| Revision as of 19:05, 3 June 2010 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,255 edits →User:Hell in a Bucket: blocked← 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| {{short description|Historical document}} | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| {{historical}} | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/Beginning}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 86 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts/archive%(counter)d | |||
| }}{{noindex}} | |||
| ] | |||
| '''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 ]. | |||
| <!-- NOTE: If the archive navbox needs a new row, update ]. This must be done manually, but the process should be pretty self-explanatory once you open the template. --> | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| == Incivility by ] == | |||
| {| class="wikitable" style="float:left;vertical-align:top;" | |||
| {{stuck|Subject is unreceptive to feedback - escalate to ANI or next step in dispute resolution (RfC/U) if it continues.}} | |||
| | width="300" style="text-align:center;"| '''Search the ]''' | |||
| In the course of a content dispute on ], Androstachys has engaged in several personal attacks directed against me. Examples include: | |||
| |- | |||
| * | |||
| |<inputbox> | |||
| * | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| * In the context of a discussion of dictionaries, . This not only implies I don't know what the word means, it also implies that I am one (for those who need a definition, it is "a person who obstinately adheres to old ways in spite of clear evidence that they are wrong; an ignorant and bigoted opponent of reform", per ]) | |||
| prefix=Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance | |||
| * This insult was then repeated, after I said my patience for personal attacks was running out, | |||
| break=no | |||
| I also have grave complaints about Androstachys' editing behavior, though I recognize that this is probably not the right forum to discuss that. We have put out an RFC, but so far it has been ignored. But I especially would like something to be done about the personal attacks. Thank you. --] (]/]) 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| width=40 | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search | |||
| ::My Chambers Dictionary defines mumpsimus as "an error cherished after exposure: stubborn conservatism". It would need an ultra-sensitive soul to see a personal attack or insult in this. A large part of his/her indignation seems to be based on speculation as to what I was implying. I also resent BlueMoonlet's "grave complaints" about my "editing behaviour" without being specific. This really is much ado about nothing ] (]) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| </inputbox> | |||
| |} | |||
| :::You were talking specifically about looking up words on Wiktionary, where the definition is as I quoted it. --] (]/]) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ]. ] (]) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No - you ''assumed'' that I wanted you to look up the word in Wiktionary. But ask yourself why I would invite you to consult Wiktionary when I had just criticised its treatment of the word "media". Really, cut me some slack! ] (]) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::So are you trying to say that you didn't mean any offense? There are less confrontational ways of saying so. <font color="005522">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, I didn't and of course there are. I think most other editors would have shrugged it off. ] (]) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well then let me put it more plainly: you think/thought wrong. Please strike those parts of your commentary quoted explicitly at the top of this Wikiquette alert report, and ensure you engage in appropriate conduct during discussions in the future (making a statement that you will would go a long way also). That will be enough to resolve this WQA (unless you want this to be marked stuck where the filing party would be required to escalate to the next step in dispute resolution). ] (]) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :No - I don't think that any reasonable editor would feel that my words were uncivil. BlueMoonlet triggered this incident by patronisingly telling me '''"It is not Misplaced Pages's job to fix "mistakes" made by reliable sources. I am reverting the changes now. If you come up with relaible sources to support your view, we can talk again in this space about changing it back.''' --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)" and then displaying hurt innocence when I responded in kind. ] (]) 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Something else - The heading of this complaint reads "Incivility by Androstachys" as if that were a foregone conclusion - the reason for the matter to be discussed here is to determine whether I ''was'' uncivil. It is a prejudicial heading. ] (]) 06:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :A look at the comments suggests that it is an appropriate heading so there is no sense in changing it - that you are utterly unreceptive to the feedback that has been given to you suggests that there is little point in continuing this further at this venue. ] (]) 10:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I had a look at the article and the dispute. A bit of shallow research clearly shows that BlueMoonlet is right on both accounts - grammar ''and'' (in)civility. IMO was a civil remark, whereas reply was uncivil. I have restored the and left a on the talk page. ] (]) 11:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for clearing up this matter, which needed your clear and incisive mind to cut through the complexities. ] (]) 08:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you feel that "this matter was cleared up", then why did you continue acting on the article () and on the talk page () as if no matter was cleared up? Do you think that these edits are compatible with expressing thanks "for clearing up this matter"?<p>Furthermore, do you think that this (''"which needed your clear and incisive mind to cut through the complexities''") was a civil comment? ] (]) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think civility and incivility assume a very blurred appearance when discussed by this forum. ] (]) 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do you think that your remark was appropriate? ] (]) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Absolutely! That's why I made it. ] (]) 06:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So first you someone's action, and four minutes later you for the action which you just reverted, mentioning ''"clear and incisive mind to cut through the complexities"''. You think that this is appropriate and civil. Really? ] (]) 09:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I have left a on Androstachys' talk page. | |||
| I also have reported this at ]. ] (]) 08:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{Stuck|Taken to ]. 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{discussiontop}} | |||
| It didn't take long for the discussion at ] to degrade into name-calling. I'm almost relieve it all fell apart before I could manage my first reply to the abuse (and inevitably get sucked in): , , , . ] (]) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a problem that you and Off2iorob attempted to make your own personal judgement on a 123 page paper written in 1969 in educational psychology. | |||
| :Usually in psychology textbooks this particular paper is referred to as notorious or controversial. This is a preposterous thing to attempt to do. When we edit wikipedia articles, we can't read research like this ourselves - we need secondary sources and the same thing applies on ]. There you claimed that ] was a malicious academic (what evidence?), that commentary from his article was malicious (what evidence), that Jensen hadn't published any statements on eugenics (what evidence?), or on rote learning vs abstract conceptual learning (what evidence?), that he had never published anything on applying this differentially to blacks and whites (what evidence?). You responded so quickly that you couldn't have looked at the sources I provided (about six different sources). You made claims of libel about published books by ] and ], probably without ever looking at the books to substantiate that '''very serious allegation'''. The quick fire comments suggested that there was no attempt to examine sources. I would that would take the average person about 2 or 3 hours. ] (]) 17:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did none of those things, however I did spend ninety minutes reading through a lot of material trying and failing to verify some text about Jensen's views on race. If reliable sources can be found for the statements then great; post them at the noticeboard. But I'm not able to work with you if you take such an insulting, condescending, and combative approach. ] (]) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::You responded extremely rapidly, making unfounded statements about potential libel. On the other hand, you cannot have had any chance to examine my arguments in a calm way nor to go about checking the sources, which as I say would take 2-3 hours. Instead you started analysing the 1969 paper of Jensen. I questioned why you thought you were in any position to make remarks on such a paper (as wikipedia editors we certainly can't). I objected because you were acting as if you had some expertise in being able to interpret such a paper. No wikipedian has that expertise. That is why we use secondary sources. Why did you make statements about libel? Why did you start trying to analyse whether Jensen had discussed eugenics? You were responding far too rapidly - too me at the speed of a video game - without carefully examining the sources, or indeed paying any attention to the detailed remarks that I wrote. The fact that you have brought this here is not particularly helpful, is it? ] (]) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good grief; has it occurred to you that it might take less time to read or look up a source (particularly one that you've either already read, or have readily available) than it does to make a post on Misplaced Pages? Has it also occurred to you that calling other Wikipedians "amateurs", even during difficult situations, is likely to serve to escalate a dispute rather than deescalate? And finally, has it occurred to you that you could effectively convey the same point without the bad faith assumptions and increasingly strident rhetoric? ] (]) 18:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| (od) May I suggest that mathsci refactor post. Then we can all move on with our lives. --] (]) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Also consider refactoring the part about "reality" also. ] (]) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. Also the part about arbcom which is uncalled for. --] (]) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Edit summaries like aren't really helping the situation. ] (]) 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| And we're . ] (]) 20:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Is it just me or is MathSci's behavior absurd? Here he accuses me of accusing Williams Tucker of being "a dishonest and partisan liar," when, in fact, I have done nothing of the sort. If anything, I think that the problem is either that MathSci misinterprets Tucker or that Tucker has made an honest mistake. Perhaps a more senior admin could counsel MathSci about his behavior? He has heeded none of the advice provided above by other uninvolved editors. His contributions are 99% excellent, but his attitude when challenged on the other 1% is, I think, uncalled for. ] (]) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :What we have here is a clear over reaction to what seems to general indifference to the ] issues currently plaguing various race related articles. I don't think Mathsci's behaviour is excusable, but I expect that until the ] issue is resolved flareups like this will continue. ] (]) 07:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <= In this case David.Kane opened a case on ] claiming that only critics ill-disposed to ] had reported that he had suggested the possibility of rote learning for blacks. When I realized the submission had been made, two editors were simultaneously active on BLPN, rapidly adding comments, so that any carefully documented response by me always ended up with multiple edit conflicts: I found that extremely confusing. Just things going too fast. Now as it turns out, after a lot of hard work (as is usual with locating neutral secondary sources), I have found several other sources, two of which have now been posted on BLPN. They make exactly the same statement as the one contested by David.Kane, but this time are written by writers of straightforward textbooks (on psychology and ]). That lays to rest the claims of a BLP violation. On ] I did have the impression that editors were too quick to assume that David.Kane's claims were correct; but it was quite a strange and highly unusual submission accompanied as it was by unsupported hearsay about two quite eminent academics, whose reputations remain unblemished. I imagine it was confusing for everybody; certainly it was for me. I apologize unreservedly to Rvcx for any offence accidentally caused during the handling of this extraordinary and, as it turns out, unwarranted submission. Apologies again. ] (]) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :First, your narrative of the events is just plain false. The requesting help verifying some text went up at 14:19, the was posted almost two hours later, came twenty minutes after that, addressing the initial complaint was another twenty minutes later (i.e. three hours after the original notice), and including a broader review of sources was another half hour after that. That's all it took for you to start attacking me as an ignorant amateur who hadn't read anything and didn't know what I was talking about. | |||
| :You also mischaracterize the substance of the concerns that have been raised, but this isn't the venue for that discussion. | |||
| : What I find particularly troubling is that even now you seem to deny any legitimacy to the points that other editors have raised. I appreciate your fresh attempt at a civil tone, but you still don't seem interested in real engagement, only in getting your own way. ] (]) 09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::What legitimacy could there be given a reasonable knowledge of the 123 spage manuscript, the high standards of an academic publisher like ] and the impeccable reputation of the two authors? I think I spent a lot of time writing and researching the article, so, like other editors on the page, familiar with the extensive literature (] has over 80 references all put there by me), there was not much doubt of the correctness of the summary. But to make that evaluation needed a lot of experienece with the material: I've spent two months on this material, ] which will take 4 or 5 months probably (included continuing to learn all the pieces on the organ).] The problem is that wikipedians cannot make a summary of a primary source, particular in this case where it concerns a very controversial paper. We have to use use a secondary source. But of course, in real life, when we're not wearing our wikipedian hats, we're perfectly capable of checking what's said in the article, when it's not too technical. But that is no use for editing. Finding secondary sources takes a long time, sometimes hours just for one source or image. Ingenuity is required. It took me about twelve hours to find everything. For eugenics that would have been even harder, just because those writing on eugenics, particularly in the context of African Americans, are rarely neutral, for fairly obvious reasons. So for a complex historical document like this, finding new secondary sources when somebody requests them is not really feasible. Many editors commenting on that page, including administrators, judged that the request was without merit. Having looked at the two new sources, do you agree that the statements cited there are not BLP violations? ] (]) 10:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have made my views on the content dispute clear over and over again, and every time you have simply refused to consider the possibility of any problems with what you've written. We all know that writing is hard. Finding sources is hard. But if you write something and it's tough to verify, or it assigns undue weight to one inconsequential matter, then it needs to be fixed. This isn't a negation of your time or effort. What's more, if there is one lesson you need to internalize about Misplaced Pages it's that justifying '''anything''' on the basis of your own expertise is completely inappropriate. Assuming that other editors don't have your expertise, and that they need to prove their qualifications before you will consider the input: also inappropriate. ] (]) 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| More insulting behavior from MathSci (note the edit comment). Is this sort of behavior encouraged at Misplaced Pages? If so, I should start making my edit summaries snappier! ] (]) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussionbottom}} | |||
| == Harassment with alleged sexual innuendo == | |||
| The following has been placed on my discussion page ] ] {{unsigned|Brudder Andrusha|01:23, 29 May 2010}} | |||
| :I dont know that I agree about "sexual innuendo", but the reinsertion of that content on a userpage is inappropriate. I have left a note on the users talk page ] (]) 07:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not inappropriate to reinsert content when the other user refuses to take the message on board. By starting this discussion here, ] has shown a complete disregard for the message contained within ], which was the whole reason for me posting it on her talk page to begin with. – ]] 08:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is inappropriate. See ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 11:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Sean.hoyland and I add that this can lead to edit-warring which is obviously not a good practice, especially on other users' talkpages. Not to mention that I just noticed that the reverts were made using the rollback tool. In cases where there is no vandalism involved using rollback to revert is clearly improper and can lead to the removal of ]. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 11:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *When someone removes something from their talk page, you shouldn't put it back again. They saw the message already, and don't want to see it again. Take your own advice, and don't be a dick about it. ]''' 12:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * Picking up on the "sexual innuendo" part: no, it's not (as I'm sure ] now realises). However, I'd recommend in future that ] avoid such terse communications. If it's necessary to say "don't be a dick", I feel it's also necessary to explain why you feel another editor is being "a dick". This doesn't entirely fit within ], but it's not far off. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] has ignored a Final Warning about NPA == | |||
| {{Resolved|Forwarded to ] and subject blocked for 24 hrs.}} | |||
| {{archivetop}} | |||
| ] recieved a final warning regarding ] on May 22 . | |||
| Today the editor resumed the personal attacks, calling me a Wikinazi. | |||
| (Before this most recent attack, I had previously brought the matter here to ask for a third party to intervene and remind G8crash3r that personal attacks are not acceptable. However, that request became entangled in another more complicated request and no one responded to either ) | |||
| This time I am hoping that G8crash3r will be told in no uncertain terms that personal attacks are not tolerated. ] (]) 18:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC): | |||
| :Oh, yeah, how about ], why not include him? --g8crash3r 18:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::You need to fix your signature g8crash3r, per ]. "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 18:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: (e/c) So far, my knowledge of ] personal attacks have been limited to one day and one editor, which have not ''quite'' reached the point that I feel seeking third party intervention is necessary. But if you have other evidence that this is a pattern of behavior which requires outside intervention, please feel free to compile the evidence and file a notice of his behavior on your own. If there have been editors other than myself that he has attacked, I fully support the community working in a manner that will reduce the enviornment that tacitly allows personal attacks to be made over time without consequences. ] (]) 18:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<small>''while I was posting above, appeared and did cross the line, but third parties were simultaneously intervening.''' ] (]) 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::Frankly, it is egregious enough to warrant a block, with or without warnings. ] (]) 18:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}} '''Comment''': I'd ''almost'' be OK with "Wikinazi". I am ''not OK'' with the exact phrase used: {{xt|...Active Banana is such an arrogant Misplaced Pages Nazi...}} as it seems to clearly violate ]: {{xt|...'''political'''...epithets... directed against another contributor}}. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ceoil's edit summaries calling the removal of "was blessed with" vandalism (eg and one shortly before that one) suggest that he doesn't understand the behavior we expect from editors. If G8crash3r does not make it clear that he understands that his behavior is not acceptable and that he will stop, he can expect to be blocked. ] (]) 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (I know this is closed, but as Ceoil says his bare 'rv' edit summary wasn't meant to indicate vandalism, it's only fair that I mention it and not leave my edit as it stood. His talk page comments...) ] (]) 19:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Such a comment is unacceptable, past history or not. I have blocked the user for 24 hours. As far as I am concerned, he can either take this block as a warning that such comments are '''not''' tolerated, ''or'' he can take advantage of an unblock request to evidence to an unblocking admin that he has, very much so, learnt to alter his behaviour and understands how to be civil. He has clearly been told before, and needs to learn that final warning means final warning. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for intervening SGGH; agree 100%. Will close this thread as the ANI is open on the same subject. ] (]) 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| == Sockpuppet accusations from admin == | |||
| See diffs: , . I tried to resolve this on the ], pointing out lack of evidence and the non-constructive nature of accusations like this that aren't acted on. As a new user, am I expected to act with complete disregard and ignorance in order to avoid this sort of thing? I don't want every action I make being given a black mark by an admin. ] (]) 22:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : As your comments haven't addressed the issue, I'll ask the obvious question. Have you ever edited Misplaced Pages under a different user name? ] (]) 22:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. I've read a lot of policy over the years though, just through idle browsing of arguments on talk pages, etc., and I've certainly read through a few policy docs. I've made a few minor edits as an IP over the past five years. ] (]) 22:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::AfD is a hotbed of sockpuppetry and many sockpuppets have been caught out by behavioural indicators like over-familiarity with process. There are no 'black marks' here, no template warnings on your talk page, no entries in your block log, no SPI report; righteous indignation at the suggestion that you're not a new user is an overreaction. If you're a new editor then ignore this and get on with editing. ]<span style="background-color:white; color:grey;">&</span>] 15:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No. I don't fancy having my comments invalidated because people like you decide to append them with "sockpuppet". This would have ended if you were able to swallow your pride and recant the statements you made, or explain how they are constructive and not just attacks on me because you disagreed with my AfD request; instead you restated them as fact. You're making these accusations publicly where other people will read them. I don't want an immediate negative reputation because of your problem. ] (]) 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But let's just forget it. I can't see you cooperating in any way, and this is publicly documented well enough for me now. ] (]) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't understand. Fences and windows said (in the diff above) you're not a new user. You said in this very section that you've been here for years. What is there to argue about? <font color="005522">]</font><sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 12:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's not what happened. Please familiarise yourself with the edits that I have provided diffs for. I was accused of creating sockpuppet accounts which is not the same thing as having read Misplaced Pages for a number of years and making a few minor edits without an account some time ago. I was accused of making multiple accounts for the purpose of creating an AfD, which is not something to accuse a user of in casual conversation. So far any effort to resolve the admin's approach to new users have hit a brick wall so it seems useless for me to continue trying to find some justification for it. The only thing I can take away from this is that principles such as ] can safely be ignored by established admins where convenient. ] (]) 16:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ÅlandÖland == | |||
| I'd like to report some uncivility from the above user ]. See also | |||
| *I tried to enter a simple post at ] to which the user responded, but continued to do so with sarcastic edit summaries such as "some truths" and "advice to inexperienced user" totally against ]. | |||
| *At no point have I attacked him yet he has also left two messages on my talk page to suggest that I have. He also made an edit summary on his own talk page "reverting personal attack. even though i have tried to clam the user down" when I tried to talk to him. | |||
| *And finally when I left him another message, his advice was simply "One good way to stop this discussion is easy. I dont answer you and you dont write me anymore. If you continue to write me or being uncivil i will have to give you further warnings. Happy editing". | |||
| While I don't want to report him for any ban, I've been upset and offended by his tone with me, when all I was trying to do in the first place was make one suggestion. ] (]) 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Agree with the IP above. I messaged AlandOland on his talk page. (By the way, for being an IP with no other edits you look quite well experienced in policies and WP. Do you usually edit(ed) with another account? ], just a curiosity.) --]] 22:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Have given a final reply on my talk page. Hope this is the end of this debate. There is always two sides of a coin. And i personally took offence by comment made by this IP adress to. But i am willing to look beyond that if our agreement stays as it is. I will not comment on this any further.--] (]) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I've just used my IP for a while now having previously tried to use an account, but found the politics like this unsavoury incident put me off. I'd rather stay making just small edits without any of the politics on the large scale. ] (]) 22:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Well, I think we can probably let this drop now. Whilst several people think Åland was plainly wrong, I don't think any good would come of pursuing this. The mature thing, imo, is just to move on. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{stuck}} | |||
| {{discussiontop}} | |||
| Telling a user to "grow up" and responding "Fuck off" when warned about it . Searching Wikiquette alerts and checking their block log, it seems the user has been previously blocked for similar incivility and should know better. ] (]) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a joke, right? ] ] 02:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would say that it appears pointless as you have already been adequately warned, but I don't see anything to indicate it is a joke. If so, it is a poor one: You must *sharply* dial back your abuse of other editors, or I feel confident you will not be able to edit, eventually. - ] 02:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Warning editors to stop making personal attacks rarely works. More often, the warning simply makes them more upset. "Fuck off, troll" is a predictable response. Warnings are only effective with unregistered users and brand new users. <p> M.F. is a productive and hard-working editor who is not skilled at social interactions. He has contributed very much to the project, and he has gratuitously alienated a lot of people in the process. He's not a nice person, it turns out, and the fact that being nice ''is more effective in the long run'' than being rude doesn't register with him. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but M.F. doesn't care, at least not that I've ever seen. <p> Am I wrong, Malleus? Am I painting a false picture here? I'd like to be corrected, if I am wrong. <p> It is entirely possible, likely even, that M.F. will eventually be banned. However, this sort of thing takes a ''lot'' of effort, and usually drags out over weeks and months. Informing him of "infractions" against the NPA policy is simply not going to get you anywhere good. An ] is probably more effective, not because it will have any impact on his behavior, but simply because it documents the problem for some future ArbCom case. <p> Sorry, but that's how it tends to go around here. I wish it weren't true. :( -]<sup>(])</sup> 14:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wont comment on your particular assessment of ], but your assessement of '''the process''' appears to be very valid. :-( ] (]) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well... I'd like to be wrong about both. Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment, but an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, it's rather successful. As a social experiment, it's an utter failure. Ultimately, the key to a satisfying experience here is to fully accept this fact. -]<sup>(])</sup> 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Interesting discussion, for its insight into the dishonesty and double standards at the heart of wikipedia. In which alternate universe is "I think you need to grow up" considered to be a "personal attack", but "He's not a nice person" isn't? Insane. Surely it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that GTBacchus is an administrator and I'm not, could it? ] ] 18:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh dear, you're not going to 'quit' again are you? ]] 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::(after edit conflict) I don't think you're a bad person, Malleus. Do you think that you're "nice"? Is that how you describe yourself? I ''did'' asked to be corrected, if I'm wrong. Will you correct me? <p> As for my being an admin, I spoke the same way I speak now before I was an administrator, and if I ever stop being an administrator, I'll still speak that way. I'm honest. <p> Being not-very-nice isn't a sin, nor is it a crime. I think it's not very helpful, either, but you're a grown-up - you can decide how you want to interact with others. <p> I predict that the tone you take with others will eventually get you banned, and I'll be sad when that happens, because you do good work. Lots of it. <p> For sure, though, if my statement: "he's not a nice person" is inaccurate, then correct me. Show me my error. <p> By the way, I do '''not''' consider "I think you need to grow up" to be a personal attack, and I think that leaving a warning for it on your talk page was a foolish response. I think that "I think you need to grow up" is an honest assessment of someone's behavior, from your perspective - just like "he's not a nice person" is an honest assessment from my perspective. I consider "fuck off, troll" to be a incredibly misguided thing to say, which is too bad, because you ''are'' a lot smarter than that, no question. <p> Of course, if you look at the situation empirically... what percentage of the time do you think "you need to grow up" ends up being helpful, in the sense of really convincing the person to reconsider their actions? Is it about 90% of the time? 20%? 50%? And yes, I'm fully aware that "he's not a nice person" is unlikely to make you think twice about anything. I didn't say it for your benefit, but more to point out that giving you warnings is silly. Do you disagree? -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, with the exception of your prediction that my honest assessment of the character, abilities, and honesty of certain other editors will inevitably result in my being banned. My hope is that wikipedia's rationally run replacement will be in ''situ'' by then, but if not, tough. Hopefully the cry-babies will one day be able to have this social experiment all to themselves, without the nuisance of having to pretend to be writing an encyclopedia. ] ] 20:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::How can you disagree with a question? Do you find that saying "you need to grow up" often makes people say, "gee, he's right. I need to grow up!"? If not, then why say it? I'm genuinely curious, what the thought process is there. I'm confident you've thought about it, because you clearly don't act mindlessly. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::My view has always been that a rational person should behave in the way most likely to lead to the desired outcome, somewhat similar to that of Machiavelli. Sometimes that means being "nice", sometimes that means being "nasty"; there isn't a one size fits all. ] ] 22:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I guess I just haven't observed the cases where being nasty led to a desired outcome. Your statement of pragmatism is one I completely agree with, but I've found that showing (honest) respect is almost always more pragmatic than nastiness. If being nasty is sometimes helpful, perhaps we should document that, so people can learn how and when to be nasty. (I'm ''not'' being sarcastic.) -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"''Oh dear, you're not going to 'quit' again are you?''" What's it to you, HalfAssedShadow? I shall continue to do as I've always done, exactly as I like, when I like. ] ] 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(after e.c., I am addressing GTBacchus here) I don't think it is helpful at all to make statements about what kind of a ''person'' someone is, unlike commenting on someone's edits or even someone's behaviour. I have seen Malleus Fatuorum assist young editors way beyond what is the norm here at Misplaced Pages. I think that is not only "nice", it also helps the encyclopedia. Just because someone is sometimes grumpy and cantankerous doesn't make him "not a nice person". Moreover, I find your prediction unhelpful, and just to balance it out for those who believe in self-fulfilling prophecies. I think MF will be here for quite a while, improving content, and showing the way to a lot of editors who request his assistance. ---] ] 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks for your kind words Sluzzelin, but I'm ''always'' "grumpy and cantankerous". It's a genetic thing I think, means I'm unable and unwilling to tolerate fools. ] ] 20:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::<small>Well, then you are a coconut, hard rough surface, soft milky inside. We have plenty of peaches at WP, with soft and fuzzy surfaces and hard rough pits in the belly, but hey, I like both, though I prefer strawberries :-). ---] ] 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::::::::If a fool comes to my talk page with stupid civility warnings then they ought to know what kind of a response they're likely to get. If that's a bannable offence, then so be it. The loser is wikipedia, not me. I find GTBacchus's obsession with being "nice" to be completely incomprehensible. The ''last'' thing I'd want anyone to call me was "nice". It's such a nothing word. In fact, I consider "nice" to be a personal attack. ] ] 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Let's just say that I would deeply and truly regret if GTBacchus's prophecy came true. I don't think it will, and I (cloutless though I am) would certainly try to prevent it from happening. I agree with your assessment of stupid civility warnings. I find them stupid too. It just would be regrettable if politics took over and the civility police (note, no quotation marks, I agree with that characterization) took over. In real life I grumble and lash out. Here, I manage to restrict myself. I don't care what you do, but please don't do anything that will get you in more trouble. Your contributions are far too valuable. And that's the quintessential truth, Ruth. ---] ] 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Malleus, civility has a very simple raison d'etre. This is a collaborative effort. We all collaborate better by being civil with each other. Like Sluzzelin, I am also very blunt in real life and in other online environments, but here I strive to be civil, because that's the way to go if we want this place to work. --]] 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::We're not all the same Cyclopia; I value honesty and integrity ''way'' beyond "civility". If wikipedia doesn't, then that wikipedia's problem, not mine. Let's remind ourselves why this thread was started. I said that I believed that someone ought to grow up. During this thread, I've been told that I'm not a nice person and that as a result I'm going to be banned. Does any of that make any sense to you? ] ] 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::(after edit coflict) No, Mal, I wasn't talking to you. There would be no point in telling you that you're not nice (which you seem to embrace anyway). I think there's a point in telling others that it's useless to leave civility warnings on your talk page. Do you agree, that such warnings are useless? -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Absolutely, completely useless, but what's worse, counter-productive. What will this silly little thread achieve, other than time wasted? ] ] 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Precisely. The waste of time could have been avoided in two ways: if you hadn't typed "fuck off, troll", or if the other guy had just fucked off quietly. The latter is, I expect, not very common. That's the only point I've ever tried to make about civility - an ounce of restraint prevents a pound of nonsense such as this. If you don't show the restraint, then you've pretty much requested the nonsense. That seems to be how the world works. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}1)I don't see how honesty and integrity conflict with civility. I agree with your value hierarchy, but that is no reason to be incivil. 2)To say "grow up" is not what I'd consider an attack and it doesn't concern me. But to answer "Fuck off, troll" is childish at best and has no justification whatsoever. --]] 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"Obsession", wow. I only observe what works in some situations, and what tends to create static. I think avoiding static is good, for purely practical reasons. The wheels turn more smoothly without it. <p> Sluzzelin, thanks for your reply. I think you're essentially right. All I was really trying to say is what Malleus himself seems happy enough to say: He often behaves in a grumpy and cantankerous manner. He doesn't "suffer fools", nor does he want to (according to what he ''just'' said). I suppose it wasn't helpful to compress all of that content into "not a nice person". <p> When you refer to civility police, I don't know who you mean. Personally, I've always believed that treating civility like a rule or a law is completely foolish. I also think that doing things that get people's backs up is foolish, because it creates heat and static, and reports on boards like this. Apparently, it's "incomprehensible" that I think it's practical to avoid heat and static by taking a respectful tone (which I know I don't always succeed in doing). <p> That's just what it is, I guess. I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it, and I'm not going to put a warning on anyone's page. I wish you all a good day. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::If you don't get bent out of shape, don't put warnings on the talk pages of constructive content contributors, and don't report them on boards, then I think we are quite alike. The only difference is, perhaps, that despite my own efforts to remain "civil" (how I hate that word, by now), I really resent the attempts to get rid of consistently constructive content editors just because they said you need to fuck off. I will withdraw from this discussion now, unless someone is ambitious enough to bring it to WP:ANI. ---] ] 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Huh. I thought it was clear from my very first post in this thread that I don't think giving talk page warnings to established users is ever a good idea. I've never reported anyone on any kind of board, at least not that I can remember. I don't hate the word "civil", though, and I won't talk about "civility police", because I refuse to let that word be hijacked into meaning something it doesn't mean. Letting "civility" mean mindless avoidance of any blunt or direct criticism is a capitulation I won't make, because if you let your opponents define the terms in the language, then you have already let them win. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It's more complicated than that. I would never initiate one of these silly threads but others do, and nobody has the balls to say they're childish, because that would be "uncivil". Yet because I don't, others assume that the complaints brought here have some merit. Just look at Yworo's opening remarks: "Searching Wikiquette alerts and checking their block log ...". This place is deeply dishonest. ] ] 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::If it's so dishonest (and you're so "honest") - what would you recommend? I think WP will go on, personally... ] (]) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Did I misread something here? Isn't this the place where children come to complain about an editor being rude to them? When did it become a forum for a debate on wikipedia's inevitable demise? ] ] 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::If its demise is inevitable, why stay aboard? I'd leave a ship if I thought it was sinking... ] (]) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Please feel free to fuck off any time you like, but please also allow me to make my own decisions about what I shall do. ] ] 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::How sweet! You're allowed... ;> ] (]) 22:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *. This is beginning to be way over the already high bar of what is reasonably acceptable. --]] 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, don't block this guy. Block me instead, for telling the person who suggests to block this guy, that that would be idiotic fom the perspective of the encyclopedia. There are tremendous differences in the perception of what is "reasonably acceptable", and we should strictly adhere to pure ''menefregismo'' as far as sensitivities are concerned. Content is queen, and blocks of the suggested kind would do harm to the encyclopedia. ---] ] 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is nothing that prevents Malleus Fatuorum from providing great content without being incivil and creating problems with other editors. I personally don't mind if he insults ''me'', but I mind about keeping a decent collaborative environment, and I mind about fairness in applying rules that should be roughly the same for everyone. Content is queen; but creating problems between editors doesn't help content. --]] 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How would you know? ] ] 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::(after ec with MF) Cyclopia, you say: "''There is nothing that prevents Malleus...''" Maybe there is. Maybe Malleus isn't so malleable, that we can just ask him to change his temperament to suit our preferences. Maybe he's a complete package, a person who does a lot of good work, and sometimes says "fuck off". <p> Rather than assuming we can control the way he interacts with others, perhaps we just need to ask ourselves if his presence here results in a net gain for the project, or a net loss. I'm not ready to say he's more harmful than helpful; I would be engaging in wild speculation to do so. If you think he's a liability to the 'pedia, ] is that way, but you'll find that a lot of people value him highly. Bringing him to ''this'' board is beyond pointless, or so it would seem. We must, after all, be pragmatic. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok. I am a researcher at a quite good university. I have produced several scientific publications and stuff. I am sure I am more valuable to society, in this strict utilitaristic sense, than the random guy that packs shelves at ]. So, if I need some money, I could punch that guy in the face and rob him of his money. What do you think, that I can tell the judge "Hey Your Honour, you know, if you put me in jail there is a net negative for society because I couldn't conduct any more research on Parkinson disease for all that time" and expect to be released? | |||
| ::::::In principle, it could even make sense. The problem is obviously that, if fully applied, it would make the world hell. Because the problem is not Malleus himself. The problem is that if we allow a free card to every valued contributor to behave as s/he prefers and to bully other editors, we create a (virtual) world that becomes rapidly toxic to editors. And this is, pragmatically, not good for the encyclopedia. Better to lose a contributor today than one hundred tomorrow. --]] 23:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::When a girl I know in RL tells me to "fuck off", I get upset (doesn't happen too often, mind you ;>). When Mal tells me to fuck off, it bounces right off my thickened skin. Don't block him on account of li'l ol' me - although I was horribly rude to him, and probably need my "hat straightened" and "arse kicked". Not necessarily in that order... ;> ] (]) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It bounces off my skin too. But perhaps not all editors are as thick-skinned as we are. Again, the point is: do we want to make this a place where only thick-skinned bullies can thrive, or where we collaborate with each other, without necessarily probing each other personal sensitivity to harsh insults? --]] 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Cyclopia, I think I understand the position you're taking, but I wonder if you might be casting it in terms of extremes. Misplaced Pages is manifestly ''not'' a place where only thick-skinned bullies can thrive. Lots of collaboration is going on, right now, and Malleus is not a threat to that. He may offend a few people to the point that they leave, but that doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages as a whole is totally given over to capricious flame-wars and insult-fests. <p> I think that your analogy about mugging the Tesco person doesn't take into account the differences between Misplaced Pages and "real life" (or whatever you like to call it ;) ). Nobody on Misplaced Pages is getting their nose broken, nobody is losing money, nobody is physically harmed in any way. Also, Misplaced Pages has an absolutely terrible version of a "justice system". The UK has a better one, that actually works a fair amount of the time. <p> I've said it many times, and I'll say it again: Everyone who tries to get "justice" out of Misplaced Pages comes to grief in the end. You can't drink whiskey from a bottle of wine, and you can't obtain justice from an encyclopedia. The UK has cops, judges, and prisons. Misplaced Pages has a thousand admins, some in their young teens, a rule called "Ignore All Rules", and just about as much anonymity as you can ask for. <p> What it really comes down to is this: If Malleus upsets enough people, there will eventually be an RFC/U. There hasn't yet been one. If there are more than about two of those, then there will likely be an ArbCom case, or someone will try to enact a community ban via AN/I. That's currently a long way from happening. <p> We're not actually "allowing a free card to every valued contributor to behave as s/he prefers and to bully other editors". We stop way short of that description. Thus, I sympathize with your position, but I don't think the situation is really as you characterize it. <p> I hope that made some sense. -]<sup>(])</sup> 00:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's clear that I don't fit in here, and I never will, but I see that as wikipedia's problem, not mine. For me, wikipedia is a repository for the content that will hopefully one day be transferred to wikipedia mark II. ] ] 23:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"Maybe there is. Maybe Malleus isn't so malleable, that we can just ask him to change his temperament to suit our preferences" We cannot make him change his temperment and he has no control over the initial emotional response he has, but he does have complete control over whether he decides to click the "save page" button with his initial reactions on the page. ] (]) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::As did you. So what led you to believe that your contribution was in any way helpful? ] ] 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::or maybe he doesnt. ] (]) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Malleus, it may well be that there is nothing any of us can do to convince you to remain part of the WP editing community. However, rather than simply throw someone out, the ] is that reasonable efforts should be made to convince disruptive editors to instead be less disruptive, and hopefully edit to improve the encyclopedia. Those who cannot or will not cut down to an acceptable level of disruption are blocked from editing, or they stop editing on this one project on their own because <s>of</s> the community's methods are "at best ill-considered" or whatever.- ] 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}}Civility is not optional. It is '''core policy'''. I don't care how much someone contributes, if they can't be civil, they're not wanted here. Especially when they demonstrably don't learn and boast about it. This editor should be blocked. Or this project should rewrite core policy. --] (]) 13:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :You first of all have to agree on a common definition of "civility", not the childish "Please Miss, Malleus said he thought I should grow up" nonsense that passes for it in this lunatic asylum. I don't, for instance, consider a comment such as "this editor should be blocked" to be civil, rather as petty vindictiveness, but as I really couldn't care less what your opinion is, I'm indifferent to your valiant efforts to have me blocked. ] ] 14:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Individual incidents aren't a problem. It's a pattern of behaviour that is. There are many reasons why editors might breach civility policy which don't end up here. But a pattern of behaviour that hasn't improved over a period of time isn't one. What the community is looking for is an acknowledgement that you understand, precisely, what element of your behaviour is unacceptable, and that you commit to avoiding a repeat of the behaviour in future. --] (]) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then I hope that nobody's holding their breath. ] ] 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Count me in with those asking for a block. Content provider or not, you are way out of line, in my view. ] 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you want to see him blocked, then take the steps that are most likely to lead there. Let's all be rational, shall we? In today's Misplaced Pages, an editor such as Malleus is extremely unlikely to be blocked without even having had a single RFC/U. More like two of them, followed by an ArbCom case. Simply voicing opinions on this page is not likely to lead anywhere. I doubt I'd endorse the RFC, but others would. Put your money where your mouth is. <p> Saying you want to see him blocked, and then not doing anything about it makes about as much sense as him saying he wants to be left alone, and then guaranteeing he won't be by saying "fuck off troll". That is: It makes no sense. -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Just so that I'm clear. An editor that violates one of the core policies of this project ], over and over again over a period of time despite warnings, and shows no intention of changing their behaviour, will *not* get a block? Sounds to me like there's an admin ducking their responsibilities... There is nothing in policy that says that an RFC/U is required, and an arbcom case leads to content restrictions or a ban, which is completely OOT as a reaction at this point in time. --] (]) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::There is nothing in policy that says any admin has to do a single action that they don't feel like doing. We're not paid enough for that. <p> ArbCom cases can lead to all kinds of results. <p> There may not be a policy saying that an RFC/U is required for a well-established and widely respected user to be blocked for habitual incivility. However, I live in reality, and not in a fantasy land where Misplaced Pages is run strictly according to policy. Play the game like it says in the book, you'll end up losing. Play the game the way it's ''actually'' played, and you might get somewhere. Reality. Keep your eyes and ears open, and you'll more and more and more about it. -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The blocking policy also says that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. What disruption to the project would be prevented if you were to get your wish and I was now blocked? ] ] 17:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::''You'', frankly. ]] 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that this is just a manifestation of your personal vendetta. Fair play to you for that. ] ] 18:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm voicing my opinion, which as I understand it is what this page is for. Again, it is my view that Malleus, as shown clearly in this thread, needs a time out. ] 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sure, but you said you're asking for something. It's only rational to ask for something in such a way that might actually get you what you're asking for. Asking for something in a way that's unlikely to bring it about is kind of hollow, you know? -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd be interested to know what it is that you want to see me blocked for. Because you don't like me for whatever reason? I don't much care for you either, but I'm indifferent as to whether or not you're blocked, and in fact I don't think I've ''ever'' called for another editor to be blocked. ] ] 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's one of your good qualities Malleus. I doubt the people who say they want you blocked will get it together enough to make that happen, so you probably have nothing to worry about. -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I've seen stranger things happen here, and I doubt there's exactly a shortage of administrators waiting for their excuse. Anyway, I'm afraid this necktie party will have to continue without me for a while, got things to do. ] ] 17:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === So why is it... === | |||
| ...it's perfectly okay Malleus can do something like and you all basically go 'Well, I didn't see that. Nope, nope.' when ''anyone else anywhere'' would have gotten at least a day's block? I demand Malleus be held to the same level of accountability as the rest of us would. He's no better than the rest of us, despite what he thinks. ]] 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :You "demand" it? So if your demand isn't met, what do you do? -]<sup>(])</sup> 15:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, "demand". And quite frankly, I feel it's a perfectly fair one. You let him get away with shit that would get others anything up to permablocked, and it's unfair to the rest of us. ]] 15:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seriously, I asked a question. If what you demand doesn't happen, then what do you do about it? -]<sup>(])</sup> 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What would be the point? Apparently Malleus has a pack of 'Get out of deep shit free' cards. That doesn't make it any less valid. ]] 16:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not saying it's invalid, man. I'm asking how you're going to back it up! Demands that you can't back up are hollow. There ''are'' reasonable answers you could give to this question. Try one. Do you need a hint? -]<sup>(])</sup> 16:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I could probably try arbitration, but I'm not gullible enough to believe that'll accomplish anything. "Demand" seemed like the right term to use at the time; he really is getting far more leeway than anyone here deserves. ]] 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No. You can't try arbitration, because the prior steps haven't been taken. You can file an RFC/U, or an ANI report. Reports here are beyond pointless when it comes to Malleus. That should be abundantly clear by now. An RFC/U or an ANI report are actually halfway reasonable responses to having a problem with someone's behavior. <p> I will say this though... if you want to see Misplaced Pages ensure that someone gets something that they "deserve", then you'll end up just as disappointed as everyone else who's tried that. The only thing this site is good at is being an encyclopedia (and wasting lots of time around the edges). -]<sup>(])</sup> 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you're going to continue chucking stones, then I think you ought to consider moving out of that glass house of yours. Have you, or anyone else, ever seen me do something like ? Did you really feel that swearing on an IP's talk page was a great idea? Were you blocked for that nonsense? No, you weren't. Let's apply the same standards across the board, and not just try to impose them on everyone else, as it appears that you are attempting dishonestly to do. ] ] 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He makes a good point, HalfShadow. Do you do that sort of thing often? -]<sup>(])</sup> 16:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No I don't. Furthermore, that was and he knows it. That was an error on my part, but unlike Malleus, I can actually admit to that. ]] 16:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Half, you seem (as I see it) to be taking this way too personally, and I suspect you may be being baited (] fails me here). Unless Malleus's behaviour merits a community ban, I don't see anything to be done here. As I read the situation: The editor is content with their behaviour. The editor seems to clearly understand that the community does not approve, and has firmly stated that the editor does not care and will not change. Does anyone think I have this wrong?- ] 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(after edit conflict - reply to HalfShadow) Well, good, that you don't do it often. There's not a good context for it, but you seem to know that. Malleus' statement above that you highlight also had a context, and I read it as pretty congenial. I'm pretty sure the recipient took it that way, too. <p> The comment that started this whole report... that was Malleus ''asking for'' this report. He knows damn well that if he wishes to avoid this kind of crap, then it's very, very, very easy to do. I think he likes the attention, or he wouldn't push the buttons that any fool could tell you lead directly here. He prefers the thousands-of-words denouement to simply getting rid of the person who's bothering him. Else he would have chosen the latter, but he didn't. <p> Isn't that right, Malleus? If not, why are we here? Let's be quite honest. You have the power to avoid or cause threads here, because you know damn well that other people won't change. You choose to push the buttons that will ''obviously'' cause these reports, and you get the reward that you were after: this report. Everybody wins, right? <p> Someone tell me why I'm wrong. -]<sup>(])</sup> 16:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You're wrong because you're not listening to what I'm telling you. I find this whole forum to be a childish waste of time, and if I had the power I'd close it. My view quite simply is that those delicate flowers who choose to start threads here{{ndash}} have you ever seen ''me'' start one here?{{ndash}} ought to get out more, or find something more useful to do. Anyone who objects to being asked to fuck off if they're silly enough to come to my talk page warning me about some petty infringement of their beloved "civility" policy will do so at their own risk. I just couldn't care less what this mythical "community" of half a dozen or so malcontents thinks about anything. ] ] 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yes, I've seen you start a thread here! You started this one. Any damn fool could have told you that "fuck off troll" would lead you directly here, and you chose to say it. Therefore, you started this thread. You said above: "''My view has always been that a rational person should behave in the way most likely to lead to the desired outcome.''" No rational human would think that on this Wiki, saying "fuck off troll" would lead to the outcome of you being left alone. You behaved in a way that was most likely to lead to this report, so this must have been your desired outcome. It's simple cause-and-effect. <p> You can't will others to be different, so you have to take their natures as given. You do what is most likely to lead here, ergo, you want to be here. <p> If you couldn't care less what people on this thread thought, you would never have replied. You replied, ergo, you care. Actions speak immeasurably louder than words, and your actions indicate that you love this. Otherwise, you wouldn't create it. It's all in your hands, buddy. Choose the world you want to live in. Today, you chose this one. -]<sup>(])</sup> 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I most certainly did ''not'' start this thread, as any fool can see. ] ] 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Your logic is as faulty as your recollection of who started this thread. All I am doing, and will continue to do so long as it amuses me, is to draw attention to the deep hypocrisy displayed in threads like this one, in which editors pile on in at least an uncivil manner as their victim is accused of, and usually more so, as in this case, which has rather rapidly turned into a lynch mob. ] ] 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::We're not talking about recollection, man. I can see who posted here first. When I say you started it, I mean that ''by saying "fuck off troll"'', you set in motion a chain of events that inevitably leads here. You acted in a way that was most likely to lead to a report, and you believe that rational people should act in ways that are most likely to lead to their desired outcomes. The only possible conclusions are that you wanted this outcome, or that you're not rational. I don't consider the latter to really be an option here. <p> If you step in front of a moving bus, and then blame it for hitting you, that's not rational. People who don't want to be hit by buses don't step in front of them. You stepped in front of this bus when you said "fuck off troll", so don't blame the bus. You asked for it; you got it. Next time, don't ask for it. Duh. <p> Anyone could have told you that habitually telling others to "fuck off" would lead here. You did it, so this is what you wanted. Push the button, get the food pellet; rats understand it. -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Actually, if you look right back to the start of this thread, you'll see that the complaint was that I said to another editor "I think you ought to grow up", nothing to do with "fuck off troll". ] ] 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Oh, Mal, at least read the entire sentence. The complaint was (a) you told him you thought he should grow up, '''AND''' (b) that when he "warned" you over (a), you told him to "fuck off". If you aren't going to read entire sentences, how do you expect communication to happen? The complaint was not about (a) alone, it was (a)+(b). -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Let me refresh your memory. I did ''not'' tell Ywori, the editor who started this thread, that I thought he should grow up. That comment was in response to a question asked by another editor, . My "trolling" comment was addressed to the troll who stuck his nose in univited and unnecessarily. ] ] 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Ah. That's not refreshing my memory so much as filling a gap in what I'd understood. My apologies for thinking that the person you said you thought should grow up and the person you said "fuck off" to were the same person. <p> That doesn't change the fact that this thread was started as a direct (and predictable) consequence of you saying "fuck off troll". People who wish to avoid this kind of shit simply don't say that kind of shit. You said it, therefore you wanted this. Next time, don't ask for something you don't want. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|:::::::::::::::}} The flaw in your argument is that you think that I think that telling Ywori to fuck off would lead to this, as opposed to him just, well, you know, fucking off. ] ] 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :You really thought he would just fuck off? In what universe do you live? You could already see that he had an unrealistic view of how WP:CIVIL is "enforced", and you thought it was most likely that he would just quietly go away? <p> That's some insanely serious ignorance of human nature you've displayed. What you thought would be likely '''didn't happen'''. What I could have told you was likely '''did happen'''. You're batting .000 when it comes to predicting his actions. (That's a baseball metaphor.) The next time you tell someone to "fuck off", there's a reasonable chance that it's gonna blow up in your face. So, do it, and then don't whine when it blows up again. Christ. Now, you've got every reason to know what the fallout looks like, so don't ask for it again. Duh. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let me try and spell it it out for you. You live your life and I'll live mine, I'm just not interested in your psychobabble. ] ] 23:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Then why are you still replying to me? You seem ''very'' interested, like you can't get enough of me. Walk away, Malleus. Walk away. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because I think that you're a misguided soul who needs to have his hat put on straight. ] ] 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, I honestly appreciate that, and I can tell that you're being honest. I think we're both certain to think about what the other one said. Next time you're about to say "fuck off" to someone, you'll remember this little jaunt, how your expectations about whatshisname were dead wrong, and about how much you enjoyed it. Next time I.... huh. What have you taught me, exactly? To live my life and let you live yours? Or was it something else? -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, I won't. I'll just be reminded of the hopeless dreamers like you who can't distinguish between an honest observation and a libellous accusation that I'm a paedophile. Shall we compare what it feels like to called a paedophile, as compared to someone telling you that I think you ought to grow up? No, I didn't think so. You disgust me. ] ] 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Meta-discussion === | |||
| It's probably not the right place for this discussion, but I for one am finding it refreshingly enlightenting on the one hand, and disturbing on the other. It's refreshingly enlightening because GTBacchus is being honest, and describing some of what goes on here. But I've also seen blocks handed out for an editor being told to Fuck Off. So there's a lot of inconsistency being applied here. For me, the big question is, if a ''core policy'' such as ] '''will not be upheld by an admin''', why have it in the first place? --] (]) 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It ''is'' often upheld by admins. That said, there's a lot of nuance (or, if you prefer, "inconsistency") in the details of how it tends to work out. Like it or not - and be it written down or not - major content contributors are given more rope, potentially to hang themselves with. Lots of admins know from experience what's likely to be effective, and what's likely to lead to an unproductive drama-fest. Blocking Mal now, for habitual incivility, falls into the latter category. If I were the sole author of reality, maybe I would have set that part up differently, but I'm not. You've got to be utterly pragmatic here, or you'll just come to grief like so many others have. -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can understand an admin giving a contributing editor some leeway. I can't understand an admin letting a habitually uncivil editor ignore core policy. That's not pragmatic, that's a failure of the system. The reason that you claim that it won't be effective essentially grants editors like Mal a carte blanche to remain uncivil - and get away with it. It can only be effective if the policy is actually upheld, and excuses aren't made for so-called contributing editors. --] (]) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ok, change reality. I ''know'' that if I block Mal, it will lead to a ridiculous drama-fest on ANI, and you can't change that. I've seen this kind of thing go down too many times to imagine otherwise. If you can, change reality, and/or find a more willing (i.e., naïve) admin. If you want to see Mal receive sanctions for his behavior, then do what's likely to lead you there. Hint: Arguing on this page isn't it. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm commenting and learning, and I don't mean to criticize. You've thrown up an honest mirror to reality. I'm interested though in why you believe it ''will lead to a ridiculous drama-fest on ANI''. What kind of objections would you think might appear there if you were to block him? What would the argument be that you did wrong? --] (]) 18:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I hope you don't mind my refactoring this bit of conversation into a separate sub-section. <p> Suppose I block Malleus Fatuorum for incivility right now. I think that a lot of people would say that blocks should be preventative not punitive, and that Malleus is not causing any ongoing disruption. I think a lot of people would argue that Malleus is much more valuable to the project than the relatively small number of people that he's offended. I think a lot of people would go into the usual rants about the "civility police" promoting WP:CIVIL to a point that it supersedes all other policies, and how this allows "civil POV-pushers" to run amok. I think people would argue that those who are bothered by Malleus need to grow thicker skins, because he's just a gruff person, but his heart's in the right place. I think people would point to many specific examples of good work that he's done around here. (He's not just a "so-called" contributing editor, after all.) Finally, someone would overturn the block as wrongful, leading to an equivocal block record, where nobody in the future could really argue that he was justifiably blocked in the first place. I think that's the usual litany of arguments, but if I think of more, I'll let you know. <p> The point isn't, by the way, that these arguments are particularly good, or that I can't answer them. I can clearly argue all day; I'm kind of good at it. The point is that the unsoundness of the arguments is not a matter on which the community of admins - or the wider community - has any consensus, so even if they don't carry the day exactly, they create the drama-fest that renders the block pointless. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nope - in fact, throw the whole discussion over to the Talk page of ] where it might be altogether more appropriate. | |||
| ::::::So from your point of view, as an admin, do you believe ] as it is written is unrealistic? Impossible to enforce? Too imprecise? To precise but unrealistic? Or is WQA really a place for editors who need to get out more :-) --] (]) 18:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::"f"... all of the above. ++]: ]/] 19:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No. I think ] is both realistic and enforceable, until you run into a editor like Malleus, who is a rare kind of duck around here. He's been around for a long time, he's made a lot of good contributions, and he's got supporters who will come out of the woodwork in his defense. There aren't very many Wikipedians who combine those qualities, and lots of perfectly reasonable and helpful interactions and work, with the kind of rudeness - and I would say lack of clue - that leads them to say things like "fuck off troll". <p> WQA is useful for newer editors. Those are also the people for whom talk page "warnings" have any effect. When you're dealing with a well-established editor, a whole different set of (unwritten) rules kick in. Those might be worth writing down somewhere... -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::FWIW, it may not surprise anyone to know that I think the blocking policy, or at least the way in which it's practically applied, is just about as daft as the civility policy. I really can't live in a world where telling someone that they ought to grow up is seen as a personal attack punishable by banishment. That may be your world, but sure as Hell ain't mine. I was accused earlier today of being a paedophile, which I certainly ''do'' consider to be a personal attack, but I didn't come crying here about it. My view has always been that NPA should be rigorously enforced, but that CIVIL ought to be consigned to hippie heaven. ] ] 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Asking somebody to grow up, is an impossible request, if the person is an adult or suffers from dwarfism. ] (]) 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm not convinced that anybody is claiming "grow up" is a bannable offense. I think this report never would have been filed if you'd stopped short of "fuck off troll". THAT is what this thread is about, for anyone with any sense, because saying "fuck off troll" is truly dumb. Sorry, Malleus, but you made a ''dumb'' mistake. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Just to make it very clear that I ''do not'' consider "you should grow up" to be any kind of offense: Malleus, I think you should grow up. Your decision to to say "fuck off troll" was juvenile, and beneath you. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You have an opinion, I have an opinion. It just so happens that they're different; no big deal. When someone is clearly trolling then I will call them on it. Had Ywori not taken it upon himself to consider "I think you ought to grow up" as a "personal attack", then we would not be here. So why has nobody called for Ywori to be sanctioned, for wasting the civility police's time? ] ] 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Maybe because he shut up quite a while ago, whereas you're still arguing. (That was an easy one! :D ) Apparently you either want this to continue, or you believe that your continued comments are likely to make it stop. The latter would be quite silly. <p> '''If you had not said "fuck off troll", we would not be here. You can't undo the truth of that statement.''' Next time you want to tell someone to "fuck off", remember this fun, fun experience, and realize that you're begging for another round of it. Now, if you want this to end, '''stop replying'''. If you reply, you love this, and want it continue. Actions speak louder than words. Now.... act! -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::As I said, you have an opinion, just one that I don't agree with. Last time I checked, you were trying to encourage other editors to initiate an RF/C. Is that stopping anything here? Stop discussing me, and I'll stop replying to your misinformation. ] ] 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I don't know if I'd ''encourage'' them to do it, exactly. They're likely to do it wrong, and that would be a waste of time. I'd encourage you, on the other hand, to wise up, and realize that tossing vulgarities around on ''this planet's'' en:Misplaced Pages is likely to lead to shit-storms just like this one. See you next time, eh? -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I think you should have stopped after "I don't know"; it was making sense until then. ] ] 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I can tell that this is not going to end nicely. Can you two please just go your own ways and leave each other alone. This have gone from a WQA report to a bash-fest in one day. Guys, just drop the ].....--] <sup>]</sup> 23:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::You're right. I apologize for wasting people's time. Anyone who wishes to talk about any of this is welcome at my talk page, and I'm now counting slowly down from 10.... 9..... -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===View by John=== | |||
| Malleus has a jaded view of the admin cadre at Misplaced Pages, he says because we behave inconsistently (although maybe his expectations are too high). Malleus is a good editor and (I am sure) a good human being. Malleus adds good content, but disdains the civility rule that we all sign up for when we edit here. Malleus seems intelligent and therefore I am sure that if he was capable of changing his style of interaction with others he would have done it by now; he must see that it creates drama and doesn't lead to anything productive happening for anyone. Therefore, as he is smart enough to figure it out but hasn't done so, I conclude that Malleus isn't capable of changing his behavior. As he says, we should all change to be more like him. So, some inescapable conclusions: | |||
| #It seems unlikely that MF will become a civil contributor | |||
| #It seems unlikely that the project as a whole will change to formally abandon the civility requirement | |||
| #Eventually he will leave, be banned, or will adapt his style to obtain a more productive editing experience here (I can think of precedents for all three, with the last one being statistically the least likely) | |||
| #Nothing further will be gained by warning him on his talk page about incivility; after all, he has repeatedly and clearly stated that he does not agree with the civility rule and does not practice civility | |||
| #Nothing will be achieved by discussing further here (and so I move to close this report). I broadly endorse what GTBacchus says above as well. If this needs to go further, and I am not necessarily saying it does, the next step would be an RFC. Until then, we are probably done here. --] (]) 23:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *John makes some interesting points, but I don't agree with any of them. As George Bernard Shaw once said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." ] ] 00:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Too bad we're not makeing any kind of progress at all in this thread. Can we all just please drop it and walk away?--] <sup>]</sup> 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *I will close this with a final thought. In theory, policies like WP:NPA apply equally to all, old and new alike, regardless of whether they are mindless hacks like me, some drive-by IP or a Giano. In reality, and the reason why I suspect no RFC/U has been forthcoming is that the net positive from MF's contributions outweigh his disagreeable nature. It is easy to be rude and aggressive from the safety of internet anonymity; as long as teh dramaz don't grow out of control, it should be easily regarded as a form of harmless braggadocio spawned by the kind of dutch courage that such anonymity confers. Most editors, I suspect (myself included), are not that fazed by it and above all welcome the strong content contributions. This is an encyclopedia: sniping on AN/I is less important than building strong articles. Was MF's comment a clear violation of NPA? Of course. But there's something of a double standard - let's call it leeway - when balanced against the strength of his content-driven contributions, which are considerable, salutary and commendable. ] (]) 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussionbottom}} | |||
| === Subsequent comment in new section === | |||
| I'm late to the party as I've taken WQA off my watchlist for awhile. From my observation of WQA related issues over the past couple years I'd have to say I believe the above analysis is incorrect: MF is ''highly,'' not poorly skilled at social interaction. The sum of his comments indicate he enjoys the Tough Guy me against the world persona and has grokked the limitations of WP enforcement of its policies so he'll probably be around for awhile acting the way has acted in the past. | |||
| It's not clear to me that the value of cantankerous contributors outweigh the negative effects of their attitude; it's an unknown how many potential editors simply drift away from WP when encountering the childishness of amok editors.] (]) 02:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == User repeatedly attacking privacy by adding inappropriate content to an article == | |||
| {{NWQA|to ].}} | |||
| Hi there is somebody who is not signed in and repeatedly adding content about Peter McCormick and Audrey Campbell into following article, and connecting them with various crimes. | |||
| This is not acceptable and none of the mentioned above has nothing to do with that page. Can please provide with help how to stop such an abusive attack. | |||
| Article : ] | |||
| Best regards | |||
| John <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I have cross posted a notice at ] requesting other editors to help watch for BLP issues at ]. ] (]) 18:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Highly disrupting editing == | |||
| In the past few months, I have tolerated ] and ] in terms of editing South American football pages. While I understand that no editor owns the page, I know for a fact that wikipedia holds special consideration over those who have edited a page and made major contributions to them. It took me a while to realize it but the two fore mentioned have only serve to ''regress'' progress on the pages. Just reading the history on this pages and their sub-pages are evidence of this (, and ). Simply put, they are not editors; they just like to disrupt progress for the better with highly outdated ideals. It has surpassed that level of simply "edit warring" for having different views. This has become borderline vandalism. | |||
| I have a keen interest in transforming every page in CONMEBOL to have a Featured status...I need help dealing with this problem. I am afraid certain admin have also been involved in this. For example, I have reported this against wikipedia's policy on ] and nothing was done about it. However, and admin bans Digirami and I for a three-revert rule that never happens, gives him 48 hours and gives me a week. As I have mentioned before in talk pages, I am afraid wikipedia is becoming a club. ] (]) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Like his definition of vandalism, Jamen Somasu's definition of ] is baffling. One little disagreement on an infobox parameter and my edits is called "highly disruptive". Beyond that, I don't see any proof of disruptive editing. If you look at the articles in question, ] has made one edit in the Copa Libertadores article all year; his Copa Sudamericana edits include reverting vandalism, reverting the deletion of citations, proofreading, etc.; zero edits in the Recopa article. My edits include fine tuning edits made my other users and/or correcting of incorrect data across all three articles. Sure there are disagreement between myself and Jamen over some things, but those are clearly made in good faith and are hardly disruptive. | |||
| :I would also add that Jamen Somasu should bit his tongue on this issue since he too has come across as disruptive by not engaging in consensus building (very early on, and probably still), sometimes rejecting community input (for example: from the WikiFootball), and refusing to get the point. In addition, he has gone against the policy on civility on numerous occasions. ] (]) 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::] is curretnly vandalising an important template . ] (]) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I've pinged the last admin to block Jamen about the recidivism. For now, folks, please don't get drawn into any silly edit warring. Cheers. ] - ] 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Come on! This guys are now getting ridiculous with the vandalism and, worse, there are admin trying to cover for them in such a blatant way (the one above being a prime example). ] (]) 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This editor has been warned previously about making comments about other editors. comment is clearly unacceptable. In the past this user backs off after being warned (usually by an admin) but returns after things quieten down again with the same comments and behaviour. --] (]) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Far from being "unacceptable", that comment seems to be a fair assessment of your agenda. Is it your intention to force your pov by having everyone who opposes it banned? ] ] 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's behaviour like this that has the community commenting on your behaviour. Do you think its helpful? All it does is shows that you really don't understand ]. Perhaps you actually want to be blocked to give you some time to read core policy? --] (]) 14:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no "community", just a few malcontents who get bent out of shape when the truth is pointed out to them. ] ] 15:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::HK, why don't you raise a complaint about ]? See his recent edit summaries! ] ] 17:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why don't you complain about me MBM, you troll me enough. ] (]) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't "troll" you, but I do study all of your edits in detail, for obvious reasons. ] ] 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Shame you don't check your own... ] (]) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{resolved|Anon agreed to closure}} | |||
| {{discussiontop}} | |||
| The following has occurred. Randomly browsing Misplaced Pages one day I decided to to Misplaced Pages's article ]. Now granted, I did not provide sources. I had read about that literally decades ago and the frequency with which this misconception occurs in popular culture annoys me. Without sources, it was without notification or question by ]. Now I remain convinced (and even Hairhorn seems to agree) that with proper sources and maybe cleaner presentation, this would be an excellent addition to the article. So I Hairhorn about what I felt was brash, unnecessary, un-incremental-improvement-wiki-like. | |||
| He told me to provide proper sources and re-add the entry. Hold it - why should I re-add after he removed the entry in its entirety? Why am I responsible for his revert? He reverted the contribution. I even , which he refused. So I wrote him an arguably long what he is doing - reverting rather than improving - is wrong and hurts Quality and Misplaced Pages, with an analysis. Which he immediately reverted. He then reverted announced that he would | |||
| I find the sheer amount of mean-spiritedness of his conduct is apalling. Apparently my sarcastic remark in the long rant about gaming the system was exactly spot on. I've looked at his edit history and he seems to be determined like a bot to increase his edit count by any means necessary, not caring about Wikiquette or not biting Newcomers or the incremental improvement idea. I would point this out to him myself but, unfortunately he reverts any of my attempts to argue with him. | |||
| Someone tell me I'm not entirely in the wrong here! -- ] (]) 01:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :If you had all the sources, why couldn't you have just done with without causing an uproar, you're both at fault here. ] - ] ] 01:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| If I had been asked for help with finding a reliable source on my talk page or something similiar, I probably would have done so. But it was reverted right away. That's his responsibility, I don't want to add the same thing twice - I think that's what you call edit warring. -- ] (]) 01:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :As a nonparticipant in this controversy, let me add a tidbit that anon 80 has omitted. In for his addition of the unsourced information, he wrote "''Too lazy for good sources. Look for the challenges WW2 submarine crews faced''". That's seems a clear indication to me that he/she never had any intention to find a source and expected others to do it. I'll let others reach their own conclusions. ] (]) 02:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Actually knowing about the necessity of sources, I looked at "suffocation" topics. It only ocurred to me later that I should have been looking for "carbon dioxide toxicity", at which point I provided the relevant link. The whole idea of incremental improvement is that you do not need everything at once. At the time of the commit, someone else may have had the idea to look for carbon dioxide toxicity before me. -- ] (]) 02:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| This seems to have no further point, as Hairhorn appears unwilling to discuss or apologize for what I continue to perceive as extremely bad conduct. -- ] (]) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I sympathise with 80.218.123.36. There are Users on Misplaced Pages who appear to be very energetic about reverting other User's work, but lazy about actually improving things. I have had a little experience of that, and it is frustrating. Fortunately, there are many more who do good work on Misplaced Pages. I have had many experiences where Users have contacted me on my User talk page to initiate meaningful discussion on the subject, rather than simply reverting. Usually a genuine dialogue takes place without either party feeling the need to be the winner. As a result, when I see the need to remove one or more edits made in good faith I usually take the opportunity to initiate a discussion first, using the article Talk page or the other party's User talk page. It is not quite so easy to initiate discussion with an IP addressee. I suggest you create a User account and participate fully in Misplaced Pages - it is free and there are many benefits, both to the User and the remainder of the Wiki community. ] ''(])'' 03:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I tell you, the other way around! Instead of recommending me to get an account, it is you who should edit as an IP instead. There's no better way to experience the various ways Misplaced Pages is broken than to contribute actual, legitimate content as an IP. Only by understand what's broken one can begin to remedy it. -- ] (]) 06:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I'll let my edit history speak for itself. "Seems to be determined like a bot to increase his edit count by any means necessary" is an odd accusation from somone complaining about a lack of civility. I may have been too quick to revert in this case, but that's long become moot to this anonymous user. ] (]) 04:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Your edit history is indeed speaking for itself. Wanting to get an edit count as high as possible is the only explanation as to why someone is so systematically quick to revert. Real contributions take time and are limited in number, as one eventually simply exhausts ones knowledge about a subject. You might have taken 10 or 20 minutes of effort to find a relevant source yourself. But instead you chose the quick way that allowed you to continue increasing your edit counts in the meantime - you reverted. This sort of behavior is very damaging to the encyclopedic effort, and is aggravated by its ubiquity and so is the attribution of merit that is associated communally to a high edit count. I did point this out to you in your talk page in the long rant, trying to make you understand that what you're doing is damaging the foundation of Misplaced Pages - but rather than trying to engage in meaningful discussion, or just as much as reading my argument, you chose to quietly remove my criticism of your conduct from your talk page, ironically reverting my complaint about you reverting too much. That, I find, is inexcusable and intolerable. -- ] (]) 06:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Just as an aside here, as per ] Hairhorn can choose to remove anything from his talk page he wishes. Regardless of the rest of the discussion, that shouldn't be an issue. ] (]) 06:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : You're confusing the issue. I do not object to how another manages his talk site. To begin removing comments unread in the middle of a discussion his disruptive editing had started, when I had done nothing that had warranted such disrespect, is a ] issue, not ]. Same goes with his attitude of "I have 15000 edits, I have no need to take users serious whose contributions I just reverted". -- ] (]) 08:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Anon 80, please tell us how you know that Hairhorn "removed comments unread in the middle of a discussion". Did you read his mind, or is this just one of many other erroneous assumptions you have made about this ] that you have ] to keep stirred up? ] (]) 17:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, to you this may seem like mind reading, but in actuality, I just read what he actually had . Furthermore, he removed my long rant after too short a time to be able to have read, much less contemplated it. -- ] (]) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That comment by Hairhorn was only made after you repeatedly harrassed him over a matter that should never have been brought to this discussion board and that should have ended long ago. You clearly seem to be getting some sort of bizarre thrill out of dragging on this conflict endlessly, despite the fact that others have told you again and again to drop it, and after Hairhorn acknowledged he may have been too quick to revert. This has expanded from a fairly insignificant content dispute into a major vendetta by you against Hairhorn. Please do all of Misplaced Pages a favor and drop it. ] (]) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::And how do I do that? I feel this posting here is legitimate. I'm willing to "drop it" but the question is how? Should I remove this WQAlert section? That would appear vandalistic to me. I already announced that I don't care anymore. However because I am obsessive-compulsive like that, I will respond to anyone writing something here or on my talk page. -- ] (]) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::How's this for "mind-reading": "Anon 80", who were you before your IP? Edit summaries such as demonstrate an intimate knowledge of WP... ] (]) 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think I've been around since late 2002 / early 2003, I had a number of accounts, no one you'd know, and prefer to edit as an anonymous IP these days. Make of that what you want. -- ] (]) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::No one I'd know? You sure about that? Create a user account, and be proud of your contributions here... ] (]) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I guess you haven't read my long rant, otherwise you'd know that I believe the whole "Proud of your contributions" part with the edit count is a mechanism that I believe, is very, very damaging to the encyclopedic effort. -- ] (]) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you can't be an established editor, and instead rely on an apparent IP sock: ''you'' are damaging to the encyclopedic effort. Own up to your past like real editors do - or vanish (IMHO)... ] (]) 22:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What? I contributed. And was thwarted in my attempt. How is that damaging the encyclopedic effort? You'll have to explain this one. -- ] (]) 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Register as an editor. It's very easy, and most have us have done it. You know far too much about WP to be a new user, so you should stop hiding behind IP's... ] (]) 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How about, you edit as an IP instead? Go ahead. Fix some stuff. Contribute. What exactly is keeping you from contributing as an IP? -- ] (]) 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{editconflict}} Well yes, technically you did contribute. But the way you did it was a bit ] in that you submitted the info without a citation, something that as an experienced user you knew ahead of time is not very popular here. Then you submitted the citation but did not want to add it yourself, which as an experienced user you could well do, etc. etc. Sounds a bit like playing games to me. But maybe ]. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@ "Anon 80" - What keeps me from editing as an IP is: contributing as a registered editor. I don't need to IP sock - it's useless and (in my opinion) "cowardly". I'll fix some stuff under my own name (thank you very much)... ] (]) 22:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did not maliciously fail to supply a proper source to elicit a negative response by Misplaced Pages. I simply didn't find one that said exactly what I wanted on short notice. '''''And I don't have to.''''' I know, many people used to POV-warring are used to the ] that any addition without a good source gets removed immediately. But that's because those people are POV warriors and are not interested in improving the Misplaced Pages. For all they care, the article could be complete shit, as long as it says (or doesn't say) what they want. I don't have to provide a source, if I can't find one, as long as I know in good faith someone will find a good source. That's the Wiki method of doing stuff: Incremental increase. I supply an idea, someone else formulates it better than me, a third guy can't believe the thing and googles for sources until he finds it. That should be good practice even in a POV dispute. That Hairhorns practice of "revert always, contribute nothing" is very damaging to not just the encyclopedic effort, and symptomatic of continuously waged POV warring. Same goes with the whole practice of trying to acquire a huge edit count. | |||
| ::: @Doc9871 Why is it cowardly to contribute to Misplaced Pages, ever? -- ] (]) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@"Anon 80" - It is cowardly to hide behind IP's when you have clearly edited WP for years. Register. Stop being ashamed of your past (which is probably not too good, from what I'm gathering)... ] (]) 22:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{editconflict}} By supplying highly technical stuff without citations makes it impossible to verify the info immediately. So it is better to hide the info rather than risk someone laughing at Misplaced Pages for technically wrong information. Until we find a source the info cannot stay in the article. This has nothing to do with POV. Just proper verifiability. The wiki model you are referring to, although noble, has been superseded. And you do sound like an old-timer if I judge from your idealistic sense of the wiki. And I mean this with respect. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 22:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Wow, this really isn't about me. Is there any point allowing this thread to continue? I see no actual dispute to resolve, and this looks increasingly like a platform for an anonymous user to launch hilariously ill-founded personal attacks against me; that doesn't seem like a proper use of this forum. And given this user's it's pretty clear to me that they have a current account, not just previous ones; as far as I know, IPs do not have watch lists. No user should have to tolerate personal attacks from sockpuppets in a forum meant for dispute resolution. Cheers. ] (]) 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't know about the personal attacks. Also the point you make about the watchlist smells socky to me. Let's close this. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 23:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::The anon has tried to close this. It is a nice gesture and I second it. Let's close it but properly this time. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 23:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussionbottom}} | |||
| == (the) Ohio State University == | |||
| ] has made multiple reverts of content related to ] by placing the word "the" in front of "Ohio State University" -- normally, something that could be handled through discussions. To make matters worse, the user may actually be technically right in these reverts even though it appears that consensus may not be supporting such moves. | |||
| I first asked the user and other interested parties to participate in a discussion at ] (which isn't exactly a "neutral point of view" name but the discussion was already started) about the topic. To my knowledge, the user has not approached the discussion. | |||
| The user has revereted changes for at least two users, calling them "vandalism" -- one at the article ] by ] and another at ] by myself. | |||
| The user has made mutliple changes in multiple articles around this topic, and it looks like we might need an outside admin to come and take a look to provide some guidance. What's the best approach to take from here?--] (]) 12:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no opinion about the Wikiquette issue, but have gone to ] and provided a link to ], which seems to be relevant. ]:<small>]</small> 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{resolved|1=Blocked for 24 hours. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| I don't mind robust discussion, but this individual has overstepped the mark. I left a message on his talk page asking him to discuss on the talk page before removing material that is the subject of contention. After receiving a dismissive reply, I reminded him again of the need to discuss. His response was to tell me to stop my "fucking games". I left him a warning about his offensive language and personal attack ; he responded by telling me to "grow the fuck up". I think Misplaced Pages can do without this kind of infantile behavior. ] (]) 05:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yup sounds like some good advice. You can bitch and moan but if you aren't competent enough to read the diffs I odn't know what else to say. You seem to like to hold others accountable for their behavior yet take none of your own. ] (]) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)\ | |||
| '''So now that you want to run to other people and cover for your fuck ups want to explain your comments here?''' | |||
| :Hey I though tit was pithy, consider your own reversions.....], ]. Looks aq little like the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you think? ] (]) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Neither of the diffs you provided above were mine, so whatever point you're trying to make lacks any validity. Unlike you, I have spelt out my reasons for editing the article the way I have. If you're not prepared to discuss changes you make to articles, then don't make them. ] (]) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::The edit in the diffs supplied by ] (the more recent version in ''both'' diffs is the ''same'' version) was made by me, with the simple edit summary, "copyedit, redundancy", and consisted of uncontested edits. The (two different) ''old'' versions in both the diffs were by BlackCab, but don't seem to support Hell In A Bucket's point either. If an accusation is being made of ''my'' edit as awkwardly implied by these diffs, please explain more clearly.--] (]) 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok so let's move him to the right, all wikilawyering aside how does this explain anything? ] and ]. Does everyone feel like the world makes sense again now that blackcabs comment went from leftside to right? ] (]) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''Maybe you can explain who this other Black Cab fellow is'''. ] (]) 05:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Let's Break this down. Let's play connect the dots for BlackCab since he's obviously having difficulty telling reality from fantasy. | |||
| '''Diff 1''' ] Where I specifically ask him to discuss a change he is making on the Jehovahs witness page. | |||
| '''Diff 2''' ] Where BlackCab specifically refused any discussion. | |||
| '''Diff 3''' ] <y reversion to the insistence on not discussing on talkpage. | |||
| '''Diff 4''' ] Blackcab completely ignores the request for discussion and accuses me of what I'm asking him to do. | |||
| '''Diff 5''' See above pasted comments to my requests for clarification and the refusal to answer. | |||
| Whatever is happening here you have a SPA that is gaming the system and play victim when he is not even close to being one. ] (]) 05:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::And more obscenities . ] (]) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes I use the word fuck. Get used to it or ignore it. ] (]) 05:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Blocked for 24 hours. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:05, 3 June 2010 (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 |