimately, let's not get distracted with red herrings. The only question that should be on the Table is whether or not this demands a caveat-free apology. <font style="background-color:#218921; color:blue;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Table</font><font style="background-color:#121298; color:white;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">Manners</font><sup>]·]·]</sup> 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I would prefer if OM's behavior toward me (and others) was discussed in general, but I'll understand if people want to restrict this to the recent incident (comprised of several edits), given that I haven't provided past diffs beyond the RfC. ] (]) 06:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::My behavior? Another attack on me. That makes at least 12 on this alert itself. I think I'm going to have to disengage from your abusive behavior, or it might cause me undue harm on this project.] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes your behavior. That's what the WQA is here to discuss. Just because Gnixon mentions your name does not make it a personal attack - it seems like anytime he says anything, you think it's a personal attack. I would strongly suggest that you "disengage" from this discussion - your conduct is starting to become a bit problematic. And no, that's not a personal attack. --] (]) 06:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Cheeser here, it's becoming tiresome to hear OrangeMarline parrot the same line again and again. And I agree with BadgerPatrol's overall assessement of the situation. ] (]) 10:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I'll also agree with Chesser's observations, and based upon past interactions with OM and his comments here at WQA, he seems to fringe on being rather incivil. Not every user who comments, or opposes your viewpoints OM is attacking your credibility or stance, but if it ''does'' continue, then other actions will be required. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 14:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
(undent)I came across this discussion by accident. Since I've had some interaction with OrangeMarlin, I'll comment briefly. I note Seicer's comment that, "if it ''does'' continue, then other actions will be required." Therefore, I note that this kind of thing has '''''already''''' been continuing for a long time, at least in the context of matters with which I have been involved. I'll give two brief examples, although more examples are available upon request. On October 19 of 2007, OrangeMarlin : "I can't wait to watching you fucked over." That resulted in . On December 26, OrangeMarlin of being "anti-semitic" merely for having used the word "chutzpa." Again, a to OrangeMarlin. I'm concerned that Misplaced Pages does not have any efficient way to keep track of such warnings; in this case, we apparently have a situation where each person giving a warning is unaware of previous warnings.] (]) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Ah Ferrylodge. This must be a revenge comment because I put you up for review by ArbCom. Sorry, but it's bold faced attempt by you. You're on probation, not me. Oh, one more thing. The comment was anti-semitic. I get choose what offends me. Not you. Your people weren't executed by the millions by Nazis. My family was. I tend to take casual comments like that very poorly. Apparently, you choose to further that type of anti-Semitism, which I don't personally like. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::You attack my alleged motives, instead of addressing the diffs. Typical. I will now provide a small bit of the further evidence regarding your incivility, in response to your ongoing attack. You again now refer --- dishonestly --- to my religious heritage. Previously, you wrote I responded by saying, OrangeMarlin, as one Jew to another, I hope that you will reconsider your preposterous style of editing, and I hope that some action is taken against you sooner rather than later to expedite that reconsideration.] (]) 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Per Cheeser, let me be a lot more serious about this. Gnixon has done this several times to me and other editors. I'm not going to dig up the diffs, but if you want them, I'll take time from dealing with vandals who seem to be attacking articles today. I consider several of Gnixon's comments to be highly inflammatory. He has accused me of harassing him, he has accused me of a variety of things. Almost every one of his comments is a veiled attack. Gnixon is a abusive, disruptive editor. I don't countenance his personal attacks on me, no matter how slight. This whole conversation is a waste of time. I've made the changes to the comments I made in the Talk section, I've apologized to two or three editors (and not one of those wimpy apologies, but a straight out obvious one). Gnixon ought to apologize to all of us for wasting time on a frivolous activity, for besmirching my good name, and for POV-warrioring (even Badgerpatrol, who has only a marginal tolerance of me, called Gnixon that). So let's move on. If you want me to apologize to Gnixon, I will because I was wrong in my sexual metaphor (which I've stated before). But someone needs to tell Gnixon that he's gaming this system with these constant attacks on me. And that's what this is. It's cute that the other POV-warriors like Ferrylodge lump into the fray, but I'm used to him. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:RE:"even Badgerpatrol, who has only..." - Your interpretation of events, and especially my comments, is so hopelessly skewed that frankly I can only assume deliberate mendacity on your part. Show me a diff where I call Gnixon a POV-warrior. I have stated repeatedly throughout this conversation that in fact I have yet to see ''any'' convincing evidence that Gnixon is a POV-pusher and I've repeatedly requested that others provide it. Redact or retract your statement above in so far as it pertains to your utter (deliberate?) misreading of my statements on this matter. I for one ''certainly would'' like you to actually provide some diffs to back up your point of view- I would especially like to see Gnixon's "highly inflammatory" commments, which as I'm sure you understand, would potentially turn this entire thread on its head.

:Produce them please.

:Orangemarlin, I have to say that your behaviour is becoming increasingly bizarre - and that's certainly not a personal attack, it's a statement of genuine puzzlement. ] (]) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:This isn't about one sexual metaphor. It's about a repeated pattern of incivility toward myself and others for which OM shows no remorse, and which he makes clear he has no intention of curtailing (consider all the comments about rejecting civility in principle). I have no confidence that this conversation has yet solved the problem. ] (]) 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Agree.] (]) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:OrangeMarlin, I think the problem is that you spend too much time thinking about what Gnixon says, and not nearly enough time thinking about what you say. Everything he says seems to be a personal attack (see above - he made two harmless comments and you took great offense). And you don't seem to be entirely clear on where you should draw the line when you're speaking (er, typing). I would suggest that you ], review your own contributions (not others') and think seriously about ''how'' you say things (and to some extent, what you say). You are often in heated content disputes, incivility pops up all the time, but you seem to be exceptionally prone to making such comments. You should think things over seriously, because despite Gnixon's behavior, despite how right you might be in a content dispute, you are still just as much subject to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and you can wind up blocked for that - if you don't take the time to think about things, an admin might force you to, and I don't want to see that happen when you do seem to have good intentions, however egregious your behavior might become. --] (]) 21:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat tired of seeing this behaviour from Orangemarlin and am appalled by the (thankfully since removed). I have previously told OM of my intention to block him for breach of WP:CIV and WP:NPA should it continue and am close to doing so due to that comment. However, it would be sensible not to do so given the (hopefully) productive discussions going on here. ] ] 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:Violet, I appreciate your comment, and I too hope these discussions have been or will be productive. However, please consider the following:

:Before your , Orangemarlin had already been about ] and ] by ] for calling me a . A third admin has him for edit-warring. Even now, Orangemarlin WP:CIV as a matter of principle, much like he your warning as "a bunch of crap." This represents a consistent pattern over at least the last 9 months without any sign of change. Yet interest in this discussion seems to have died off.

:What message is the community trying to send? Apparently, consistent hostility and incivility toward other editors is at most frowned upon. If explicitly rude name-calling finally pushes someone to complain, Orangemarlin needs only point the finger back at the complainant, obfuscate things with a fantastical reinterpretation of events, and wait a few hours for things to blow over. At worst, he'll be given warning number N+1, which will quickly be archived from his talk page and forgotten about, whence he's free to return to his old ways. I'm not screaming for blood here, but I wish someone would get through to him that ] in non-negotiable. ] (]) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::What do you want besides frowning upon? This is the WQA, we are not an administrative alert board, and if you're so convinced that nothing will ever change, why are you making a complaint to a place where the best we can do is give him "warning number N+1"? Also, you are grossly mischaracterizing the response to the complaint - please do not lash out at the people who are trying very hard to help you resolve the situation just because they didn't do exactly what you want, or because they happened to notice that you are not completely blameless in this matter. --] (]) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't have a detailed knowledge of the WQA process; I'm not sure what options are available to it; I'm not sure what specific action needs to be taken. I suppose I'm just frustrated that nothing seems to have gotten through to Orangemarlin. I certainly don't mean to lash out at those who have posted comments here, since many of them seem quite helpful. If anywhere, my criticism is directed at the general response from the community; however, my point is not to criticize, but rather to argue that the "masturbation" comment should be considered as part of a larger problem. ] (]) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:(Ironically, one of OM's favorite activities is to post warnings to other users. A glance at his shows some 25 such posts, often labeled "Final/Last Warning." Is Orangemarlin the best choice for WikiCop?) ] (]) 20:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::Those warnings are a standard part of editing on Misplaced Pages. I dish out several of those a day, sometimes, because they are necessary in order to utilize the ]. Please do not decontextualize or mischaracterize what ] positive contributions by OrangeMarlin. This comment isn't even relevant to the issue at hand. --] (]) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Looking at a few of the warnings before my comment (to fulfill the onus of AGF), was partly what led me to question the whether Orangemarlin was appropriate for that important but sensitive role. However, I understand it's a little off-topic, so I won't pursue it further. Apologies, ] (]) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::(edit conflict) The vast majority of these warnings seem to be for obvious cases of vandalism to pages that Orangemarlin is watching. I think this makes your rhetorical question weaker than it would be otherwise. --] (]) 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree that most were obvious cases of vandalism that deserved response, but my point need only rest on the observation that even vandals are entitled to ], and perhaps a gentle touch is even more valuable in that arena than elsewhere. Anyway, as I mentioned above, that's only a side-point, and I'll let it go having said my peace. ] (]) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

<strike>I agree with Cheeser1 that WQA</strike>If no more action can be taken than warning OM, which has been repeatedly demonstrated not to make any difference to his behaviour, then WP:WQA is more or less a useless talking shop, unless it can lead to a more substantive way forward. <strike>I agree with Gnixon however that</strike> the situation with Orangemarlin is a weeping sore that has gone on too long. We should AGF that most of his disseminated warnings are for vandalism, but we have all seen that OM's definition of a personal attack against him is...bizarre, at best. I would very much like to see diffs of Gnixon's "highly inflammatory" comments that OM seems to have found so provocative. OM's repeated allegations of personal attacks against him are indeed often fantastical, from what I can see, and seem to almost lapse into autosuggestion. Repeating a lie a thousand times does not make it any more true, as OM's own dealings with creationists and ID proponents should presumably have made clear to him. This discussion has been constructive and I think could lead to real and lasting progress on the issue. If, as Cheeser1 seems to state, WQA is not the appropriate forum for a lasting solution, then comments on what ''is'' an appropriate forum would be welcome. ] (]) 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:Your comment itself is bizarre. Cheeser1 has been very active working on this complaint; spinning to an exasperated Gnixon in the way you are doing is absurd. "We should AGF that most of his disseminated warnings are for vandalism" also looks like a bizarre attack to me. There is no need to AGF, we can just look at his logs. I already had a (very quick) look at OM's warnings and , in reply to Gnixon's remark. <s>I will AGF and merely conclude that you are merely too lazy to do the same. But that's no reason to assume everybody else is equally lazy. This nonsense only distracts from the ''valid'' points you are making in your comment.</s> --] (]) 11:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:<s>Also,</s> "Repeating a lie a thousand times does not make it any more true" is not a very helpful formulation, to say the least. If OM were lying when he says he is being attacked he could just stop doing so for a while and recommence later. He is very obviously not lying but ''perceiving'' these attacks, whether rightly (something subliminal could be going on, after all, although there is no evidence for that so far) or not. That's the problem, and that's why a "talking shop" is ''exactly'' what we need. The AGF principle is there to help us avoid exactly the kind of (innocent I will say, assuming your good faith) mischaracterisation which you have just made, and which tends to aggravate conflicts.--] (]) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

::With respect Hans, I find your above comment and accusations incivil. Please let's get back to the matter at hand. I find your tone inappropriate in a conversation that has to date been conducted in a largely civil and sensible tone. I have altered my above comment however in line with your objection.

::Amongst Orangemarlin's recent warnings (and I interpret that in a broad sense, not just template warnings) we find in response to , in response to (which maybe borders incivility, but is not a personal attack), in response to , in response to .

::I have had more than a "very quick" look at Orangemarlin's edit history. I am by now quite familiar with it, although I can't claim to have looked through every one of his warnings or edits. There is much to be concerned about. With regard to warnings specifically- I say there is a need to assume good faith because there ''is'' a need to assume good faith- many of OM's warnings are for neutrality violations for example, which are a judgement call - and frankly, I no longer trust Orangemarlin's judgeement. It does seem (and the above conversation and diffs may provide some evidence) that OM uses warnings and accusations of personal attacks as a form of personal attack himself, something specifically prohibited under ]. I can see why Gnixon is indeed "exasperated" - it seems to me that he's been accused of things he quite possibly hasn't done (if he has done them, let's see the diffs) and repeatedly personally attacked. OM has been warned and warned and warned and he is not changing his behaviour one little bit. ] (]) 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::- I always endeavour to extend good faith to editors - ''until they demonstrate otherwise''. ] (and, more importantly, common sense) clearly states that good faith is not infinite. With his repeated, totally unfounded, allegations of personal attacks and skewing of other editors' commentary, his ongoing (and '''severe'') incivility and his gaming the system by accusing others of personal attacks and incivility whilst a) claiming that he doesn't care about civility anyway and b) repeatedly making manifestly incivil comments and personal attacks, OM has used up my good faith. ] (]) 12:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I'll have to agree with Badgerpatrol here. It's hard to find any justifiable reason for OM "perceiving" personal attacks here. ] (]) 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, some people believe in one or more gods. It's also very hard to find any justifiable reason for that, and yet it is obviously inappropriate and uncivil to accuse them of lying. And that's true even if they still insist after weeks, months or even years of fruitless discussions. Good faith is not supposed to be used up in such situations. The assumption of good faith is needed ''especially'' in such situations. The question here should be something like: "Why is OM feeling attacked and what can we do about it? How can we stop the disruption caused by this?" I think it's a very bad idea to discuss the loaded question: "How can we make OM stop lying about his being attacked?" --] (]) 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Badgerpatrol, I agree with your second and third example. I don't understand what's going on in the first, and while there is a lot in the fourth that is "disgusting" as you say, it's not in what OM says. (You linked to "The Evil Spartan"'s "chutzpah" comment; presumably you meant something else.) I am sorry for the accusation above that I have striked out now. Since Gnixon's original "last 500 edits" comment the topic has shifted a bit, and I wasn't aware of that. I would probably have seen that if I had followed my own advice of assuming good faith properly. --] (]) 14:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for reassessing your comments, I appreciate it. I've now corrected my post above - two of the diffs were in the wrong order; in fact Orangemarlin's accusation of anti-semitism and references to the Holocaust were solely in response to Evil Spartan's use of the word "chutzpah" (a common word in everyday usage regardless of one's religious preferences and certainly not offensive in any way nor intended to be so). It's sadly ironic given OM's editing interests that you seem to equate OM's irrational behaviour (and I mean that descriptively, not as an attack) with irrational religious belief. The question at hand is not "How can we stop OM from feeling that he's being attacked?" rather it is "How can we stop OM from attacking other people?". The diffs I provide above are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his behaviour unfortunately. It is offensive, it poisons the atmosphere, and it generates a huge amount of totally unecessary light & heat.

:::::I'm sorry to state it bluntly, but he has been reported to this board several times, he has been warned many times on his talk page, he was a party in a recent arbcom case (during which his actions were more or less ignored, for whatever reason). He has not altered his behaviour or even accepted that said behaviour is wrong.

:::::As Yeats said: ''"The best lack all conviction, whilst the worst are full of passionate intensity"''. If you have had a good look at Orangemarlin's edits, you will see that good faith has been pushed far enough. His behaviour is anti-wiki and unacceptable. Let's actually do something about it. ] (]) 15:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== User:Othmanskn ==

Apart from violating ], ] and ], ] has calling at least two other users "idiots" () for highlighting his/her disregarding for Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, thus, violating yet another policies ]. He also accuses other of vandalism because of the dispute. ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:I've issued a warning. S/he probably just needs to cool his/her jets. --] (]) 02:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] (2) ==

{{NWQA|Votestacking complaints are supposed to be leveled against those who canvass for the votes, not for the people who happen to come and comment on the article at hand. OrangeMarlin overestimated the number of blocks in Guido's edit history - he should have checked, and has been warned against making such comments, especially so flippantly. OM is in the process of re-examining his conduct on Misplaced Pages in light of far more substantive complaints - this one lacks much substance, and has been addressed thoroughly. Content dispute referred back to the talk page of th article in question. --] (]) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)}}
User continues to show aggression towards me. Responded to ] on ] and is spreading lies about me in highly incivil tone on his ] after being warned for this behaviour by ]. ] (]) 20:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Ah Guido Guido Guido. Bugbear's only warning was to not respond to canvassing, which I did not know it was. And you called me a liar and disruptive, which is a personal attack. And have you not been blocked more than once? I would suggest your constant ] me is problematic. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::It seems that user is intending to continue in the same manner indefinitely. ] (]) 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:Um, what? Provide diffs, I see only one comment by OM on talk:fibro. You've got a history of frivolous complaints here at the WQA, and OrangeMarlin is pointing to your history of editing, which isn't very positive. If you have a votestacking complaint, it's not OM's fault, it's whoever canvassed for the votes, and that doesn't make you "right" in the content dispute. OM did nothing wrong here, unless you've got diffs that aren't reflected in the current discussion as it appears on talk:fibro and OM's talk. Please keep in mind that this is the WQA - we respond to complaints about ], ], etc. --] (]) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::That's why I hate these things. Editors which I have put in their place with either ArbComs, RfC's or whatever attack. That's why my responses in the previous one of these things was less than serious. I have not been blocked. I have not been ArbComm'ed (is that a word?). This is a waste of everyone's time. Also, I believe that there are a HUGE number of warnings against Guido for attacking me. He can be blocked I believe for attacking me any further. Yeah, I know, you're going to make me find the damn diffs. :) ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, although they are already in plain sight:
* response to votestacking:
* false report of multiple blocks:
New diffs:
* false accusation of stalking:
* false report of 'huge number of warnings': ] (]) 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Of those 4 diffs, the latter two are copies of OM's comments in this section. I see no way the first one could be perceived as uncivil. Only the second diff, where OM says ''Guido is an edit warrior that's been blocked several times. He gets no AGF from me...,'' could possibly be construed as uncivil (for choosing to apply a label and refusing to follow ]). One can see from the a topic not far above this one that I've complained about OM's lack of civility, and I don't know Guido, so it should be easy to judge the direction of any bias I might have. That said, I think this is at most only a minor instance of incivility. Of course, I'm basing this judgment only on the 4 diffs seen here. ] (]) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Those four diffs are the evidence presented here - that's what you should be basing your judgment on (refer to the instructions on filing a complaint above). --] (]) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Often, providing a proper response to a WQA does involve more research than just the diffs. The diffs are examples, but are usually not the end-all-be-all of the complaint, as the situation that sparked the WQA may have been going on for some time. If you look at a user's edit history using a diff as a starting point, you may find a longer history of civility or incivility than just what's been reported, and that'll provide you with a better idea of how to respond to the editor(s) in question. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Perhaps my comment was too short. The diffs provided ''should highlight the entire incident in question'', and that is what we're here to look at. If they only provide a partial account, then one should investigate further. However, this is the WQA, not an RfC/U - we aren't here to do a full review of everything a user ever did, and our researching the users' (all of them) histories should only serve to fully contextualize the current complaint (although that may, in some cases, involve a substantial amount of context - as is the case here, given that Guido has, in the past, filed unnecessary complaints, one of which was ''against OrangeMarlin''). But, in terms of evaluating ''the complaint at hand'' prima facie, the diffs should first be evaluated in their own right. --] (]) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::You're right that we're not doing RFC/U here, but I've seen many cases where a WQA helper going the extra mile to research the whole situation has been able to provide much better feedback to all parties than simply following the diffs provided. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I have never filed any unnecessary complaints. I suggest that you follow good advice and withdraw, since you are only making things worse. ] (]) 22:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::"I have never filed frivolous complaints, and I demand that you withdraw ''because of the frivolous complaint I filed against you moments ago''?" Surely you are joking. --] (]) 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: . In this ANI complaint, Guido requests that OrangeMarlin be blocked for using the hyperbole "execute" in place of "block" (or otherwise stop disruptive editing). --] (]) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:I have made no such request. ] (]) 14:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:: You alluded to a block or a warning by posting about it at ANI to gain immediate action and by stating, "A death threat is a death threat, hyperbole or not, and should be ''dealt'' with." No one agreed with your statement. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 14:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

'''Guido:''' Your block log only shows that you were blocked once for a ] violation, but otherwise have not been blocked for any civility or policy violations. OrangeMarlin was incorrect in saying you'd been blocked multiple times, unless he knows something I don't and you have previously been blocked under a different account.

HOWEVER: I read over the RFC discussion in ] and the subsequent edits in the article itself, and I see evidence to support other editors' claims against you. I believe that OrangeMarlin was in his right to revert your edit as in the first diff above ("response to votestacking"), as he cited the RFC in his revert summary. That does not appear to be aggression or personal-attack behavior to me.

In the RFC, you were asked multiple times to explain your reasoning that the sources everyone else agreed upon didn't support the text in the article, and as they put it, you stonewalled. As a result, they were in their right to move forward as per ], and your actions after that point appear to have been disruptive. You did bring up some good points, but when asked to back up your points with citations, I did not see you do so.

Keep in mind that continuing to make edits against consensus after consensus has been reached, without properly explaining your reasoning, is considered disruptive and causes most editors to stop ]. If you make an edit in the article and it's reverted, the best course of action is to take it to the Talk page, even if it has already been discussed before. But keep in mind that the onus is on YOU to sway consensus through logical discussion and good, reliable sources.

'''OrangeMarlin:''' Please refrain from making personal attacks and untrue comments about other users. Contrary to your statements in the diffs provided above, Guido has not been blocked multiple times and has not received a large number of warnings. Those that he has received have been for relatively minor things such as ]. I do agree that it may be to his advantage to try a different approach to his editing practices when it comes to content disputes, but that does not warrant the kinds of comments you've made against him, especially when they do not appear to be true. Such comments serve to discredit other users and usually only make the situation worse.

Additionally, other users have previously complained about your behavior here on WQA and elsewhere, and at least from what I've seen so far, your response to those editors has been less than helpful. In my view, it comes across as somewhat high-and-mighty (especially "editors I've had put in their place through ...", which is never helpful). You might consider toning that down a bit.

More if necessary later. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:You are incorrect about a consensus being reached on Fibromyalgia, and also to claim that I failed to provide sources. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page, where I have explained things multiple times. ] (]) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Sure looked to me like a consensus had been reached. The people you mentioned as dissenting from consensus were with what they said, and none of those statements appeared to be disagreements to the overall consensus - just suggestions on how to <s>change the text</s> improve the presentation in the article. You appeared to be the only one asserting that the sources didn't back up the article text at all. And you kept referring to ], but I fail to see how that supports your assertions - that is just a list of codes, and without referring to something specific about that article, I doubt other people - even people who are well-versed on the subject - could be expected to know what part of it you're talking about. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::It is nonetheless therefore untrue to claim that I didn't provide a source, and I have explained in full why this source is important and what the difference is. You may have missed the earlier discussion.
:::Yes, they were quoted back, but these quotes related to the text put forward in the RFC, not to the text inserted by Djma12, and even then do not constitute consensus since two other votes were left out. ] (]) 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::As you mentioned, consensus does not equal a vote. Please go back and ] to ensure you're completely familiar with it. What I saw was a repeated sequence of you stating that the sources were invalid, people asking you WHY they were invalid, and you pointing at a very vague answer with no further explanation. Other editors did not accept that response and continued on without you. Looking back at the earlier discussions, you were asked to support your viewpoint and you claimed that you didn't need to, despite the fact that the general consensus was that the content was well-established and cited. So your using the ICD as a source was deemed "not good enough" by the other editors, even when the RFC went through. (Continuing to point at that source and say "See? I did provide a source!" isn't going to help when the source, such as it is, has not been shown to support your claim.)
::::Honestly, I think Djma was right. There are far more editors supporting the text that you kept removing than there are supporting your side of the argument. Turning around and accusing those editors of being on the attack against you isn't helping your case. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I give up. Nothing in your description of events is even remotely accurate; you are building a house of cards with no foundation. ] (]) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm only calling it as I see it. If you can point to specific instances of things you said and did that contradict what I'm saying, please do so. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Start here, where I refer to and explain the ICD10:
] (]) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:Guido, I think you are confusing the principle of consensus with "if I am right and the others are wrong then I have a veto right". You haven't. Obviously this is a problem, but it cannot be avoided because so often the other side is also convinced of being right. Incidentally I don't even think think your arguments are valid. I know nothing about the disease(s) you were discussing, but a classification designed by a committee of WHO bureaucrats doesn't strike me as a good argument against scientific studies. --] (]) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:"The purpose of the ICD and of WHO sponsorship is to promote international comparability in the collection, classification, processing, and presentation of mortality statistics." So it's not to make diagnoses more exact, it's not even to make the mortality statistics more exact, it's only to make them more comparable. You are trying to use it for something it was not designed to do. The others should have spent more time to explain this to you, but a lot of expert editors suffer from burnout, so the failure seems to be excusable.--] (]) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::It is nonetheless a source that represents international consensus, for that is what the classification is based on. Further, there is also a WHO treaty, which implies that the WHO classification must be followed. Listing a somatic disease as a psychiatric disorder is a violation of that treaty.
::However, all of this is just another layer to the house of cards, which was built on the assertion that I did not provide a source, period. When that assertion could not be maintained, it was asserted that I didn't explain the source. Now that I provided the edits of where I did explain it, it is asserted that my explanation should have been countered. I wonder what will be next. ] (]) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Hans, Guido, this has nothing to do with the original complaint, or etiquette at all. Take the content dispute back to the talk page of the article in question, so that all concerned parties have an opportunity to take part in this discussion. I strongly advise all editors to respect consensus. --] (]) 20:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::'''(Edit Conflict)''' If we are building a house of cards as you say, it must be a pretty good one, because I don't see it collapsing just yet. I read the entire discussion from which you took your most recent diffs, and that was what I was referring to above when I said that you did not adequately explain how the ICD contradicts the text in the article. The assertion from Djma and other editors was that the ICD did not directly contradict what was being said, nor did the other sources being provided, and that the scope of the ICD and WHO treaty did not apply to the contested text in the article. IMO, while you did argue against that point, you didn't explain what made the ICD stand out above the other sources.
:::Also, keep in mind that Misplaced Pages articles should always contain a balanced point of view. Fibromyalgia is a poorly understood condition, and research is still being done on it. As such, it's not something that anyone can firmly classify as one type of disease or another, since the leading scientists on the subject don't fully understand and cannot agree on its causes. It is fully appropriate for the article to mention the different points of view, with their own sources, in a way that gives ] to all the relevant points. You need to ensure that by deleting text and discrediting some sources, you're not putting undue weight on just one point of view. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Per Cheeser's comment above, moving the content discussion to Guido's talk page. (This is a discussion regarding his handling of the content discussion, not so much about the content itself.) &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::The relevant portion of this content discussion has been copied over to ], in case people want to continue discussing it. I feel it's more appropriate to take it there than the article talk itself. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Where it transpired that ] had looked at the wrong text, attributing Dr. Anymouse's version (which looks balanced) to Djma12. ] (]) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{NWQA|Obviously frivolous complaint regarding another WQA. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)}}
Unfounded accusations of frivolous complaints, bad editing history and alterior motives. ] (]) 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Cheeser's comments were in the context of discussing your behaviour, and followed quite bit of discussion. In that light, his comments - as expressions of his opinion of your editing style and history - were not in violation of any Misplaced Pages policy, in my view. ] (]) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, I don't normally say things like this on Misplaced Pages, but WTF? You don't get the response you want at the WQA and you file a WQA alert about it? Stop gaming the system. --] (]) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:For the record: , and at the . Last time Guido filed a complaint here, he called the WQA completely useless. I wonder why he's back. --] (]) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

: Good grief. They were in context in regards to your '''poor''' behaviour, and it is comments such as that that do not help out your situation. You've been through the rings of WQA before, all on the receiving end I should add. You didn't get the response you desired, so it is highly inappropriate to re-file a request against others. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

After numerous edit conflicts:
* @Sarc: If he has issues with my behaviour, he should file a complaint '''and provide diffs'''. Not dismiss an alert about another user. ] (]) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
* @Chees(1): Typical. Again, you assume. No, I did not file this alert because you dismissed another alert. I filed it because of your accusations against me, which were totally uncalled for. If you think there is nothing wrong with OM's behaviour: fine, say so. But don't accuse me. ] (]) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
* @Chees(2): I see that you also repeat your ridiculous accusation of forumshopping. ] (]) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
* @Seicer: same wrong assumption. Is it really necessary to mob-jump the victim to such an extent that I can't even get an answer in? And no, you are incorrect, too, I have not been on the receiving end of any WQA's. ] (]) 21:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::You clearly don't understand how the WQA works. If you file a complaint, ''your editing is just as much under review as anyone else's''. You can't demand that we ''only'' examine one part of the bigger picture. And several respondents to the WQA report you filed marked it as obvious forumshopping. I was not the only one. --] (]) 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Cheeser, I'd recommend you step away from this one, since it involves you directly. I'll take a look at the history and see if it warrants further attention. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I've never seen any precedent for barring the user in question from commenting on his or her own WQA. However, since this complaint clearly has no substance to which I might respond, I consider my response to be complete and have nothing more to add. --] (]) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Cheeser got it exactly right when he said "If you file a complaint, ''your editing is just as much under review as anyone else's''. You can't demand that we ''only'' examine one part of the bigger picture." He was asked (by you) to look at a given situation, and it was his opinion that your own behaviour was part of what caused/exacerbated the situation. Saying so is entirely in keeping with how Wikiquette alerts work. ] (]) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:He did not look at the bigger picture, but skipped the complaint entirely and looked only at (imagined and unrelated) behaviour by me. Also, I did not ask him. By filing an alert, I asked for an uninvolved opinion. ] (]) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not necessarily endorsing or criticizing Cheeser's handling of the particular alert (largely because I haven't read most of it). I'm just saying that, in the context of evaluating the behaviour of all involved users, his comments weren't a breach of any WP policy or guideline. I see ] has jumped in to the above-alert, so I won't bother saying any more about it. ] (]) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::'''Guido:''' I'm not necessarily endorsing Cheeser's response either - in this case, I suggested he step back since he's the one being accused of wrongdoing. IMO, it's better to have an uninvolved third party comment instead of you two getting into an argument here over who's right and who's wrong. But I do agree with Cheeser's statement that filing a WQA means that both the accused and the accuser come under scrutiny - if we only paid attention to the person that was being accused, this page would be completely full of frivolous requests, because anyone could accuse anyone else of anything under the sun with impunity. That's not how it works.
:::Cheeser's opinion, as I interpreted it, was that you were jumping the gun on the OrangeMarlin situation. There had already been a WQA against him earlier, the diffs you provided against OM did not appear to constitute a major breach of Wikiquette, and (as I also pointed out) you appeared to be working against consensus and putting yourself in a position where people would stop assuming that you're working in good faith. That seems to be the basis for Cheeser's saying you filed a frivolous alert, and frankly, I agree - your alert seemed to be much more about you not getting your way in the Fibromyalgia article and arguing with OM over that, than it did with any real abuse OM might have been engaged in. The comments he made toward you appear to have been provoked, so while they are still not in line with ], IMO, you share some responsibility for them as well.
:::This is the part where I tell you all to take a step back and ] for a little while, and come back to the table when you're ready to get back to the content dispute at hand. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Please note that the assertion that 'I did not get my way' is incorrect. Djma12's text was replaced with a much more balanced text by Dr. Anymouse. ] erroneously attributed this version to Djma12; perhaps others have done the same. ] (]) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== User:monosig ==

I believe that recent posts by ] warrants consideration of a Wikiquette alert message/warning.

Apart from apparently violating ], ] and ]) this user has violated ] based on their recent posts as found in the discussion/talk page for Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow as well as on the talk page for ]

The causes for action for a Wikiquette alert include the original vandalism, as well follow on talk page posts that contain personal attacks, impolite/uncivil tone and wording and (from my perspective) factually inaccurate statements and accusations.

I ask that the volunteers who review such concerns take appropriate corrective action - at this point my preference would simply be to remove the statments judged by others to be potentially to be offensive and/or those viewed as personal attacks.

--] (]) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:I have left a warning. FYI, you don't need the == parts of a title when creating a "new section" if you type the title into the "subject/headline" box. Also, you don't need to copy/paste your complaint onto the user's talkpage - they should be addressing the complaint here, not there. --] (]) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks,

::I'm still trying to figure out how to do all the magic links etc. I removed the pasted text from the user's talk page. I don't see the second set of "=="'s - did you fix that for me?.

::--] (]) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, I fixed the header for you. Please let us konw if problems continue. For other respondents, I will note that Monosig has already been the subject of some administrative attention in this matter . --] (]) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== patience gone ==

user ] relentlessly impugns my character, rather than addressing the specific editorial and policy issues i've pointed out are the basis of my edits and reversions of his contributions. i've tried to AGF, i've tried being polite (and i believe i have yet to be ''im''polite, though i may be terse due to the attacks), but the attacks continue to escalate. some examples:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Future_energy_development sections 31 and 32
*http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wtshymanski section 22
*http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Energy_development sections 34 and 35
and the following, though awfully long, gives the earliest examples of these attacks, which began almost immediately after user Escientist opened his account. apparently, if you revert unsourced commentary, you are being paid be exxon to revert him.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Escientist&oldid=181564865
] (]) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:I have left the appropriate warnings on the user's talk page. Please keep us updated, if these problems continue. --] (]) 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::Additionally, I'd like to address a couple of points here. I'm personally rather offended by Escientist's behavior - it's one thing to be a subject expert, which is useful but can also be a tricky position to be in due to ]. It's quite another to present ] and then be so high-and-mighty about one's knowledge. I found Escientist's comments toward you to be very belittling and attacking, in the form of "I know what I'm talking about and you obviously don't, or you've got a conflict of interest", and that sort of attitude is very unhelpful.

::Anastrophe, I think you did a good job in the article talk page(s) in trying to reason with Escientist, but I also believe you may have gone a little overboard or too far out of your way to continue the discussions with him in the User Talk space. People like this thrive on the attention - when they believe they know everything and everyone who disagrees with them is some form of enemy, there's really almost no reasoning with them. Allowing yourself to get mad and continue arguing with him, ] as you've been about it, will only make things worse. At this point, I think you should agree to disagree with him, continue working toward ] in the article namespace, and work with us here on breaches of civility policy and other user conduct policies. (It is not completely against the rules to talk negatively about other users, even if what the person says is untrue. Don't go too far out of your way to defend yourself - if you're unbiased and someone's accusing you of being biased, the truth will show in the quality of your edits.)

::If Escientist does do something more egregious, such as call you out for COI in the article talk itself, you can feel free to report the incident at the ] or file a ] against him. Also check out other forms of ].

::If Escientist wishes to participate in this discussion, I'll be happy to provide guidance to him as well. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreed. If these problems continue without improvement, this is definitely something that needs to be bumped up the ladder. --] (]) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

::::i appreciate the comments. for my part, i think i'm going to take a mini-wikibreak, per the title i gave this section. as it stands, i have work to do that my wiki-addiction is interfering with, so it's for the best anyway. ] (]) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] Newsletter Controversy ==

{{NWQA|Edit-warring isn't really going to get settled at the WQA. Referred to various other places. --] (]) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)}}

If you check the talk pages ] and ] as well as there respective article's edit histories, you'll notice that there is a bit of a slow burning edit war occurring over the inclusion of material from and rebuttals to the recent articles concerning controversial newsletters that bear Ron Paul's name. While I don't think that anyone has broke any specific policy, the situation is slowly turning into a ] with editors on both sides fighting to include and remove material instead of working toward consensus. I don't know if a few new eyes might help the situation, but if the trend keeps up, I predict that this will end in ]. ] (]) 00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:I don't think the WQA is really able to address edit-warring, especial that kind of stuff. If there's vandalism, see the ]. If it's just a few people making a mess of things, but they want to discuss it, try ]. If they don't want to discuss anything, try the ] or ]. If there is severe edit warning, I'd first suggest ] for the anons and then ]. It already seems like there's a fair deal of administrator attention on the article though. --] (]) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{user|WebHamster}}

* -- personal attack/incivility

* -- user created new MfD nomination in blatant violation of ]

* -- personal attack/incivility/just plain inappropriate remark at MfD

* -- personal attack on the user's opponents at the MfD.

* -- blatant bad-faith assumption and personal attack

* -- user's refusal to ]

* -- this was a response to my warning the user about ] and ].

* -- another response to AGF/civility warning, after I took the matter to the user's talk page.

* -- latest inappropriate comment, at RfC

As you can see, I attempted to warn ] about violating AGF/CIVIL/NPA, but he only became more belligerent when I did. I think this warrants a polite yet stern warning to the user, imparting to him that his comments are indeed in violation of policy and inappropriate, and that he should try harder to keep a cool head. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''19:44, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

: I've looked a bit; seems two things: first, yes, WebHamster seems underdeveloped in terms of wiki-civility; but second, the battleground seems to be ], so people with little or no experience with wiki will feel motivated to fight for their PoV. Tough job to mediate. ] (]) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Definitely agree that it's a battleground type environment. Nevertheless this particular user's comments seem more uncivil than others. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''21:07, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

:::I civily and tactly asked Webhamster to refrain from incivil comments directed at other users. This was his response. It speaks for itself: . If he is reticent to communicate civily with other users, then action may need to be taken. What is the opinion of the WQA regulars on this? --].].] 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: I dropped a note at his talk page. I don't think I qualify as a regular here; if he's persistent then you'd probably have to go for an ANI. But he seems at least rational and voluble, if not obsequious, so maybe patience will pay off. ] (]) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

::::: I'd probably say ANI too, recent edits made to ] concern me. ]] 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:Not to split hairs or anything, but most of the diffs that you've labeled "personal attacks" are more just general incivility and not directly targeted at the person(s) to whom he is replying. There are one or two that, regrettably, are evidently personal attacks, but there are others that seem to be a misinterpretation of harsh, misdirected rhetoric or even of an honest question. Even the incivility is mild for the most part, given the contentiousness of the issue (not that that's any excuse). It doesn't seem that this user has a long history of abusive behavior (though it appears he's had to be straightened out on a few policies here and there, but who hasn't?), so it's likely that he just got sucked into an argument that pushed some wrong buttons. Needless to say, I've seen much worse. The user has been warned and it would probably be best for all involved to just let this one rest if at all possible. There's no need to further heat up the already contentious issue that's being discussed at the relevant RfC. <s>However, I have noticed that WebHamster hasn't been notified of this discussion, so I think it's only fair that he be made aware of it. I will recommend to him that he take some time to cool off.</s> <sub>(Freaking edit conflicts...)</sub> However, if this pattern of behavior continues beyond this particular issue, I endorse further action. ] (]) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::Just an extra note, I kept getting edit conflicts as I was trying to post this, so as the discussion progressed, some of what I said became slightly irrelevant. Nonetheless, I've had more good experiences than bad with WebHamster, so I'm inclined to think that he's probably getting a little too impassioned over this particular issue. ] (]) 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: (ec) I tried a plea at ANI for a warning about the general situation (]), but was met with a response that implied that I had been acting the same way -- which I don't see, although I admit I can't be considered an objective party here (although I still appreciate Jay's initial warning). <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''22:12, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::::::: Equazcion, you're rushing. You only just posted this Wikiquette item today, right? and we only several minutes ago put notification on his talk page? Wiki does not move that fast. He may not log on until tomorrow...or next week. Please continue your patience. ] (]) 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: No no, I posted at ANI first, and then was directed here. :) <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''22:18, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::::::::: OK that makes sense, my mistake, but your "I tried a plea at ANI..." above could have been phrased better ("I ''had'' tried a plea...") and you should have referenced that item at the top in introducing this one, IMO. I'm sympathetic with the problem of picking between Wikiquette, which seems generally too little, and ANI, which seems often too much. But anyway fine, we'll wait for his response and maybe everything will chill nicely. But wow, that's a contentious userbox you guys have going there. ] (]) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::: I had pretty much just copied and pasted the same dealy here, removing the stuff about asking for an admin to do the warning. You're right though, I should've prefaced with that. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''22:28, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::::::::::: Please see my latest comments at ]. He doesn't seem to be interested in commenting here at WQA though. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''06:44, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::::::::::::It was recommended that mediation be tried here rather than coming straight to ANI. Admins are reluctant to block unless it is shown that the user is reticent to change their behavior, and WQA remediation would at least show that other users involved had tried to correct problematic behavior. --].].] 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

← I understand that, and I don't dispute it. I'm just not sure where to go from here. The user doesn't seem to be willing to change whatsoever. See the latest: . <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''15:24, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>
:What can you realistically expect from an editor who has been forced by a couple of others with an extreme POV into defending, on general grounds, the right to state the opposite extreme POV that he doesn't even support? Denying one's own political convictions for a higher purpose can make one a bit edgy. — WebHamster has stated that you are referring some of his remarks to yourself that were not intended for you, and your latest clash is related to this. When you said "I have no idea what your point is" you referred to WebHamster's reply to you. But this reply started with "(ec)", which I would suggest is an abbreviation for "edit conflict" and means that WebHamster spent a lot of time thinking about this reply ''to Phoenix-wiki'', and so even though it was posted after your reply it does not refer to it. If you reread WebHamster's post with this knowledge I am sure it will make sense to you. Now if we suppose that (at least initially) it never occurred to him that you misunderstood who he was referring to, then your reply must have looked to him like real or pretended stupidity, distracting from an important point. — Such escalations will always happen; we can only try to follow certain rules to make them less likely. If you want WebHamster to learn something from this conflict, as opposed to "winning", I suggest that you stop contacting him directly on his talk page and give Pete's informal mediation attempt a chance to work. --] (]) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:: You make a good point about the edit conflict. I didn't notice that. But still, what we can realistically expect is civility. It's true that some harsh responses can occur initially due to the edginess of the debate, but that has to stop at some point. The incivility has continued long after the fact. This isn't a "clash" between me and this user. WebHamster has acted in bad faith and incivility towards myself and others, and has consistently lashed out at anyone who attempts to discuss his behavior, including an admin. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''19:52, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::I think that's very good advice. Continuing the discussion on WebHamster's talk page is only likely to be inflammatory. --] (]) 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


It's my belief that this WQA is absurd, and further evidence of the precious unworldliness of too many editors who hide behind the banner of ] without understanding what civility either means or entails. Sure, I'd agree that WebHamster's language was at times a little colourful, and perhaps not always as diplomatic as it might have been, but to unilaterally attempt put the blame on him for the – probably avoidable – escalation of the argument is to show a staggering lack of self-perception. I would rather have a hundred WebHamsters, not afraid to call a ] a spade, than one who goes crying to ] when their thin skin gets a little scratch. Civility does not demand agreement, and it does not preclude robust debate, which is all I think this was. Civility demands respect, but respect can't be demanded, it has to be earned. --] (]) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
: I'm going to leave most of this alone, but if you check my final comments at ], I explain there my motivation for posting this WQA. And, civility to a certain degree is respect, and doesn't need to be earned. That's the policy here. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''20:59, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

::I had already seen your final comment on what I hope will be, at least for the time being, your last posting on WebHamster's talk page (see my comment above). It is in fact what drew my attention to this discussion. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with your analysis. --] (]) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

::: Yes that seems apparent. I was directing you there only in response to your contention that I've made this WQA posting out of hurt feelings. My intent is explained there. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''21:25, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>

== User:Jdchamp31 ==

I appear to have annoyed the above user because I reverted a change he made that was contrary to previous consensus. Since then he seems to be engaged in an ever increasing war of harassment. This has included more than five bad faith warnings posted on my Talk: page. I've asked him to be civil, it's not stopping.

*
*
*
*
*
*

This is continuing.

Can someone step in, please? --] (]) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:I have had a discussion (albeit onesided) with this user and it seems that he has stopped his personal attacks. His posting was becoming increasingly disruptive and I will continue to monitor over the next few days to make sure this is, indeed, over and done with. ] (]) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Could someone take the time to introduce the editors contributing to Talk:Steve Hoffman to our basic policies and guidelines regarding how to conduct themselves in article talk pages, as well as the purpose of article talk pages? A new discussion on the article talk page should be enough. Most are new editors and ]s. A number of editors, including myself, have tried to assist with the disputes there. Part of the problem is that most, if not all, of these new editors contribute regularly to forums where similar discussions have taken place. Simply put, they are treating this article talk page as if it were a continuation of their forum. --] (]) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

== User:Irishlass0128 ==

Could someone please look into this users actions on the following site ] (]) 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, please do, look into the discussion, you'll see I've been trying to keep the peace. I did, indeed, question someone who came in and immediately claimed to be a former admin. As is indicated on the page, I was under the, now apparently misguided, impression that it was okay to move discussions to a different place. CARS, is upset that I doubt he is a former admin. He claims I'm calling in other admins, I did. I did because he said he was so I believed that to be an open invitation for me to ask others to look at the situation. Although I certainly wasn't too busy calling in admins, that took just a few minutes. Why did I call them, because assuming good faith only goes so far. Asking people to assume a new editor is a former admin goes too far. I asked other admins, what I believed his former brotherhood, to look into the claim after Cars said that is what he was going to do. Not a case of "two wrongs" just a thought process that it must be okay since he was doing it. But I only asked they look into the claim of former admin, nothing more. The full situation is, two brand new editors have come in and started problems, one with immediate disruptive edits and the other claiming to be an admin. So, yes, look into the situation. I've only tried to help and up until I questioned Cars, he said I had been. ] (]) 19:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::The issue has been addressed by Admin. ]. The discussion is still opened. However the discussion is finally moving in the right direction now that someone stepped in. Rather the user is blocked or not, is up to admins. In Best Regards CARS! --] (]) 19:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:This is not an administrative notice board. If you want admin attention, see the ]. Please do not ], when they are simply following the ], the community accepted guidelines for how our articles are written. I see no evidence of incivility or personal attacks, only a content/style dispute. If this has been overlooked, please provide ], like the instructions for this noticeboard ask. --] (]) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

== User:JzG ==

{{NWQA|Discussing this matter here would fork an ongoing Arbitration Enforcement discussion, which isn't appropriate. --] (]) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)}}
A couple of extremely uncivil and unjustified remarks directed toward me:
I don't know if any action is warranted, but I would like to submit this here just for the record. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:This is a matter to take up at the arbitration enforcement discussion in progress. Don't try to fork or forum-shop the discussion here. It's a part of the ongoing discussion there and should be handled there. It appears that your behavior is open for discussion in that matter, as you are a party to what is happening there. I will not comment on the nature of JzG's remarks because I do not have the time to contextualize them properly. Also, there is no need for you to put anything "on the record." This is not a court of law. --] (]) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:: The Arb Enforcement discussion has nothing to do with the incivility JzG laid upon me. It has nothing to do with JzG at all. He piped in to defend the editor whom the Arb Enforcement is about and in doing so personally attacked me. To my understanding, Arb Enforcement would be the wrong forum to pursue a behavioral issue such as this. Wikiquette alerts is - to my understanding - the correct forum. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:::If you bring up an issue on an administrative alert board, your behavior is also just as much under examination. JzG's comments may seem hostile, but you made a complaint and you can't pretend that you're an uninvolved party or that you couldn't possibly have anything to do with the problem at hand. I'm in no place to decide if he's right or wrong in his assessment of the situation, but he's an admin responding at the arb enforcement board. You simply cannot say "The Arb Enforcement discussion had nothing to do with ," because it did. He is in the position to evaluate your behavior, and your opinion of whether or not he was too harsh is clearly not objective. Whether or not his comments were appropriate must be considered within the context of the ongoing Arb Enf complaint, and considering it was on a page that is presumably monitored by hundreds of admins, I can't imagine someone wouldn't have spoken up if it wasn't out of line. --] (]) 02:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

''<small>refactored:</small>''
I happened to notice a comment that I feel is prejudiced and uncivil, this user describes another user as being "batshit insane", as someone who lost someone to mental illness, and working in the mental health field, I strongly feel that this is inappropriate terminology (sort of like calling a black person by the n word.) I have noticed upon checking out this user's history that he frequently uses this kind of language towards other users. What can be done about this?: (near the end of the page). If this is the wrong place, where can it be reported?] (]) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
== User:AuburnPilot ==

Fished for unreliable sources, in violation of ] and refuses to work towards consensus.

On ], I removed the unreliable sources and replaced them with fact tags, and noted in the ] as to why I did that.

Auburn reverted my changes and responded (on the ]), "'''I'm not going to read through everything you've written above''', but I have read the sources and I haven't misquoted anything."

If he's not going to at least ''read'' my assertions, we can't work towards consensus, can we? <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not going to waste my time responding to Zenwhat's continued unfounded accusations against me. Ever since I blocked him for violating the three revert rule, he has accused me of being everything from a POV pusher on articles I've never edited, to a single purpose account. He has no understanding of our basic policies, and demonstrates this through his continued misapplication of policy and bad faith accusations. Zenwhat is quickly wearing thin the patience of this community. - ] ] 05:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:Can you please provide ] where this user violated either ] or ] policies? People often skim or skip parts of discussions that they needn't address. This is not a breach of WP:CONS (which is not generally something this alert board deals with). --] (]) 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Auburn: My past actions are irrelevant. I have demonstrated ignorance of policy in the past and it has unfortunately made me look like an imbecile (particularly my repeated assertions that certain users were admins when they weren't! ]). Despite that, what's relevant here is the actual facts involved in this case, not attacks on my character.

Cheese: ] says that part of etiquette is working towards consensus. I thought this would be appropriate since if an editor is willing to revert but not read the justification for why that edit was made, consensus is ''impossible.'' I'd considered sending Auburn a message on his\her talkpage, but if he's not going to read my posting on the talkpage, would that do any good? Doubtful. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 06:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:I'd love to see some diffs as well. I've asked Zenwhat on more than one occasion to present diffs to back up his assertions, but I'm still waiting. I've never attacked Zenwhat, and you'll never see him provide a diff proving otherwise. - ] ] 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:That is true, but standard content disputes, sourcing disputes, etc are not handled here. Saying "I'm not going to read all of that" is not, by any stretch of my imagination, incivility. Perhaps I have a limited imagination, but I'm just not seeing it here. --] (]) 06:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1, if you could please move this to where this dispute should be handled or let me know where I should go, I would appreciate it. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:If there is an issue about what sources are allowed or not, the ] might be a good place to start if you intend on escalating this dispute. However, the talk page of the article is generally where these issues are discussed. And please keep in mind that you should be assuming good faith on AuburnPilot's part. --] (]) 07:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
"Escalating"? That sounds like something a person would do in bad faith. You mean going to the next step in dispute resolution, right? BTW, I didn't know they had a noticeboard for that, so thanks! I'm sorry to waste your time with unnecessary postings like this. <font size="4">]</font>&nbsp;<font face="impact">&nbsp;]</font>&nbsp;(]) 07:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:Escalating is when you go from one part of a resolution process to the next one. You know, as in "escalate" - to go up (think of it like stairs). It's the correct word, pretty much standard. Don't worry about wasting people's time - if I had better things to do, I would be doing them (or you know, at least rationalizing them away before coming on Wiki). --] (]) 07:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

] (]) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)I happened to notice a comment that I feel is prejudiced and uncivil, this user describes another user as being "batshit insane", as someone who lost someone to mental illness, and working in the mental health field, I strongly feel that this is inappropriate terminology (sort of like calling a black person by the n word.) I have noticed upon checking out this user's history that he frequently uses this kind of language towards other users. What can be done about this?: (near the end of the page). If this is the wrong place, where can it be reported?] (]) 19:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

== User:Cheeser1 (2) ==
Though he/she is a volunteer here, this person ], in responding to a civility complaint against me, accused me of something I did not do and refuses to retract it. He/she is being extremely prejudiced and I need another editor to review the comments on my talk page (]). I agreed to the civility charge, but there is a larger issue here. I cannot let this accusation stand that I actually threatened someone when I did not. I am disturbed that he/she showed interest at all in my point of view. ] (]) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

: *sigh* What is with it with people and filing frivolous complaints against people responding to a WQA? Asking you to keep your behavior in line is not a personal attack. If you are concerned because your behavior on Misplaced Pages is causing you problems in real life, you have three options: stop using your real name on Misplaced Pages, stop wishing other people harm and being otherwise uncivil, or stop contributing to Misplaced Pages (especially since all you do here is comment on an article about your wife's medical protocol). --] (]) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:: '''Comment:''' Totally outside editor, looking at this for the first time. The original complaint that was made about you ("you" meaning Neil, '''not''' Cheeser!) was about a post on someone's Talk Page that included the phrase ''"But if he can't turn their hearts, he should turn their ankles so we can recognize them by their limp."'' You then went on to tell the editor to "soak her ankle." It was part of a parable, yes, but that's not exactly a warm and fuzzy sentiment, is it? You also posted it on the Talk Page of an editor with whom you apparently have a longterm adversarial relationship, both on and off Wiki, so it's not at all surprising that it was taken as a threat or a wish for harm. Frankly, if someone who wasn't a friend left a message of that nature on my Talk Page, I'd take it as harassment and a threat, just s Dev did.

::Whether or not you see it as a joke, making any sort of threat of bodily harm is unacceptable on Wiki. Cheeser1 did nothing wrong by warning you about it, and your complaint here really is frivolous. ] (]) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt, I think Cheeser1 did step a bit out of line in responding to Neil. It's not to the point that I think any serious harm was done, but I can see how his directness ("Go elsewhere, because this is totally unacceptable") could inflame more than help. I'll leave a note on his Talk page. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

==Dreadstar==

{{userlinks|Dreadstar}}

].

Per a rather rude suggestion by Dreadstar I've decided to mention some problems I'm having with this user's behavior at this article.

First of all, Dreadstar has been assuming article ] by claiming ] in instances where there is obviously great controversy. He's been consistently baiting me through the use of continual accusations about myself and seems to be genuinely uninterested in ] about my suggestions or proceeding through normal processes of content disputes. It would be nice if some uninvolved editor would tell him to stop this kind of behavior.

] (]) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
::Two things, a) what exactly in that diff do you consider rude? b) If you feel you're being baited don't bite. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:::b first)]. I'll note that Dreadstar is more-or-less asserting that he's been around longer than I and so has some understanding of the situation that I cannot grasp. ] (]) 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:::a second)Here are other relevant diffs where this user is being particularly rude by asserting article ownership, commenting on contributors rather than content, and claiming consensus with little justificaiton: , , , , . This is all that the user has contributed to the discussion over the last few days. Obviously, this user doesn't think that he can do anything but be confrontational and basically ]. ] (]) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
::::SA, you are hardly a newbie, so ] isn't quite applicable here. You have been around long enough to know when and how you should react to something. What I see in the diffs is someone trying to carry on a calm discussion. What you are doing here is the same thing other users have tried to do to you in the past. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::No, what I'm doing is pointing out that I have a problem with Dreadstar. Also, note that ] applies to places where people are new, not just Misplaced Pages in general. He asked me to escalate the ] so I did. I think that by continually referring to me rather than my proposals (he has a tendency to talk about "what you are doing" rather than dealing with the situation) and by referring to ] in order to contradict people stating other opinions, and by asserting article ] he is basically being ]. I'll also point out that this user is an administrator and is therefore held to higher standards per ]. One more thing, I'm happy to have a discussion with you, Rlevse, but you are hardly a neutral character in this situation. 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::I'm just as neutral or non-neutral as Raymond Aritt or JzG in the disputes you get into. Believe it or not, my primary goals are peaceful editing and better articles. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't care what your goals are, that's irrelevant. And I don't see Raymond or JzG commenting here, do you? ] (]) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

←I agree with Rlevs, there is nothing uncivil in Dreadstar's comments. Also, the accusation of ] in the statement of this WQA is inappropriate. Dreadstar has not exhibited that behavior. --] (]) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:Since you act more-or-less as a ] for other members of ], I don't know what we're supposed to get out this. ] (]) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Now this comment by ScienceApologist looks to be an uncivil and personal attack on Jack-A-Roe; and it appears to violate ]. Clearly an assumption of bad faith, a blockable offence under ScienceApologist's ArbCom restrictions... ] <small>]</small> 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

::ScienceApologist, you may need to sleep over it to understand it, but your complaint is frivolous. You were overreacting and making phantastic, unsubstantiated accusations. It seems quite possible that Dreadstar felt you cannot possibly believe what you are saying and tried to call your bluff. --] (]) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:::That interpretation implies that he is ]. ] (]) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Your accusation of meatpuppetry, in itself and aside from your arbcom restrictions, is uncivil and just plain silly. I've edited those articles only rarely, but in the few times that I have seen you in action, I've observed complaints and accusations from you towards others, and no examples of friendly, mutually respectful collaboration on your part. Your filing of this WQA violates ] and is a good example. That is not an effective way of making progress or getting the results you want. --] (]) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what I've done that's rude, I believe I've been civil and have abided by policy. I have commented on a few of ScienceApologist's actions, but I have done so according to policy. I have merely been trying to convince ScienceApologist to participate in the ongoing quest for ], part of which he has even , even though it is a valid step in the ]; and this after ScienceApologist made a very rude comment about the poll, saying .

I did change my comment to make it more accurate, that , but I don't think the wording where I suggested ScienceApologist was going around in circles was rude. It appears to me that he is, and in several areas, ] and ] being two primary issues we've returned to over and over. I certainly apologize if I've given offense. ] <small>]</small> 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:(Edit conflict) <s>I've removed the "Dreadstar Supporters Respond" section.</s> I was going to remove the "Dreadstar Supporters" section, but someone beat me to it. :) That, quite frankly, makes a mockery of the WQA process, and it is not helping your case at all, ScienceApologist. WQA is not here to polarize people against one another - if you want to do something like that, please file a ]. &mdash; ''']''' (]) &mdash; 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I've looked at the links you've provided concerning Dreadstar's behaviour, and I find his remarks to be civil, and your claims to unfounded. Further, since I have been working on this article for awhile I have yet to see him behave in a way that is not civil. Since the discussion most of the time on the Bleep article is convoluted and complex I've felt Dreadstar's efforts to create a focus to be appropriate and commendable.(] (]) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

We should '''stop''' right now. The incident we are discussing happened less than two hours ago. Per ] it is ''counterproductive'' to discuss it now. As the article in question is blocked anyway, may I suggest that everybody takes a break now? --] (]) 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020

Historical document
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.

Wikiquette assistance was an informal process, set up in March 2005, available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was discussion among the community about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally marked inactive in September 2012.

If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see WP:PAIN.

Search the Wikiquette archives
Category: