Revision as of 15:46, 3 August 2009

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

Active alerts

User:Witchy2006

This user (Witchy2006) called me an "Wannabe" on his talk page as seen in this link . This user keeps putting negative stuff about me on other user's pages as seen in this link . Please handle this case carefully and respectivly. Thank You. GMA Fan 2 August 2009 8:37PM

User Niteshift36, personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User User:Niteshift36 is continually engaging in personal attacks and incivility, openly dismissing the views of other editors for their alleged politics as they view them and appears to have a conflict of interest in the current dispute as well. I believe this person should be reminded that their actions here and overall here are not acceptable given Misplaced Pages policy. Revrant (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps User:Revrant should review his own part in the matter and see that he hasn't been as "exceedingly cordial" as he claims. Further, his allegation of a conflict of interest in this complaint is not only wrong-headed, but bordering on a personal attack. I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the movie, anyone who appeared in, produced or distributed it. I have zero connection to the movie at all. So his "conflict of interest" allegation is really just a matter of his not liking the fact that I disagree with him. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think Revrant is being a touch thin-skinned here. A review of the section and article talkpage he links shows a robust disagreement. I don't see any particular incivility on the part of Niteshift36 there. I've encountered Niteshift a few times in AfDs and always found him cordial and professional. For the record, I'm a fire-breathing left-winger. ;) Crafty (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will not reply further to the user in question on the page in question considering the multiple attacks at this point, but I will point out this is a clear violation of the rules, not a misinterpretation or being "thin skinned", there is no grey area on the matter.
• A Conflict of Interest claim cannot be a personal attack, it is defined by Misplaced Pages as Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
• Personal attacks in question are Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence., Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream., these are just clear violations of the rules, not misunderstandings, most of all the latter has been violated repeatedly and continues to be. Revrant (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What, so now this is about Niteshit36 holding right-wing views and saying the same on his Userpage? Crafty (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't claiming that I have a conflict of interest because of my user boxes or political beliefs "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wouldn't saying "I realize given you act on your own politics to guide your processes when editing..." be in violation of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" and "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"? Just stop playing the innocent victim dude. You're doing the exact same thing you're claiming I am doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be a conflict of interest, I was merely correcting his misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages defines it as, this is about I didn't say you aren't intelligent, I said you allege that you are. Since I've not seen evidence of it, I can only classify it as an allegation. attacks, now if I have any intelligence at all, I believe I was just told I'm stupid, there is no grey area, it's a blatant personal attack at this point.

I was not discrediting your views in any fashion, I was noting how they may be interfering with your stake in the matter, discrediting, a violation of the rules, would be 'it's merely a smokescreen thrown up by you and a strong indicator of your own beliefs. only to you and your ilk alleged intelligence, Only people of certain types of political persuasions can't comprehend that, simply being told I'm stupid as there is no "evidence" to suggest otherwise is simply an insult and not relevant to that part of the policy.

Considering you are proud of that and in fact expressed doubt that I was not the same way and your user history is quite plainly oriented around defending political entities you find favorable, no, it is not, and I see now that not only are you not attacking me, but what you're not doing, is what I am doing, that's rather hard to chew. Revrant (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I never called you stupid. You were the one who brought your intelligence into the conversation. And you are discrediting my views by telling (not suggesting maybe, but making a statement of fact) me that I "act on my politics" is discrediting my views. Further, not just me, but another editor attempted to tell you that "neo-conservative" and "conservative" aren't interchangeable terms. You dismissed that as simply a 'if you want to tell yourself that' kind of thing. Who would know better than me if I am a neo-con or not? You're telling me that you know better than I do what my own beliefs are. Yet you see that as "exceedingly cordial"? I have no conflict of interest, despite your repeated allegation. You've shown no evidence of one other than the fact that I disagree with you. Did you perhaps mean I have a conflict with your interest? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• My edit history? You mean a couple of hundred AfD's, saving an article here or there about an actress or a bodybuilder? Or maybe the ones about cities or military units? Or did you just scan and see a few articles I edited like Sean Hannity and not even bother to read things like me writing that I don't really even listen to the guy more than about an hour a week? Like I said, you see some user boxes and think you know everything about me. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • • I apologize, apparently I cannot read now and am unable to deduce any meaning from the English language, calling my intelligence as a person alleged is not calling me stupid, I simply have no response to such a claim given this is a case of looking at the sky and being told it's pink, and apparently taking offense to insults directed at my intelligence exonerates you because I brought it up. I believe most editors act on their views, in order for me to discredit them I would have to actually criticize them, which I did not. I felt they were a conflict of interest in the inclusion of this content, partially because the very same content is present on the Religulous article, indeed an identical commercial comparison, yet you do not care, therefore I discerned that there may be a conflict of interest.
    • I never used them interchangeably, I was simply told that I was wrong to use the term and it was invented to demonize, I didn't dismiss it at all, I separated my observation from your opinion via your preference, I hold the same view, but your preference was duly noted. You ask a bizarre question considering all of your attacks have been essentially telling me my own politics in defiance of my assertions, am I to understand I am not allowed to discern your openly available politics yet you are allowed to apply politics to me as an attack while I provide none? The evidence is quite plainly part of your arguments and contributions, however my interest is the betterment of articles, so the answer is yes, I believe there is a conflict of interest in both circumstances.
    • I really am not going to enter into a debate over the political edits and discussions, I have zero interest in that, I am merely noting that the supposition that you edit with politics in mind is substantiated, and you made it clear to me that you didn't believe me when I denied adhering to the same standard, and again, it is not to discredit you, but it is a path of seeking an end to the content dispute by using it as an example of why a third party may be necessary. Revrant (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You might wish to take a look at Niteshift36's discussions here at Talk:Sean_Hannity.06:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargnoc (talk • contribs)

That is not truly beneficial to this proceedings, but it is duly noted as evidence that my supposition of a conflict of interest was not a personal attack, but an observation supported by appropriate evidence. Revrant (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have viewed Niteshift36 preemptively claiming bias possibly in an effort to shield his own conflicts of interest.Stargnoc (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for an example of Niteshift36's apparent modus operandi in editing- complete removal of information from an article that reflects negatively on an individual sharing his political views, often claiming the material as BLP or unsourced, apparently making no attempt to compromise or find a readily available source: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Laura_Ingraham&diff=303878368&oldid=303878225 The end result is that relevant facts are being removed from articles.Stargnoc (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

An example of Niteshift36's confrontational tone: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Frank_Dux&diff=302252137&oldid=30222012#FACTUAL_EVIDENCE I've been reviewing Niteshift36's edits and I appear to see a pattern of conflicts of interest and lack of neutrality - usually resulting in reversions or deletions of information or attempts to delete articles. Often it seems Niteshift36 reaches conclusions about deletion of an article due to personal beliefs then finds a wikipedia rule that might be warped to support such conclusions, but that's just how it appears.Stargnoc (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I may be offended by insults as to my intelligence, but I can readily admit my now past ignorance as to the history of the user in question, had I been aware of these past interactions I likely would have simply kept observing the content dispute and not interacted or attempted to instigate a third party response only to be attacked. Revrant (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now this is some funny stuff: Stargnoc, an editor who only edits very specific articles has been working for months to insert specific material, the same material and has had it reverted by several editors besides myself, comes in to complain about that....on the same night that we reached a compromise on the materiasl. The Frank Dux article? A never-ending battle with multiple sockpuppets that have been blocked who actually are pushing a POV and admin intervention was required. Apparently neither of you have a grasp on what a COI is. The actual COI in that article is the editor (and his sockpuppets) that is trying to insert unsourced claims. What Stargnoc fails to include is a diff like this one: , where I searched out actual reliable sources and re-insert negative info with relieable sources, instead of just removing it or leaving it with an unreliable source. Both of you have have been arguing about the same material that multiple editors have removed and both of you claim "consensus" for your position where there is none and have engaged in your own aggressive editing (such as Stargnoc calling me a "liar" and a "hypocrite"). Now you team up to try to run this game. This is actually getting entertaining. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment While this more and more becomes a mere continuation of an existing argument, I will add this for Niteshift36: if you say "you allege to have intelligence, but I have yet to see any", that is indeed a personal attack, hands-down, no questions asked. There is no possible way for it to read as anything other than "I think you're unintelligent". Consider yourself warned, and I advise you to not continue such statements. Meanwhile, anyone who refers to another editor as a "liar" is also in violation of WP:NPA. Why don't you all back away from the article(s) in question for a week and calm down. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that you can't read it any other way. I have explained what the comment meant as I wrote it. I guess you know my intent better than I do. It appears you only read what is here and didn't bother to read the rest of the material in question. If you had, you would have seen that I was the one who suggested to Stargnoc that we get more opinions and that he did indeed ccall me a liar and a hypoctite. I'm not sure that you can swoop in and tell me "consider yourself warned", as if you are anything besides an editor with an opinion. In the interest of disclosure, Bwilkins is a member of the Article Rescue Squad and has been on the "keep" side of articles that I !voted "delete" on, then the articles were deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In written text, inflection does not get read. So, how it reads is how it comes across. Your comment, regardless of intent reads as a PA. I didn't warn you on your talkpage, and I also warned other users about their comments. The fact that I have an ARS userbox means nothing - I'm sure I've !voted "delete" on some you've !voted "keep" on as well. Stop attacking the neutral parties here, as that won't get you far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't attack you at all. Second, I doubt you voted !delete anywhere I've voted !keep. Third, I must have missed the warnings to the others. Would you mind pointing me to them? Lastly, you read it how you read it. I can't control that part. I do have a question though, why are you so quick to point out that your user box means nothing, but fail to even address that "issue" when the original poster is raising that issue about my user boxes? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have challenged my ability to be neutral, based on a userbox. I did not address the issue of your userboxes, as it's a red-herring in the entire discussion. My warning to others was "anyone who refers to another editor as a "liar" is also in violation of WP:NPA", which is one of the major incidents of incivility against you directly. Again, neither of you are getting any talkpage warnings, however, if you would like one, I'd be happy to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't challenge anything. I disclosed any interactions we've had prior to this. Crafty above says we've had interactions before this (which he dislcosed), but I don't recall them. Of course the userbox thing is a red herring, like I've been saying, despite the fact thast much of this complaint is based on them. I guess I missed your "warning" because to told me to "consider myself warned", but kind of glossed over the other one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Outside Editor Comment: First of all, TIME OUT. This is a forum for external comment on a user's civility, not a forum for editors to continue their disagreement. Having said that

• Disclosure: I have not been involved in the editing disputes between User:Revrant and User:Niteshift36. I have been involved in editing the Frank Dux article with User:Niteshift36, where I have found him to be a neutral and reasonable editor.
• The use of attacks by single purpose, anonymous IP attacks on User:Niteshift36 in the Frank Dux forum as "examples" of his incivility is not only irrelevant but intellectually dishonest. A simple glance at the content of the talk page can illuminate that.
• Maybe User:Revrant has examples of incivility that he did not initially post, but the examples that he has provided have demonstrated, if anything, a lack of WP:AGF on his part. I would request that the user review those policies before canvassing this forum.

Djma12 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is no editing dispute.
• No, I suppose breaking the rules can be disqualified by selective qualifiers.
• AGF in being called stupid? I would assume you review WP:AGF and show me where it says you can insult other people, AGF has zero to do with personal attacks, and indeed is qualified in AGF as something you should not do. Revrant (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • So you post this here, ask for opinions, then respond to those who don't see it your way with sarcasm. Interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some other things mentioned in AGF: "but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". "Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith." Might want to consider those before claiming edits are motivated by user boxes. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Given the absurdity of the statement, I felt the only way to state my disapproval was with sarcasm. I already stated I was using multiple factors to suggest there might be a conflict of interest, in no way did I assert any sort of bad faith motive in regard to the article, that was his suggestion, in which being called stupid was somehow a lack of Good Faith on my part, this boggled my mind. Revrant (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Repeating something that is false never makes it true. I never said you were stupid. So repeating that I did (in bold print no less) simply shows a willingness to "interpret" events for people rather than being factual. I suspect the lack of good faith he was referring to was the one you showed leading up to my comment, the ones where you made baseless allegations about a COI and decided that my life was defined by userboxes. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • if you say "you allege to have intelligence, but I have yet to see any", that is indeed a personal attack, hands-down, no questions asked. There is no possible way for it to read as anything other than "I think you're unintelligent". Consider yourself warned, and I advise you to not continue such statements. Meanwhile, anyone who refers to another editor as a "liar" is also in violation of WP:NPA. Why don't you all back away from the article(s) in question for a week and calm down.
    • I believe you are challenging this yet again, there is no other interpretation, and I will not address it again. I assumed good faith until I was outright attacked and insulted, and after stretching said good faith even in the face of said attacks I ran out of it and gave up on attempting to help the situation, good faith is not a bottomless pit. Revrant (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Abusive User

This user is continually using abusive language to myself and other users now here. Some excerpts of what he's saying:

"If we go by your logic via that empty little head of yours..."

"Are you frickin crazy?"

"Professionalism my ass. You cunts are the direct opposite of it."

I admit I am also being rude to him at times, but he's escalating it beyond rudeness to abuse, and it's not just me he's speaking to this way anymore. Can someone sit him down and have a chat with him please? The Clawed One (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by others does not excuse the incivility of someone else. He's new. He's been warned, I gave him one my handy-dandy personalized welcomes, just for the uncivil type of new users. I anticipate his reply in this forum - and I'll keep an eye on him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care what you all do here. I just won't stand for someone insulting me to no end, for NO reason when I simply present a relatively normal question. As for my comments, sure. Whatever. They were really rude. I acted like a prick towards one person. He acted like one towards a dozen. Now, do you see any sort of reasonable flaw with just me getting the blunt of this? I thought so. :< --JJimbo3 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This most likely isn't much of my business, but I'd like to throw my word into this; The Clawed One has been anything but professinal in his approach by attemtping to ride on some sort of non-existent authority. User JJimbo3 simply presented a specific article with a question, but was met with rudeness and harassment by user The Clawed One. At the same time, I stepped in to try and calm the situation down before the two escalted it into a content war, yet I too was met with an inexcusable attitude and rudeness by The Clawed One. I believe both sides of this fight need be analyzed. JJimbo3 has been very unpleasant in this way of dealing with this, but on the flip side none of it would have escalated to this if The Clawed One hasn't been thinking more logically and professionally. --Zeromus911 (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. You say what you want to, I'll stick by my end. --JJimbo3 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotta say, now that I think about this, I find it interesting you two joined within days of each other and post at almost the same time over and over...as for my conduct, I act rude, I don't curse and swear at people and call them cunts. The Clawed One (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting coincidences occur, but I already stated, I didn't "join" recently. I believe I already explained it back at the Dissidia article. I don't want there to be any tension, especially when I'm simply trying to be a mediator. From the get-go, I failed to understand your hostility towards me personally. Perhaps you should enlighten me; enlighten us, why you would lash out against someone who's just trying to be logical and calm everyone down. --Zeromus911 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Except you haven't been a mediator, you've largely taken JJimbo's side of things and just reiterated his opinions in a calmer tone. The Clawed One (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely. I've sided with both of you if you actually paid attention. Both of you were right at certain parts, and wrong at certain points. All I was looking for was a middle ground. You know, now that I actually think on it, it's kind of scary how similar you two are, both aren't satisfied with coming to a logical resolution and only wanting what you want individually, hehe... Anyways, I'm really not looking to make enemies or anything, though I can't say the same for you or JJimbo3. All I want is a common ground. --Zeromus911 (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The key difference is that what I want for the article is what the Admins both here and elsewhere have agreed is what should be done. The Clawed One (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And admins tend to decide on majority decisions. I get the feeling that particular article didn't get the same amount of elbow room as a dozen others. Perhaps you should try to think more logically and reason, instead of pretending to be the Misplaced Pages Hero of Justice and Righteousness on behalf of the admins. In any case, I haven't made any edits or recommendations whatsoever on that article. I've said my piece on the matter, and I really do hope I don't get any more needless static for speaking my mind out. If you want to keep doing this the way you have been, I don't think I need to tell you that you'll be getting angry and frustrated all too often from eager fans. Just know that there are different, more reasonable methods to avoid the frustration. In any case, I really don't want to be involved in this any further... --Zeromus911 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jjimbo3, there's massive problem with your logic: as I mentioned earlier, incivility in others NEVER excuses your own incivility. Think of it as the "two wrongs don't make a right" theory. In Misplaced Pages, we have official ways of dealing with incivility - you bring it to forums such as this one for low-level incivility that may have a chance of being resolve early, or WP:RFC/U if it's a pattern of abuse, or WP:ANI when someone needs an immediate block. Your role as a Misplaced Pages editor, when confronted with incivility directed at you, is to take it to the right forum early, and not to respond in-kind. There is never, ever, ever any reason to call ANY editors "cunts". I was truly hoping you would have been wise enough to have struck those comments, and at least acted a little bit sorry. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Editor Jjimbo3 blocked 31 hours for gross incivility. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#JJimbo3_-_escalated_from_WQA for further information.--VirtualSteve 12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil comments

This alert is regarding interaction between Kryolux (talk) and myself in editing Ellenville, New York. First notice of uncivil behavior was given in response to this message. Editor later edited Ellenville's article leaving an uncivil edit summary. --JBC3 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you focus on the correctness of the edits rather than the signs of annoyance the other editor is showing? I notice that the talk page of the article contains no discussion whatsoever at this point. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of the article regarding the possible copyright violation. Is that not what you are referring to? --JBC3 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I should not have to be subject to this kind of communication. --JBC3 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Looie for hitting the nail on the head! Instead of FIRST bringing his FALSE assumption to the talk page for discussion, JBC3 precipitously and arbitrarily ASSUMED a copyright violation where none existed. HAD HE "focused on the correctness of the edits" instead of just assuming and acting in a high-handed and patronizing manner, and then getting all prickly about my "signs of annoyance," this could have been avoided. His rudeness and incivility (plus hypocrisy for telling ME to use discussion pages first, but not doing likewise), from MY perspective, is just as viable, but I didn't go whining to the Wikiquette gods about it. (For more details on MY perspective, see MY talk page.)

If you tell me HOW to erase the "uncivil" part of the summary, I'd be happy to oblige. Kryolux (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to address the copyright violation concerns I have on the article's talk page. --JBC3 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kryolux, your way of writing is conveying a level of emotion that you might not intend -- if you could aim for a flat, unemotional tone, it might be helpful here. Now that the issues have been laid out on the talk page, it ought to be possible to resolve this by focusing on the facts of the matter without assuming any intention to offend on either side. Looie496 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Kryolux's civility needs some improvement please remember to stay calm, always assume good faith and stick to discussing edits not editors. --neon white talk 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please help with a user Makrand Joshi

I am not a person who posts regularly. Yet when I try and edit a page http://en.wikipedia.org/Iipm, then a user called Makrand Joshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Makrandjoshi) reported me for being a sock puppet after just 'one' editing of the Iipm page. The report was found to be false (for the moment). After that when I wrote on the discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Blog_and_JAM), user Makrand Joshi tried to accuse me again of being a sock puppet. I need help in handling user Makrand Joshi who is not using the right words with me. Please guide me on how to proceed and help me. Wifione (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The last edit to either the talk or the article was on July 1, 2009 ... from what I saw, you weren't CALLED a sock, you were advised that it was similar behaviour to a known sockmaster - very different ideas. Simple idea: change how you work. We don't say "I'm waiting a day then doing X", because we don't all work on Misplaced Pages during specific timeframes, and that seems to be the type of action that is similar to a known sockmaster, and that is the type of action that has raised concern. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This was also posted to WP:ANI. Generally, we don't open multiple threads about the same person/incident in multiple forums; that can be considered forum shopping. Please do not bring up the same incident/editor in multiple forums. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the ANI one, and gave the editor my handy-dandy forum-shopping template {{subst:User:Bwilkins/forumshopping}} (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. i'll keep that in mind....Wifione (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it very curious that this user is registering a complaint against me. The user's behavior has been very similar to sockmasters in the past. Making large unilateral scale reverts without any wiki-policy-related justifications, and adding misleading tags. Re

Unless you actually go and file your sockpuppet report, it is uncivil to continue to suggest that they are one. This forum does not deal with socks, it deals with civility. Until you're willing to file it, stop saying it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

hi bwilkins, i will also continue to engage makrand in proactive discussions. i clarified to him how i had logged in after almost a month of vacations and how he got his reply within an hour of my logging in. anyway, he has again called me a sock puppet and has removed two tags (one: which said there is a dispute about factuality of the article... Two: which said the dispute has been put up for third party view). but hopefully editor makrand joshi will move away from being a single purpose account that he has been till now... thanks... cheersWifione (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your useless tag from the article. It hardly matters whether you are a sock, using tags to express a point of view is disruptive. If you feel that changes need to be made, edit the article, don't try to force your point of view by tagging. Looie496 (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

dear Looie496. i wish to mention that wikipedia itself mentions that if a dispute is not resolved, then one should be calm and put up a disputed tag on top of the article. i believe you might not have seen the talk pages of the article. you should realise that after repeated attempts to clarify facts on some particular links, 'all' my changes have been reverted by user makrand joshi who continues with the accusation of a sock puppet. i therefore kindly request you to not remove the disputed tag with a simple title of it being useless. the tag, i believe, was created to resolve disputes in a civil, calm and responsible manner. if you wish me to do so, i can put up your removing the tag on the administrator board and ask their comments on how can you remove the tag when there is a clear dispute that does not seem to be getting resolved. it has been a lot of time since i've been trying to get the disputed citation removed, on the basis of which a whole section has come up. it's a request to you. kindly do not remove the tag till the dispute is resolved. warm regards, and cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs)

"Black Lists" and User: CyclePat

I removed this odd message, from my talk page after CyclePat left it there; he said he was putting me on a "black list" which he personally maintains. Is this a violation of policy on his part?

He did this because I had removed from the article Proton a link to Space Colonization in that article's "See Also" section. I removed that link because no indication was given as to why it would be relevant, and at the time I removed the link there was no absolutely mention in the article's text as to why it would be relevant either, so I did the right thing, yet CyclePat ended up putting me on his "black list". What's up with this? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask the user first? That's always the first location to resolve differences is between editor. It does appear to be a bit of a violation of WP:AGF on both of your parts. Please discuss it with them - if such a written "list" exists, it will be deleted as an attack page quickly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It's not particularly civil, but I don't believe he actually has any kind of blacklist. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to AGF when the other user is using words like "blacklist"...Stonemason89 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally have a blacklist in my head of stores I won't shop at ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Giovannii84 and music notability

I ran across this user (Giovannii84 (talk · contribs)) and found that they have yet to post anything in talk, and typically don't even comment on their edits. Much of what they contribute is AfD. I'm not that familiar with the best way to deal with situations like this, but it looks like this user might be nothing more than a 'puppet bot' working for some media publisher. Then again, I could be wrong. Could someone help me out and keep me from looking like a total ass? Spectre9 (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Please help us help you help Misplaced Pages." Making your notification a little more simple-to-understand would be a good place to start. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this user might be a link-advert-spam, and perhaps a WP:SOCK. Looking at articles edited by this user and related user reveals a pattern of adding songs and albums, no sources. See User:Sahafan for another example (no talk, lots of songs) Spectre9 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'll do my best to add citations in future. (Giovannii84 (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC))

Please do, and please make sure you are aware of WP policies on notability. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is reverting my edits on unrelated articles after accusing me of "axe-grinding" on an AfD. I tried to start a discussion on his user page but he reverted it with "No." I don't know what to do about it. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The reverts have stopped but his comments about me being a SPA (even though I don't have an account) and 'axe grinding' remain. He has actively refused to communicate with me in any way to explain himself so I'm marking this stale.74.237.158.41 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Renominating articles for deletion when there is a clear consensus to keep them is pretty disruptive behavior, and I think that "axe-grinding" is a pretty fair characterization of your editing at the AFD. It's pretty common, and not really a sign of bad behavior, when encountering an editor who is behaving disruptively in one forum to take a look at the contribs in order to see whether the behavior is one-of-a-kind or part of a pattern. In short, at this point I see more problems with your behavior than with HW's. Looie496 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Response: Clear consensus? The last AfD for that article was no consensus. When I nominated it the author immediately started canvasing which is why it may seem like axe grinding, but really I was just frustrated about the canvassing. I have marked this discussion as stale because this conflict seems to be over, so I would appreciate it if you would not reply to it after the fact saying I'm the problem. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Yesterday The Rambling Man nominated List of brain tumor patients for featured list review. He made no attempt to discuss the problems he perceived before nominating. To the best of my recollection he and I had no prior conflict. The nomination was poorly crafted so I sought details and attempted to satisfy his requests until it became clear that he was unable or unwilling to proceed cooperatively.

His manner has been quarrelsome and inappropriate. For example, when I asked for clarification about which of 279 sources he meant in one complaint, he replied six times without supplying the requested name. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter this wasn't a working relationship I wished to prolong, so I ceased making improvements and declared that I was removing the content page from my watchlist. He followed up with a sarcastic comment, so I offered to speedy close the nomination in 24 hours and demote the list myself, and requested no further contact from him.

He ignored the request for no further contact to make a slur upon my character. "Your seem horrified that someone would review one of your featured works as currently sub-standard, that's unfortunate."

Wikiquette alerts are supposed to be worded neutrally, so will endeavor to write this neutrally. I have had featured credits delisted before; those discussions never caused conflict. What this man attributes to egotism is actually this: my father developed a brain tumor while I was in college which went undiagnosed for a decade. The day I took him to the hospital he had gotten lost three blocks from his home; it took two patrol cars and a helicopter four hours to find him. By that time the tumor inside his brain had grown to the diameter of a Coke can. The first diaper I ever changed was my father's. I don't know whether The Rambling Man is cruel or socially tone deaf, and I don't care. I want him to stay away from me, period. Please tell him to back off. Durova 17:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Durova, it seems like he doesn't know how close the topic is to you personally. The comments you linked don't seem abnormal in tone or content - do you think its possible that you are unusually sensitive given your relationship to the subject, and perhaps his criticism strikes you as devaluing that subject even though that is likely not his intent? Nathan 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have replied to the notification of this thread on my talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF requires that people construe such low motives as egotism as the last resort, not the first. A request for no contact means precisely that: no further contact please. Durova 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is really no hurry here, I strongly suggest a 48 hour time-out, with no edits to any related page by either party. With luck, this will give time for some of the negative emotions to settle down, so that two of Misplaced Pages's best editors can interact in a more productive way. Looie496 (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As for egotism, Durova was quick to point to all her other featured content while telling me there was virtually nothing wrong with the list. I have no axe to grind. I have made no contact on her talk page since she requested me not to. I am quite within my right to reply to discussions on any other page here. I will continue to try to improve the list as I have indicated, as I'm sure the rest of the maligned featured list community will too. Once again, this about the list, nothing else. I find it hard to fathom that suggested improvements are seen as something that I should be "ashamed of". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Spanishboy2006

User:Spanishboy2006 is threatening me, stalking me, insulting me:

"You are being closely watched. You are being watched, every change, move or reversion you will make which most of the time is violated will be reported. Nice try, Cinema C, лажљивац.(google translator says so)" diff

(лажљивац means liar or shammer in Serbian )

User is already blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring on Kosovo related articles and received his warning to stop breaking Misplaced Pages rules. He seems to have not learned anything, so I advise the administrators to consider further action. --Cinéma C 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear he is not destined for a long career on Misplaced Pages. If he keeps up the fire and brimstone threats, I'd report him directly at WP:AN/I rather than come back here.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has prevented Spanishboy2006 (talk · contribs) from editing his talk page for the duration of the block. — madman bum and angel 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima on AfD

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been insulting and haranguing editors whose points he disagree with on a deletion discussion he started and overrode an unfavorable closure result, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts, after repeated warnings to stop: Nevertheless, in the AfD this editor:

• Calls an editor "gullible" and another is promoting a "conspiracy theory"
• Having a "severe misunderstanding"

(I won't initially provide diffs for the below - they should be easy enough to find)

• "Your understanding of the matter right now is just as faulty" and "your generalized ignorance" and "you have already lost any respect you could possibly have from me. Now you are just digging your whole deeper as you continue to speak to what you clearly don't know. Your statements suggest a complete disconnect from reality or an utter abuse of the human language to read what is not there."
• "Did you even bother to read the page by chance?"
• "Your undestanding of civil is as faulty as your understanding of the other guidelines."
• "Are you serious?"
• "your statements about Misplaced Pages are far beyond absurd "
• "Where did you get that crazy idea? "
• "Your statement is disqualified because you show an ignorance of our guidelines. Your post is insulting to anyone who bothered to read the guidelines."
• you clearly do not understand the word "ignorant" nor have you read WP:CIVIL.
• "you making it obvious that you deserve to be blocked for your false accusations"
• "your "vote" is invalid."
• "Did you just make that idea up?...Did you not bother to read WP:FORK?...it is strange for you to even think it would be how Misplaced Pages works.
• "Have you even read WP:BLP?...Your comments are so absurd that your vote is disqualified."
• "Your vote for keep based on the above is an admittance that you didn't read this page and probably didn't even bother to read the page on AfD....you haven't a clue what you are even taking about."
• "your post is completely invalid... You either put proper arguments based on policy to delete, or you don't make a comment....your claims to such are as nonsensicle as your understanding of the AfD process or what Misplaced Pages is about.

Apart from the routine incivility unleasantness, this person's verbose taunting of nearly every person who has !voted to "keep" the article is a process disruption. It takes the discussion completely off track and makes it several times longer and unpleasant to participate in. I note the editor has an extensive block log for incivility and disruption, so this does not seem to be an isolated case. Can we please nip this behavior in the bud before it earns a second indefinite block? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this any different from OR's normal behavior? >:) Baseball Bugs carrots 05:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference, I guess, is that I don't often encounter this editor or this sort of behavior. Are you suggesting he has a pass for this? Wikidemon (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it's par for the course and should be ignored. I don't oppose a WQA on it, though; I just don't think it will go anywhere. But good luck. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

All kidding aside, OR seems to be extraordinarily obsessive about this issue, as if he had some personal stake in it - going to almost every keep vote and lecturing them about it? (Guess he didn't see mine yet. Or else he knows better.) Baseball Bugs carrots 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Something needs to be done about his behaviour. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • His block list reads like a rap sheet, although he hasn't had any blocks for over a year now. Baseball Bugs carrots 07:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To be unfortunately honest, since Ottava Rima does not take advice from admins, he's certainly not going to respond to a WQA. If you're proving a pattern of behaviour (which it appears you are), you have only one forum, I believe: WP:RFC/U. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As a victim of his wrath, I would like to bring up User_talk:Blueboy96#Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion.2FNational_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflicts, where he threatened to have people blocked because they disagree with him. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't completely fabricate what happened. It is clear that I threatened to take people to ANI and propose a block because they improperly closed an AfD and were participating in an edit war over said improper close. That is far different than what you claim, and your claims must be stricken immediately as they violate WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree with Bwilkins, with all of the drama sure to ensue, any discussion about OR's behavior is way beyond the scope of WQA. This is not a comment about the necessity of such a RFC, only that a WQA has no chance at all of changing anything in this case. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• You do know that false accusations are incivil. Unless the following are corrected immediately, I will take this to ANI and demand a block for absolute falsehood in regards to accusations of policy breaking:

Claim: "*Calls an editor" The link clearly shows: "if anyone honestly believes Slrubenstein above, then you are gullible" Is there an editor mentioned? No. Thus, this is a fabrication.

The rest is equally not a breach of civility and deals with content and not individuals. However, it is clear that he does not understand what our civility guidelines even state. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava - an ANI filing would fall under the Plaxico effect right now, and would appear to be a tit-for-tat action due to the likely pending WP:RFC/U. Your best bet would be to review your actions now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed them. Most people have. Multiple Arbs watched the page and I talked to them. As did many of our most respected users. They knew exactly what I was saying and they knew that I didn't come close to breaching civility. Look at the things he claims are uncivil - ("you making it obvious that you deserve to be blocked for your false accusations") That is not incivil, that is what the civil guideline says! You make a false accusation and you are blocked. ("Are you serious?" ) Really? That is incivil now? I guess asking this last question is incivil too according to that standard! ("your "vote" is invalid.") Lets block everyone who had a problem with DougsTech's and PeterDamian's votes now too! Etc etc. None of those comments are incivil, and the fact that he came here is proof that he is posturing and trying to distract from an argument that he can't defend. He wants to keep a major BLP violation at AfD, and these games are just a way to do such. A disgusting abuse of process and a point violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming that you have discussed this report with multiple Arbcom members, and they have opined that your behavior is okay? I find that hard to swallow - if so, please ask them to weigh in here. Otherwise, you are going to have to accept the need to stop abusing other editors yourself, or else the community is going to have to make you stop. Please don't play games with the definition of WP:CIVIL, or make ridiculous tit-for-tat counter-accusations. Your abuse of other editors here is unacceptable, and beyond the pale. In this particular case it disrupts the AfD process you yourself initiated. If you can't see the problem with your behavior and moderate it to respect the rules and norms here, you're going to have to stop editing in places where you do this. Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Gullible" refers to content??? Baseball Bugs carrots 14:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, please, if you are going to respond read what I have stated. Where is the word "content"? It follows the phrase "The rest". My statement on "gullible" is that I did not call -any- editor Gullible. I put an "if then" phrase. Thus, assertions that I called someone gullible is a direct fabrication and a major (and blockable) abuse of civility, especially when they are claiming that in doing so I breach WP:CIVIL. The other comments above by said user are more proof that he doesn't understand what civility is about and his posturing here deserves a block. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, whether he understands the letter of the civility guidelines is not the issue; he clearly understands the spirit. You are making gross assumptions of bad faith; people who are of the same view of Slrubenstein, are not necessarily gullible, and I doubt many editors will not appreciate such slurs. Jointly attacking a group of editors in that way is not acceptable, even if it is not explicitly naming each and every editor who may fall under that category. I really don't mind if you are going take it to ANI and demand that everything be struck as a fabrication; no matter how you attempt to justify it, it's not the sort of expression one would hope to hear from an established editor like you. If something Slrubenstein said was false, or completely made up, or ludicrous, you should attempt to attack the content (eg; "what evidence is there to support theory x? none.") - there's no need to mention the contributor, or other contributors, or a category of contributors. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith is to say that they are trolling because they are wrong, not to say that they are wrong or that they don't understand what they are talking about. There is a clear difference. And "gullible" is now a slur? Please. "you should attempt to attack the content" If you read, all I did was attack content. And stop with all of the back to back corrections of your statements. Some people would like to respond instead of edit conflicting 3 times :P Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you were using the word gullible in a praiseworthy sense, my point is that some people won't appreciate being called something like that (even if other people think of it as seemly, look past it and understand what you were actually trying to say). The corrections were to hopefully make my statements less open to misinterpretation - in the sense of what I myself am trying to say. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Civil requires a direct object that is a user. Not an inanimate object or a theoretical individual. I can say "clowns are stupid" without it being a breach of civility, as there is no direct object of a user (unless, say, someone just came out as being a clown and this was a direct response). That is clear at WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me this as if I've accused you of violating CIVIL; I hope you're not confusing me with other peepz, Ottava. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where in the above how I have dealt with you in any manner but to point out that your statements weren't what CIVIL said. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement "if you believe this then you are gullible" is an uncivil comment, whether it's targeted at a specifically named user or not. I should also point out to OR that "incivility" is an English word, while "incivil" is not. It's "uncivil". The peculiarities of English. Baseball Bugs carrots 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not according to WP:CIVIL, and it would be a gross mischaracterization of civil to claim otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note the heavy use of "directed at another contributor". Also note "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." This last statement applies here. This applies to the user starting this violation, and to others who are joining in. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling people "guillible" is "constructive criticism"??? Baseball Bugs carrots 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Find a direct object user that was mentioned and then the language of WP:CIVIL will apply. Without the direct object there, there is no reason to even demand "constructive" anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you therefore take back your statement "if anyone honestly believes Slrubenstein above, then you are gullible"? Because if not, then you have targeted anyone who believes Slrubenstein, and whether you specifically named them or not does not matter. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that, take the accusation to ArbCom. However, WP:CIVIL is very clear that it requires a direct object. It doesn't matter if people later say "oh, I was affected", as there is no direct user involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it so happens I believe Slrubenstein. Am I therefore guillible? "Yes" or "No" answer only, please. Any other answer will constitute "wikilawyering". :) Baseball Bugs carrots 15:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bah! And you know that it would be ridiculous to have "incivility after the fact". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that "bah" supposed to equate to "yes" or "no"? :) Baseball Bugs carrots 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"I should also point out to OR that" - Did you happen to see "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" at WP:CIVIL by chance? Then the other clause that applies "Use of condescending language towards other Users." You have done this twice now. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't belittle you. I said it's a peculiarity of English. I've seen a lot of others use that incorrect form also. I'm trying to help you get a step ahead of those others. Baseball Bugs carrots 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I personally find it fascinating that when Ottava says he will seek to have someone blocked it's okay, but when I say I will seek to have him blocked I am accused of impersonating an admin. We put up with this because why? Obviously WQA will have no effect here. Nor will an RfC/U; he'll just ignore it the same way he ignores any attempt to modify his behaviour--for which he somehow gets a free pass that the rest of us do not. The only way to effect an actual change in Ottava's behaviour is an RFAR. → ROUX ₪ 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, please post this at RfAR. It would be laughed at so quickly that your head would spin. Nothing I have said is a breach of civility, and the misconstruing of statements and outright incorrect assertions of what is "incivil" or not would definitely result in blocks of people above wasting my time. So yes, please put it at RfAR. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, let's keep this from RFAR, that's the last area we need to deal with. Also, reading some of the above comments, I will question that all of them breach WP:CIVIL. Being a person who has violated that a bunch of times because of mental issues, I don't think we need to be all overly dramatic. Let's try to make this a lot less of a problem then. If we can look for a sensible solution, I would agree to that. Right now arguing over behavior and threatening RFAR, straight from WQA is not a sensible solution. Let's take this one step at a time.Mitch/HC32 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed; I initially didn't respond to this WQA because I didn't see enough to justify a sanction (which appears to be the request of the initator). Oh, and that may mean something, given I was the person who requested the most recent block that appears on Ottava Rima's block log. Obviously, there are a couple of things that can be debated on, but its not serious enough to warrant sanctions at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • At this point all I can see for punishment is a slap on the wrist for said involved parties. This isn't that dramatic, and personally, I don't understand it either.Mitch/HC32 15:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with ROUX, RFAR is the best option.Dave (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • ArbCom will find that there was no incivility, and that the accusation breaches the third paragraph of incivility against false accusations, especially with the first statement being a severe breach of it. I would like an Rfar simply so ArbCom could rule that the accusers deserve to be blocked so that people stop misconstruing the civility guideline like they did in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe. But it could be entertaining. :) Baseball Bugs carrots 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I need a name needs a cleaner mouth and a reign on his temper.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please review the discussion at the following link: User_talk:I_need_a_name#SFS_P-w401_ion_maneuvering_jet. In summary, I attempted to move an article that was already redirected. It had been redirected before, and I had reverted it then, as well. This time, however, the move was unsuccessful - possibly because the redirect page already existed under that name. My purpose was to switch the redirect the opposite direction. Unsuccessful. Therefore, having used up all of the options I thought I had, I merely switched the texts of the articles and explained the move in the talk pages. User:I need a name then proceeded to flag the main article with speedy deletion and nominate it for such. After attempting to communicate with him he has only responded in a flaming insolent manner. The following is the exchange that can found in the "user talk" link above:

This page, SFS P-w401 ion maneuvering jet, keeps being moved without just reason. It needs to stop. Other pages that follow this precedent are: SFS-204 sublight ion engine, SFS-CR27200 hypermatter reactor, SFS S/ig-37 hyperdrive. Gethralkin 13:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I could not undo the move done on it because the other page existed. That is why I switched the texts. Gethralkin 13:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Are you not paying attention? Read the talk page. Read your messages. Gethralkin 13:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly, I don't give a fuck which is the correct name or not. What I give a fuck about is when people manage to fail at the mind-numbingly simple task of clicking a button marked 'move' to move a page and instead copy and paste it to a new name, so we end up with bullshit like an article history's being lost in the edit history of a redirect. Already an article at the name you want to move to? Then tag it for deletion and move it when it's been deleted. Not that this was a problem to begin with anyway, because the MediaWiki software allows you to move an article over another one which redirects to it if the latter hasn't been edited since, which was the case here. Of course, that can't be done now, since someone went and edited the redirect article, hence why I've tagged it for deletion so it can be moved properly. I wonder whose fault that is? -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, learn what the word 'vandalism' means. Hint: it doesn't mean any and all edits that you disagree with. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, if he had been civil in the first place, I would have agreed with his point of view and advice. I am a rather easy-going guy and can take constructive criticism pretty well. This was anything but constructive. 98.200.10.147 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, this appears to be from the Star Wars wiki, and not Misplaced Pages ... ? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, the link for reporting uncivil conduct led me here from a starwars.wikia help page. Gethralkin (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution