Revision as of 17:37, 8 June 2011

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

Active alerts

GenKnowitall

• GenKnowitall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Center of gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I (Melchoir) have been involved in a content dispute with GenKnowitall for about two days. His attitude is partially responsible for the difficulty I'm having in resolving the dispute, because it is so taxing to interact with him. Rather than provide diffs, I'll just point to Talk:Center of gravity. Melchoir (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you are having difficulty adhering to the discussion and editing process, Melchoir, preferring to simply hijack an article and make substantive and objectionable revisions without discussion, where the article is being actively discussed and edited. Some of your material is good and may be included, with prior discussion. Yet you have been repeatedly asked to participate by submitting a proposal for discussion, which you have not done. Please submit such in discussion instead of complaining about how 'taxing' it is to collaborate. Additionally, resolving a 'dispute' first requires that there be a bona fide dispute not just disagreement, offer a position that is properly stated and supported by some authority, and then engage in good faith with responsive answer to replies to resolve it. There should there be a real (as opposed to fabricated ) dispute between authority, otherwise it is just a food fight. This has been explained to you. Please participate in the editorial process instead of what you have been doing.

I have little sympathy for your complaint Melchoir, as you were involved in a previous incarnation of the article, based plainly on a flawed understanding of the subject, trampled an article by a previous author, mucking editing up so badly an entire deletion was the only sensible exit. You wish to do that again. No, sorry, the subject deserves better. Your behavior so far has not been exemplary, and except for the fact that I believe and hope you have good contributions to make to the article I would have made complaint about you. I submitted an article which you agree is correct as stated. I have treated you respectfully and in good faith. Join the discussion with your proposals and engage in good faith editing. GenKnowitall (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

GenKnowitall's contributions indicate he is unfamiliar with the WP:Consensus model; I've commented on the specific content dispute on the talk page. Additionally I've left warning for his personal attack on another editor on the talk page. As this is primarily a content dispute I don't think there's a lot more to be done here. Gerardw (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gerardw, but will post the following which I had prepared.

GenKnowitall's first edit was three weeks ago, so it is not surprising that their understanding of procedures is incomplete. I have not investigated the content dispute or much of the discussion because this comment is sufficient to show a problem: the term "vandalism" has a specific meaning here, and must not be used to describe good-faith edits; do not comment on an editor's background ("graduate student")—article talk pages are to discuss content; terms such as "You were on notice" and "I will seek your removal" are highly inappropriate in the context used. Subject experts are welcome, but they need to demonstrate their expertise by providing reliable sources that support their edits, and by responding to points raised (and there should be multiple sources for such a well known topic as this; see WP:DUE or possibly even WP:REDFLAG). Misplaced Pages requires collaboration and when an editor reasonably requests a reason for an edit (as was the case with the diff just given), the reason must be supplied. There is no urgent reason to revert an article back to one's favored position—instead, editors should provide explanations on the talk page and allow a reasonable time for responses. I would have thought there were plenty of good editors watching this article, but if more input is needed, post a comment at WT:WikiProject Physics. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

So... if we're done here, I can take this page off my watchlist. :-) Melchoir (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A dispute over editing process arose, compounded by the actions by two people who were not involved in the article and whose sole apparent purpose of entry was to precipitate a technical edit war. Article content cannot be seriously disputed, examined, or improved where collaborative process is so thwarted. Instead an admin has entered, agreed to mediate, and will practically decide process. Complaints may be made, but the above seem neither formal complaint nor official action on a complaint, nor good faith attempt to resolve anything, so are perhaps best understood as continuation of the edit war while admin actions are decided. GenKnowitall (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Two uninvolved and experienced editors confirmed above that you are mistaken. New editors are allowed a lot of rope, but you need to quickly understand WP:CIVIL because this comment is not acceptable. If you think about a typical unmoderated newsgroup where the majority of content consists of personal attacks, it will be apparent why Misplaced Pages enforces the comment on the edits, not the editor procedure (that is, it is ok to claim an edit is misguided although you will be ignored if no policy-compliant reason is provided, but it is not ok to claim that an editor is misguided). Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq your remarks violate the same rule in the same manner that you claim mine do (only more so). You didn't see that? Interesting. My remarks were in response to another editor, and were an appropriate response (a) You've already taken a position in the discussion and are not 'disinterested', (b) Editors are not superior to each other, (c) Everything I stated above is true. Please stop making false claims about people and uncivil remarks. I'd cite the rules but you seem to know where they are. Go read them. GenKnowitall (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My comment related to your behavior, not personal qualities. The editing policy instructs contributors to be bold in updating articles. You claim that users shouldn't edit center of gravity without discussing proposed changes first, and that a lack of discussion constitutes an acceptable reason for the reversion of edits . You have taken a position squarely in opposition to Misplaced Pages policy. If you persist, sanctions will be imposed. Chester Markel (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor in this matter (and at this time, do not wish to get really involved). I wanted to alert those that are involved that as a new page patroller, I have recently PROD'd Center of gravity/Archive 2. Talk 24May11 Article-Edit War, which I realized afterwards may be related to this discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Dave3457

• Dave3457 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Femininity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having a dispute with Dave3457 at the article Femininity. The tone of this dispute has been very uncivil, in my opinion, from the beginning. There's really no progress being made and any help would be really appreciated. I really just want to discuss the specific changes and reliable sources, but Dave3457 has been accusing me of a lot of negative motivations which I disagree with and I find unfair. Even if I do have some biases (I'm not going to say that I am a 100% neutral person, I doubt anyone is) I think the only useful thing is to discuss the actual changes and sources and not the other editor. I've tried being friendly and pointing out AGF, I've tried being firm, and I've also advertised this dispute at some Wikiprojects and the NPOV noticeboard. Below are some examples. Thanks. 12345Aronoel (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any obvious Wikiquette issues here. It's clearly a content dispute, and Dave3457 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda. OhNoitsJamie 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe I have an agenda. How should I move forward? --Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a WP:THIRD opinion would convince you otherwise. This is really a content-dispute. OhNoitsJamie 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Both Dave and Aronoel seem to be editing in good faith. They just happen to be presenting two different, but valid sides of an issue. I think the discussion would benefit from a de-escalation of bad-faith accusations and more effort to keep the discussion at a respectful and collaborative tone. I would encourage Dave to refrain from the "agenda" rhetoric, and especially refrain from insulting Aronoel with comments about his/her edits being "absolutely laughable", etc. The debate should be focused on the quality of the sources, not on personal accusations about "agendas". Everyone has opinions and those opinions affect what people contribute to Misplaced Pages. As long as people are adhering to Misplaced Pages policy, that's usually OK. In other words, debate the content (and sources), not the editor. Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone comment further about my behavior in this dispute? For example, how I should have handled it differently, or how I should respond to accusations that I have an agenda? --Aronoel (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Should have not edit warred. Should have not replying to Dave's explanations with more questions and "I don't understand"s. Should have gone WP:THIRD or WP:RFC when it became clear your were unlikely to agree between yourselves. Gerardw (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think I could do 3O because I already posted a request for comment at the NPOV noticeboard. In the future I will just stop discussing it until I can get more uninvolved editors to comment. --Aronoel (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's usually a good idea, especially if you feel tempted to edit war otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You just ruled in my favor in the above dispute but...

According to Misplaced Pages protocol, am I aloud to accuse someone of bias editing on a talk page? Personally I'd like to think that we are all "big boys and girls" , but on the other hand I can see how it could result in a kind of "melt down". On one level Aronoel is right in that I was focusing on the editor rather than the edits. On the other hand everything I said was true and she is doing harm to Misplaced Pages's good name, (whether she realizes it or not) and it would be helpful if other editors understood the motivations for her edits and her editing tactics and thus kept an eye on her.

In short, while you ruled in my favor in a big way, I suspect that I may have been in the wrong when I publicly accused her of having an agenda even though she did. In my opinion, I have all kinds of evidence that she is letting her biases effect her editing and that she is even being disingenuous in her edit summaries, but I’m thinking that I may have crossed the line first.

Again, in your ruling you said “ Dave3475 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda.” Are you sure that I can do that on the talk page?

I have to be honest, while I should take the time to try and expose her, I'm thinking in hindsight, as she suggests, I may have gone about it the wrong way.
Dave3457 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF says to assume that the other editor is doing what they feel is to the benefit of Misplaced Pages. The ruling was not in your favor, it was in Misplaced Pages's favor. You should move on from this. Don't try to "expose" anyone, the effort will harm Misplaced Pages more in the long run than whatever you feel is wrong with Aronoel. Just let it go and move on from here focusing on the edits and assuming the best in others.--v/r - TP 02:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As explained at WP:ATTACK "the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

TP What I meant by exposing her was that I plan to go through the proper channels.

I would point out that WP:AGF only works if everyone actually is editing in good faith. The fact of the matter is that Misplaced Pages is an extremely powerful tool for those who desire to move public consciousness in a desired direction. And no, I obviously did win the judgment, but neither am I here gloating.

Kaldari I agree with your recent changes to the feminine talk page and the position on Attack pages however there has to exist a channel with which to expose people you believe are not editing in good faith. Presumably this is the Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave, as I said, attempting to "expose" people is harmful to Misplaced Pages in the long run. Keep in mind that you have a biased point of view against someone you've had conflict with. You feel they are editing in bad faith because of that bias. That is why WP:AGF is most important here. You need to assume that despite what you feel is the truth, that there is the possibility that they feel they are editing in good faith and you need to acknowledge that. Another good principal is WP:DGAF. Just let it go. It will reflect just as poorly on you if you can't get over this incident. I say that with the utmost respect and interest in your well being as a non-involved editor.--v/r - TP 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith applies irrespective of whether good faith actually exists, which often cannot be determined. We assume that editors are contributing in good faith unless clear and convincing evidence is presented to the contrary. For instance, running an abusive sock farm, attempting to cause real life harm to editors, actions which have no plausible explanation except disruption to illustrate a point, etc. would indicate malicious editing. Conjecture that an editor's contributions may be motivated by a political or social bias does not constitute acceptable evidence for overruling AGF. Otherwise, the guideline would cease to be relevant at all on controversial topics, in which any editorial position could be attributed to some biased motivation. This does not mean that one cannot criticize editorial conduct such as persistent violations of WP:NPOV, but only that an editor's reasons for non-neutral editing should not be speculated upon. Chester Markel (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the fact that one disagrees with an editor does not, by itself, imply that they are violating WP:NPOV. Though it's sometimes necessary, one should at least be wary of making such an accusation against an editor with whom one is involved in a content dispute. It is often better to let uninvolved editors and admins judge behavior. Chester Markel (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. It seems to all boil down to "one should behave professionally". In fact, since I've been "behaving more professionally" I've been enjoying the editing experience more. That being said, the real test for me will be if some of this evening's work gets reverted on suspect grounds. Dave3457 (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Beyond that: Editors may be biased, and to any degree. What matters is whether there's a conflict of interest, but having views is not a COI, or whether the article is neutral, and biased editors can produce neutral output. Indeed, they often do better editing, because they know their subjects, and some (not all) unbiased editors are simply editors with little subject knowledge. Content is what's important here. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Owain the 1st

• Owain the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Owain the 1st has made multiple personal attacks over the last few hours. I received a probationary period based on WP:ARBPIA for asserting that another editor was a liar. I don't think this needs to escalate that far (unless no action is taken) but I am asking for an admin to redact the comments (or simply strike) and make it clear to the editor that ARBPIA 4.1.2 (Decorum) is supposed to be enforced.

• (asserting that another editor is a liar is certainly not acceptable. The other editor took offence to what looked like a rhetorical and snide question but there was no excuse for saying it was "lies")
• (this one is just annoying but it is rude)
• (commenting on the assumed intentions of another editor is usually prohibited)

Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

notified

Cptnono is hounding me over 3 pages for many hours.Here on my user talk page where he was told not to comment on a thread that was about a different subject but continued anyway, I deleted most of it here .He is also following me on another two threads namely here and here

I would add that your first claim has already been struck through by you here Owain the 1st (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Looks like a storm in a tea cup to me. The first is in response to an accusation, the second is trivial and the third is mild compared with other comments on controversial articles which are not brought here. Aside from asking everyone to moderate their language I can't see that any action is required --Snowded 07:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any comments worthy of the label "personal attack". WP:DR please. Prodego 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Then this will go to AE. He is not allowed to assert other editors are liars. Period. If an admin does not want to tell him that then I hope he gets topic banned instead.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith yourself - just because editing gets heated, as it does sometimes, doesn't mean one should run to WP:WQA. Instead, stay calm and cool. If you cannot do that you may want to try contributing in a less controversial area. Prodego 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Good advise, and I would be think hard about the consequences of taking a trivial issue to AE --Snowded 05:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Filed by Gimpman

Scott Mac

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

This editor is calling me "idiotic", a "troll," and announcing assumptions of bad faith. His comments to me on his Talk page:

• "Grow up"
• "I'm not assuming good faith, no. Because it patent you are not acting in good faith.... Hypocrisy, trolling, disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a (or several contradictory) points. You seem to be cruising for a ban. So, if that's what you want up the ante again and someone will oblige. If it perchance isn't then change the tactics. These ones make you look idiotic"
• "Assume good faith does not mean we are blind when your antics patently lack it."

In discussion of a cocnern about an attack page:

• "First, this post is troll. Mindbunny has being using his own userspace to comment on living people and been blocked for it. He is also, AFAIK in a dispute with SlimVirgin. So, this is hypocrisy and posturing"

Another noticeboard:

• "You are being played." (i.e., I am "playing" and manipulating other editors)

Notes.

1. The editor is an admin
2. The editor has a userbox that states "This user doesn't give a flying *!*? about your Wikiquette alerts." Mindbunny (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• and 3. The editor is being relatively restrained in responding to purposefully provocative and disruptive behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully endorse the addition of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's point number three. Mindbunny, what is it that you are contributing to this Great Encyclopedia of Knowledge other than drama? --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• per WP:BOOMERANG, if I responded to this, it would only be to propose a community ban of Mindbunny.--Scott Mac 21:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground is another policy that we have. Scott might have been a little on the candid side but he made some succinct and valid points. I recommend you find common ground with people and move forward positively. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of etiquette is to to make it possible to find that common ground. Exactly how should I find a common ground with someone calls me an idiotic troll? The drama-creation is due to those who make personal attacks, not those who point out problems. The idea that an admin is entitled to call editors idiotic trolls even if the editors are misbehaving is untenable. Mindbunny (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your best reply is to be as constructive and beneficial to article content as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe by ceasing to behave like an idiotic troll? Or would that be too obvious? Hans Adler 04:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution: Scott, stop characterizing people as "idiotic". Mindbunny, stop disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. I wouldn't want to have to revive my proposal to community ban you, or take your behavior to arbcom again. Chester Markel (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink

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

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

This is an editor that seems to have had quite a long-term problem with civility, assuming good faith and so on 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 20102011 2011 2011 (particularly nasty and with an edit-summary worth a second glance)

So far today, he's accused me of disruptive editing + "making impotent insults" and being "illiterate" + given me a template warning for "using improper humour" on a page where I did absolutely no such thing + referring to me as "TrolleryTag" and failing to provide evidence for his allegation of improper humour

I'd appreciate it if somebody could point out that this isn't a terribly impressive trend. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 22:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending swarm has not gone without notice. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• I try not to feed the trolls, so I'll be brief - consider this my sole contribution to this discussion. It seems TreasuryTag, after barging into the kitchen (so to speak) by labeling my contributions to a MfD as, quote, long, dull tirade(s) is now shocked - simply SHOCKED - to find that he can't take the heat. I'm sure his neglecting to mention the location of this entire "dispute" (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Strasserist) is simply coincidence, and certainly not a deliberate attempt to mislead others in his little WikiWar. Should I also mention that TreasuryTag, this outspoken opponent of User Talk templates, had no problem dumping this lovely template on the talk page of an editor who's been around nearly as long as he? In short, I find it quite surprising that such an evidently sensitive, easily upset snowflake would be capable of such provocative statements and actions. Badger Drink (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• While the linked comments are borderline, the above one is too much. Badger Drink blocked 48 hours. Prodego 22:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• You do realise, I hope, that by posting "TrolleryTag" you've committed that most pivotal of Misplaced Pages act: licensing it under the GFDL. This means that it's now freely available for re-use by other editors, myself included, who are thoroughly tired of TT's regular 'wounded innocence' routines. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink has posted an unblock request. I'm not going to act on the request as I've had extensive negative interaction with TreasuryTag, but I am not convinced this is a good block and hope it will be reviewed quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a required block by Prodego - this is a primary discussion location. I heard admins are not even required here - if there is an issue an admin or a user feels serious , then move to a higher location - eg - WP:ANI - Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User was unblocked by Beeblebrox; matter taken to ANI (so unless they send it back here, closed so we don't have same thing in more than one forum). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsure of what to make of this...

Douglas_the_Comeback_Kid (talk · contribs)

Is there any reason why editors have sections of their userpage dedicated to making personal attacks? How would WP:USERPAGE and WP:SOAPBOX work in this manner, if it's not specifically mainspace or talkspace? I don't see how WP:ATTACKs against other Misplaced Pages editors should be openly displayed on one's own page, so proudly and boldly at that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Notified user and asked to remove from his user page. Benlisquare, please add latin characters to your signature per WP:SIG#NL. Gerardw (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a bit with him earlier today trying to shoehorn more of the same POV into an unrelated article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Such a "name and shame" was specifically forbidden by the arbcom ruling in this case, which states quite clearly that a "hall of shame" like this should not be created in userspace. The inappropriate content has been in place for several months, and I see nothing indicating that its creator has any intention of using it in an appropriate dispute resolution process. I've left a strong warning on the user's talk page, since he removed Gerardw's comments without an appropriate response, but I suspect this will end up at ANI. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Content was removed about a minute later, it seems. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

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

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. Thanks.--Mjpresson (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)--Mjpresson (talk) 10:29 am, Today (UTC−7)

User:DonQuixote

• DonQuixote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Rodney King (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Personal offense (diff), refusal to apologize. Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the last part was a personal attack. Removed from talk page. DonQuixote, please comment on the contribution, not the contributor. Gerardw (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk: Pound (mass)

• 203.129.23.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pound (mass) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User Hans_Adler is behaving in an uncivilized, arrogant and controlling manner throughout the following talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Pound_%28mass%29&oldid=432672014 Talk:Pound (mass)

He has behaved particularly offensively toward me (and my profession - engineering) in the following section:

If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Pound_%28mass%29&oldid=432672014#Is_.22pound.22_a_force_or_a_mass_.28with_reliable_sources.29... http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pound_%28mass%29#Is_.22pound.22_a_force_or_a_mass_.28with_reliable_sources.29...

I took a poke at him in the following section (more to get him to put his money where his mouth is and actually attempt to improve the article in question rather than just grandstanding on the talk page):

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Pound_%28mass%29&oldid=432672014#Finally_a_clear_explanation_of_the_pound-mass_.2F_pound-force_matter_in_a_reliable_source http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pound_%28mass%29#Is_.22pound.22_a_force_or_a_mass_.28with_reliable_sources.29...

...and he is now resorting to threats because I have apparently "nagged" him. I certainly wasn't aware of any nagging policy.

I realise its unlikely I have abided by all Misplaced Pages policies to the letter, but the offending user is clearly a more experienced Misplaced Pages editor and has made my introduction to active involvement in Misplaced Pages possibly my last, if not by his hand by my own due to a lack of interest in putting up with that sort of behaviour.

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk • contribs)

The sense of entitlement demonstrated by this user is astonishing. By now I have spent at least two hours on answering his questions, which were caused by confusion between the normal and the engineers' variant of the foot-pound-second system. The last thing I expected to hear after I located a specialised academic encyclopedia that explains this very clearly and typed the relevant passage in for further use was the following: "Are you going to put this in the article, or do you just like blowing smoke out your bum?" I am not familiar with any culture where it is socially acceptable to use the services of a PhD for free in the way that the user did (on the article talk page, rather than at the reference desk, where such homework-type questions belong) and then use such language. I do not understand why the user feels so offended, but it appears there is some serious mind-reading going on. I would appreciate if others could deal with this user from now on, as it is likely to be more effective. Hans Adler 13:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: I reverted the anonymous user's last contribution to the talk page. The user found their way here before I did so. Hans Adler 14:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe someone can be as arrogant as Hans Adler in such an idealistic system such as Misplaced Pages. At no time has he ever been under any pressure or been obligated to answer my questions (by the very nature of the system itself - being entirely voluntary), and his assumption of my confusion is unfounded (and further insulting); the actual system that I originally came to the Pound (mass) article seeking clarification was use of pound-mass (as in the FPS gravitational system, per the comparative table at http://en.wikipedia.org/Pound-force#Foot-pound-second_systems_of_units, which the offending user seems to have repeatedly ignored on the Pound (mass) talk page and contradicted it. I am very familiar with the difference between mass and force and have used metric and imperial (FPS engineering) units for years in my job first as an aeronautical engineer and now as a mechanical engineer. He is likely making his assumption based on some simple mathematical errors I made (which I even stated were expected), which is when his grandstanding over me began I think. I readily and regularly convert between the two systems and convert between mass and force as a matter of course. My objective here at Misplaced Pages has been to prompt for clarification in the article Pound (mass) and other related articles to highlight some of the ambiguities that he seems intent as waving off as odd or stupid or due to simple misunderstanding. All the while it seems that he is misguided into thinking that a pound can and should only be a unit of mass. Now he has tha gall to claim that I'm making a personal attack, after he has repeatedly treated me like an idiot and appears to have violated multiple civility clauses WP:CIVIL including rudeness, personal attack (personally and to my profession), quoting me out of context, belittling, and finally a personal threat (PLONK). I honestly don't really care that much whether I'm banned or not; I will forget and move onto other things that interest me. At this stage I probably won't be contributing to Misplaced Pages any further by my own choice I expect that people like Hans are able to run amok unchecked merely because they know the system better than those they offend. I would much rather other users have "dealt" with me as he is the rudest person I've come across in a long time. His "two hours" were spent by his own choice, not by coersion or demand. He is apparently very passionate about the topic, which is obvious from his contributions on the talk page. He seems to enjoy bickering (and I've been happy to oblige his interest a little) but he continually ignores the need for article improvement and indeed is perhaps applying indirect pressure on others to refrain from doing so or risk being reverted and subsequently subjected to his ridicule. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• 203.129.23.146, your comment at was pretty uncalled for, as was your followup which Hans Adler removed. There is no obligation for him to make any edits on your behalf, the article isn't even semi-protected. It doesn't appear to me that there was incivility until you made the comment about blowing smoke. Monty₈₄₅ 14:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but I did find the irony of bringing a complaint in this tone to an etiquette board entertaining. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is no obligation for any user to make edits on my behalf. The reason for the off-comment that you highlight is that he has been so intent in proving everyone wrong on the talk page but seems to have no interest in improving the article (isn't that the purpose of a talk page?). I would improve the article myself but I am very new to the editing process. Hans is clearly more experienced, not that I expected him to do anything at any point. Your lack of acknowledgement of civility before my blowing smoke comment I feel is unfair but not unexpected, which is why I will seek other interests other than active participation in improvement of Misplaced Pages articles. If I have offended Hans for my smoke comment, I apologise to him. If you read closely and consider the context of my comment, I feel that it wasn't entirely uncalled for. Hans seemed to be on a mission to degrade the engineering profession from which I come (look at the red highlighted bits in his comment that I replied to with the smoke bum). Nonetheless, thankyou for your consideration Monty. Nuujinn, I brought my complaint here because (as Hans alluded to earlier) I read his mind. He is the passionate Wikipedian; I'm more like a passer by by comparison, but I'm glad you have been entertained :) 203.129.23.146 (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC

So am I. But you see, if you get in a discussion that grows warm, and fall prey to the baser desire to poke someone else to elicit a response, even if they are out of line, you're not going to get much of a response to an accusation that the other party is rude or arrogant, at least not from me. Arguments happen, best to back off, come back later, take it easy.... --Nuujinn (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC))

Hans was the one doing most of the poking. He just got all pissy when someone else poked back. I got to this wikiquette forum first, but only after he threatened me on the talk page. Check edit timestamps. My response was more along the lines of "ok if you're going make rediculous threats and get all hypocritical about it then i'm going to dob on you for being a jerk not just to me but to everyone on this talk page". The things I have since taken offence to have been in response to his threat. Nonetheless everything I have accused him from is justified. I would have probably just ignored them (per your advice) if he hadn't threatened me. Have a squiz at the talk page for Pound (mass) for more entertainment. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care who started it. Seems to me to be a case of a misunderstanding that got out of hand with both parties participating with less than optimal levels of politeness. I think the best course is for you both to take a break from it and try again later. Of course, that's just my opinion. And please, edit in an external editor if you want to really tweak your prose, the edit conflicts are onerous. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

203.129.23.146, that wasn't even a 'threat'. You made an inappropriate Talk page remark and he said he would remove off-topic comments. You already indicated that Hans did quite a bit of work answering questions on the Talk page. Why not just focus on the subject material again, lay off comments that focus on other editors and move forward? -- Avanu (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(Follow-on from Nuujinn) ... or better still, register yourself as an editor and work in your own workspace. In that way the articles you write will have visibility of Misplaced Pages and if you add a few personal details on your home page, other editors will know a bit about you (as much or as little as you like) making communication with you easier. Martinvl (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misunderstood the whole "plonk" thing to mean banning me from posting, but reading it again it looks like ignoring by a particular user. I have no problem with him doing that. I didn't realise it could be done, and I'm not familiar with usenet. By the way, before you people hang me out to dry over an "inappropriate remark" that I have apologised for, why don't you check out the previous section on the offending talk page, where I have acknowledged insult but let it go (at the time). Hans is being hypocritical because he spent much of his "two hours" poking me and got all upset when I poked back. He wasn't answering my questions. I was offering a different perspective and he was trying to prove me wrong. It is a shame that belittling is apparently tolerated here, but responding to it is a crime. I will of course lay off other editors, as I have endevoured to do since the beginning of my involvement. The comment to which Hans took offense to was merely my way of saying "ok you made a point, stop grandstanding, are you gunna put it in the article?". Had I realised he would take offense I would have lightened up on the slang. He has laboured the whole "pound is a mass" thing throughout the talk page, not just in the offending section, and it was wearing thin. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So long as you're using loaded statements like "It is a shame that belittling is apparently tolerated here, but responding to it is a crime", I think you'll have problems here. You're obviously bright, and you seem to know something on the topic. You found your way here remarkably quickly, and I'm surprised by your comment regarding not being familiar with usenet, so I'm beginning to think you have more experience than you are letting on. But assuming good faith on your part, I will just say that you've gotten some advice, and only you can decide if the risk of running into disagreements is great enough to preclude continuing to edit here. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside my profession I'm a hobby software developer (Linux, Delphi/Lazarus, PHP/MySQL) but I'm not into social networking. I have heard of usenet but honestly never used it. I have accessed IRC a couple of times, but I'm not even sure if that is related. I don't have the time or patience to learn the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages editing and policy. I just came across an article that I thought was ambiguous so I thought I'd put a word in. I got here quickly because of a lucky Google search (Misplaced Pages stuff usually appears at the top of Google searches, but I've learned that through engineering moreso than anything geeky). Perhaps I shouldn't have use that loaded statement, but I still stand by it, and as a result of this experience I will be more reluctant to contribute further to Misplaced Pages in future. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Usenet "social networking", although in some respects the term could fit. It pre-dates the Web by a decade, and was/is used for discussion, information storage, etc. Maybe rather than assuming a weird word like PLONK means something, since it was linked, just click it and find out, or just ignore it. You brought the complaint here, which by most of us appears to be your own overreaction. Focus on the subject and less on the people and you'll do fine. You put a lot more than a word in, and one of the things people who interact essentially anonymously have to watch carefully is tone, since text conveys intent poorly. My initial impression is that you are a little bit cavalier with your tone, and Hans might have been exasperated trying to help you, but obviously put in some degree of effort trying to answer you intelligently and comprehensively. Simple answer, let it go, move on, focus on content, not people. -- Avanu (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(Hopefully really my last comment here, as this nonsense is not good for my blood pressure.) The simple fact is that "pound" with no further qualifications is a mass. According to the US' 1893 Mendenhall Order (and much earlier, as it only affected the value of the avoirdupois pound, not its dimension), according to NIST, according to every single UK Weights and Measures Act that I have seen. (I have trouble finding the really old ones.) Some engineers are confused about this because they are using a variant of the FPS system in which the pound-force is more important than the pound and because in legal and standards contexts the word "weight" is used for mass. (In engineering contexts it makes sense to refer to the pound-force as "pound" for simplicity, and consequently to the pound as "pound-mass" for clarity.) But it's still a fact, whether you can make yourself believe it or not. Most people care about how much gold they have lying on their table. It's only engineers who worry primarily whether the force is going to break it. I might have been more patient with you if you were the first user with this misunderstanding. But while most editors active in the area understand the situation, we occasionally get a very obstinate editor who tries to prove everybody else wrong on this.

I apologise for using the term "PLONK". Misplaced Pages has no killfiles, and it would be hard to implement something like that. What I meant is that my opinion of you had fallen to the point that I resolved to ignore you. It never occurred to me that you could understand this as the threat of some technical measure, even after you began to inexplicably (for me) talk about a threat. – On the other hand there is a lot of things I said that I have no reason at all to apologise for. You came to the talk page with a long post containing some errors that demonstrated that you have some fundamental difficulties with physics computations. Many students make such mistakes while in school; at university they are supposed to learn the correct approach that prevents them. They are supposed to learn that they can't just write equations that really only mean "this corresponds to that", and manipulate them at random. After I spent a lot of time writing an explanation of the problem, you returned, added another mistake, and claimed that that was an improvement because now your result had almost the right order of magnitude. A little later you suspected me of being clueless about science and engineering for daring to say that the historical choice of using the term "weight" for the force rather than mass when the distinction came up was odd. Hans Adler 18:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Skipping the discussion of what pound is (a type of Cake, right?) because we don't do content here, just seeing escalating spiral of incivility from both editors. Please just focus on content and not the contributor. Gerardw (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Gerardw: I don't know if you have had a look at Talk:Pound (mass), but while it is often fair to comment on an "escalating spiral of incivility from both editors" in hope of settling down a dispute with some face-saving on both sides, in this case that attempted settlement is extremely unfair. Hans has given 203.129.23.146 a lot of very civil and very constructive help at the article talk page, but it appears 203.129.23.146 does not (or possibly, will not) get it. The comments are too long to be sure, but I do not see any incivility from Hans (and I don't see a diff to point to one). After what happened at the article talk, it is absurd to suggest that "PLONK" was uncalled for. I have added the page to my watch list and will assist to remove any more nonsense. I recommend closing this discussion because the only editor that needs WQA assistance is 203.129.23.146 and they have demonstrated that time spent on explanations is wasted. Misplaced Pages requires civility—it does not require that nonsense be tolerated. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where this stupid notion that the pound is primarily a unit of force is not a good opening for a civil conversation. I do concur with closing, as I don't see much good coming out of continued conversation here. Gerardw (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading the discussion shows that the "stupid notion" comment is not uncivil, and it is an important part of the discussion (and not in any way directed at an editor). 203.129.23.146 started the article talk section with a link to a discussion at the Science reference desk, and we should assume that Hans Adler reviewed that discussion before answering. He would have read 203.129.23.146's answer to the question: "How did people fall into this unfortunate notion that the pound isn't primarily a unit of mass?" which included "For me it was engineering textbooks and university courses" (diff).

The immensely helpful and comprehensive reply by Hans Adler started "I don't know where this stupid notion that the pound is primarily a unit of force and needs to be renamed for use as a unit of mass comes from, but when it is actually being taught at university level I guess we can't ignore it...". It is simply a mistake to read "stupid notion" as an insult to the person reporting that books and courses were the origin of the notion (the "taught at university level I guess we can't ignore it" text shows that the comment is addressed to the issue that pound is a unit of force is a stupid notion that cannot be ignored because it reportedly is taught at university level). If the reader were to initially make that mistake (and believe "stupid" was applied to the editor), they would surely realize the following highly civil and helpful text contradicted the thought that the message was an insult. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously we disagree. Starting a reply with less pejorative synonyms ("incorrect") could have good a long way to avoiding this WQA in the first place. (I've addressed the content issue on the talk page.) To be clear, has Hans Adler violated any WP policy? Not that I'm seeing. But not all that is permitted is wise. Gerardw (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Anthonyhcole

• Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Santorum (neologism) (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User talk:Anthonyhcole (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User's behavior is extremely uncivil and has repeatedly made personal attacks.

• User accuses me of being bigoted, calls me "childish", characterizes my contributions as "blather"
• User refactors comment: no longer am I "bigoted", but "one-eyed"
• User attacks my capability for "rational thought," attempts to exclude me from article discussion with justification that my attitude "just doesn't belong here"
• In response to a {{uw-npa3}}, user accuses me of "making rational argument difficult for the normal editors", tells me to "fuck off", and characterizes me as "disruptive".
• In response to a {{uw-npa4}}, user reiterates that I was told to "fuck off", and commands me to "start being polite and respectful, if you know how".

Please also note user has a history of being blocked for personal attacks and harassment. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I consider this issue to be  Resolved by User:TreasuryTag's comment below. Other editors seem intent on making this about me. I have no intention in participating in that, as it's degenerated into a witch-hunt for previous IP addresses I may or may not have used, which may or may not have been blocked. Gotten pretty silly, really. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This comment in particular seems to be way out of line. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs) would be advised not to use that sort of language again. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 22:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment in reply to the creator of the report and their assertion that Anthonycole has according to the IP24. 177... "a history of being blocked for personal attacks and harassment"... - actually although Anthonycole's block log looks like repeated issues its not. The user has one block in April 2010 for 24 hours which was more or less commented as mistaken and unblocked by User:Zen after thirty minutes. The second block was in June 2010 for 24 hours (likely because the first was not countable for an increase) - this second block was increased by Sarek and then unblocked at ANI as not really blockable,(comment from unblocking admin was - "not really block-able") so on investigation of the block log there is little at all, nothing significant and the last unblock was from twelve months ago. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• As I have seen, this user IP24. 177 seems to be battle-fielding its way around from article to article, as if wikipedia is an online game to be won at all costs. The users asserts they have ten thousand contributions but as yet has not linked up to any of them. The user already has a block on this IP and I find myself wondering what is in the history of the user that we can not see. I also note, this is the IP addresses third report here in the last week - one against me and another against Stephen Walling a Misplaced Pages Foundation contributor. It seems strange t me that a contributor is repeatedly opening reports here, either they are being picked on, why would that be? or there is some other issue perhaps with the reporter themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  The purpose of this Wikiquette alert is to discuss the incivility exhibited by User:Anthonyhcole, not for you to cast spurious aspersions at me. Please take it elsewhere. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) All contributors to the thread are open for discussion and evaluation including reporter. As I have commented - I see more problems and disruption from your IP address than the user you are reporting. note the IP has deleted/refused my request to attach any of its claimed ten thousand constructive contributions to the project to its current IP address. All I see from a good look through this users contributions under this IP address is general battlefield mentality and disruption, little or nothing in the way of project constructive content contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, you're implying malfeasance on my part with absolutely zero evidence, just suspicion. If you have a comment to make on my contributions, please feel free. If you're just seeking to discredit me with baseless innuendo, you need to stop. Nothing you've asserted (or even implied) justifies User:Anthonyhcole's incivility and personal attacks. Note: I'm not obligated to participate in your fishing expedition, and I'm free to remove your implied accusations from my talk page per WP:OWNTALK. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  IMO - Looking through your contributions and seeing your battle mentality at multiple locations and multiple users getting close to the end of their tether with you, it is you that is the common denominator. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  Really? Because the common denominator I'm seeing is a block log filled with controversial blocks. Pot, kettle. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  You are the only one with the recent block in this discussion and that is without you allowing access to your previous claimed contributions. Also I and all the others can point to long term constrictive contributions in our editing history which you are unable to do. From your battle attitude under this IP address and your recent block on it and your claim to have thousands of contributions under other IP addresses it is clearly good faith to assume you have other editing restrictions in your history that you are restricting access to.Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  "It is clearly good faith to assume" that I'm violating a block? Hardly. Onus is on you to prove it, buddy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• The IP has a track record of provocative/disruptive behavior. Here, the IP placed a spurious template on another user's talk page, got the response he was hoping for, and therefore is complaining. When a five year-old pokes a sleeping dog with a sharp stick and gets nipped, you work on controlling the behavior of the five-year-old. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe 20 years ago. These days, you put down the dog. PS: characterizing me as a 5-year-old is a personal attack; watch it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  Also, the template was not spurious. It was in response to the comment that User:TreasuryTag, above, described as "way out of line." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Neither my metaphor nor AHC's description of your inappropriate editing practices is a personal attack. AHC may have been uncivil, but that's hardly the same thing, especially given the deliverate provocation involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Um, prior to being called "one-eyed" and "bigoted", I'd never even interacted with the dude. Check the chronology, you're wrong on the facts. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you'd care to disclose the other IPs/accounts you've edited from so I can fully check the chronology. That was, after all, your proposal, and it's clearly necessary so I can do a proper job of it.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• If you have as you asserted on your userpage User:24.177.120.138 - a userbox claiming over twelve thousand edits and a master service award claiming 42,000 edits and 6 years of service - please link to some of them - an article where you have edited and got on with users and added content without any disruption? Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  No. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• The anon has made a series of similar WQAs here (which have been dismissed). Perhaps the disruption it is causing is outweighing the benefits of its continued participation on this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • At least one of them was held to have merit. I missed the closing of the other. But if you really feel that way, allow me to suggest you take your concerns to a more appropriate forum. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • This is very much the appropriate venue when you are the party who is filing these claims and causing much of the disruption alleged by several users. As to your previous WQAS, I closed one of them relatively recently (which is why I remember it), and the other one did not seem to have merit as you suggest. You will be blocked for disruption if something does not change rapidly in your approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, the threats start. This WQA has already been handled to my satisfaction. I'd marked it resolved, until Rob reverted. Frankly, I don't care; I'll not be participating further. If you'd like to discuss my behavior, please start your own WQA or whatever. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• The IP24. 177... has attempted to close this thread three times now and I have reverted and requested they stop closing a thread that is discussing their contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This thread is resolved. Your fishing expedition and edit warring might not be over, but you should take it to somewhere more appropriate than a thread entitled User:Anthonyhcole. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • • • (ec) Dispute resolution examines the behavior of the filing party as well as the subject; that you failed to appreciate what you are being told and repeatedly edit-warred only compounds the concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Also, despite the template you dropped on me, it's worth noting that you've violated 3RR on this article, and I have not. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • So make a report. Stop closing a thread that has issues regarding your contributions under discussion. These wiquette threads stay open until resolved, which this is clearly not, or no one comments for three days it gets archived. Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Done. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Amused look at where the IP says: I don't give a flying fuck ... and then manages to complain about civility. The very first edit is clearly from an established editor of some sort, and I suggest that this exercise is one from a person who may well have had other IP addresses or names. Collect (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I don't deny having had previous IP addresses. I'm sure, if you look hard enough, you can find some of them. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note This was escalated to admin noticeboards where the anon was appropriately blocked for disruptive editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Clooneymark

Clooneymark (talk · contribs)

This editor became unhappy last week when I pointed out that his main activity had consisted of adding external links, all leading to the same domain. Yesterday he was already back at it, again adding external links to the same site http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Deborah_Houlding&diff=prev&oldid=432672876 , with another editor interfering and asking him to stop adding links. This user now goes on making comments referring to a WP:OUTING case that was removed by a WP adminstrator yesterday, even after that adminstrator commented to explain the WP policy. I have asked Clooneymark to remove these comments, but he is not responding. How do I resolve this case? See Talk:Deborah_Houlding and Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer). MakeSense64 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If any outing is available in the history of a page somewhere, you can request that it be removed at WP:RFO. You need to provide a diff of the edit that introduced the outing (or multiple diffs if more than once). To do that, consult the history of the page and copy the link for the "prev" difference. Confirm you have the right one by posting the link into the address bar of a web browser. As an example, the diff for your above message is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=432822809&oldid=432808211

Re the external links: please report any problems at WP:ELN. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The outing was removed in the history pages by a WP administrator yesterday already. But now this editor continues to make new comments about the outing materials that are no longer there, making the assumption that they were true. What do I do with these new comments that are completely ad hominem? Can I just delete them as per WP:TALKO? Will report to ELN about the links. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm noting the original poster came off a two year editing hiatus and their first contribution was to question Deborah Houlding's notability. If there are specific wikiquette issues, WP:DIFFs would be good. Gerardw (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have said I will remove the comments if a WP administrator clarifies that policy is being broken. Have I broken it here because this is the sort of comment he wants removed - because it reveals how his off-wiki vendetta activity is relevant to his on-wiki editing of that bio and the links he claims are spam. I intend to try to work on pages which do not involve this editor, because this is a tiresome situation but I will check the page to follow the advice of admin so there's no need for Makesense64 to argue the situation here.Clooneymark (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just best not to make reference to the editor's off-wiki behavior. You're not required to defend yourself against accusations/warnings on your talk page. Just discuss the article, including relevant external links, on the talk page; if you need additional assistance from additional editors see WP:RFC for how to make such a request. Gerardw (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer)&diff=432678978&oldid=432672568 .

And : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Deborah_Houlding&diff=prev&oldid=432662379

Also note that Clooneymark came off a long holiday and his first contribution was to add back multiple external links the day after another editor had removed them. Diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Deborah_Houlding&diff=prev&oldid=432022852

After I pointed this out he refused to focus on content.

Now he goes on talking about an outing that was removed by a WP administrator yesterday. See example above. How does that line up with WP guidelines? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the outing policy, but I'm not seeing any significant civility issues on Clooneymark's part. Your posting a spammer warning on their talk page was excessive. Gerardw (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

He could have agreed that adding 3 external links to the same domain was excessive, and then I would have removed it. Instead he tried to tell us that he had added those links because he had just come across them that day. Coincidence that this happens a day after another editor trimmed the links down to one? And his contributions show that he was adding similar links back in August 2007, the only other time he has been that active on WP.

As for the outing policies, the WP administrator made a direct comment in reponse to Clooneymark, diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Deborah_Houlding&diff=432655856&oldid=432655130

But he still continues to refuse to go by it, wondering if he is breaking any WP policy. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I need to go out but will check again this evening and make any corrections that are deemed necessary as decided by WP admins. Or will understand if an admin makes deletions to avoid controversy. I have nothing more to say on this except to ask again that you check the details before judging. I haven’t outed anyone’s identity - only made reference to an issue that concerns this editors Wiki activity. I believe he is breaking policy by using WP to further his own harassment campaign. Tricky situation but I won’t add more because enough’s been said already. Personally, I want to move on from this murky matter now Clooneymark (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP is about facts and things that can be verified. Nobody says that you have outed anything, but you continue to make comments about material that is not on the table and not verified, just pushing what you believe. There is nothing tricky about it, because if something gets edited against WP guidelines then somebody else will come in and correct it.

It is very easy to move on, just agree that it was not right to add multiple external links where another editor (not me) had trimmed them to one the day before. And now the article has references (and a photo) , where it had none when I came across it just one week ago and tagged it. So what are you actually continuing to complain about?

A good guidelines to read is WP:FOC, focus on content. But somehow you want to continue to focus on one editor (me). MakeSense64 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Unfortunately Clooneymark still refuses to focus on content, and is again making allegations and ad hominem remarks that are very similar to the ones that were removed here by a WP administrator yesterday (see page history). This editor shows no intention to even try to work by WP guidelines, now treathening to repost more comments that have been deleted from the history earlier. Can anybody take a look, and what is my next step if this continues? See diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer)&curid=4782129&diff=433046013&oldid=433031598 MakeSense64 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Groan. Not only am I trying very hard to focus on content, I've put a lot of hard work into improving the content and made my first bold attempt to add changes to the main page today. Makesense64 has done nothing towards the content - except try to use the words of every WP policy known to man to stop this and another page I worked on evolving; from throwing around threats that I'll be blocked for spamming if I use links that lead to the content of relevant published articles, to raising threads on admin boards presenting his own slant on reasons why another source of reference I used should not be accepted as a 'reliable source' . For example This is really tiresome. He is quick to raise offical complaints but never presents the full story.

I've noticed he's just deleted whole chunks from from an astrology article that past editors have worked on, without allowing any discussion or raising an alert that the material needs improvement. See here. I wanted to revert that but left it alone to avoid more controversy with this person.

Just to be clear, the comment he keeps saying is self published was a comment made about the subject in a very well respected journal, in 1993. I have given the reference and a link to a site that gives an online reproduction of the article, and the phrase I used is taken word for word from that published article. So anyone can see that this is a published comment that describes his reputation, not something he just said about himself. But Makesense64 knows this already. I asked him not to start another edit-war when there was no new point to start one over. Yesterday I did nothing when he took it upon himself to delete the discussion comments I made that revealed his motives, even though no one else had agreed that they need be removed. If he had brought forward a new point fair enough; but this is part of his tactics - time wasting and obstructiveness and threats of destruction if we don't stick to WP policy as he chooses to interpret it. He seems to have more time than I do and will probably go on to do a lot of destruction on pages of topics he doesn't like. He certainly seems to want me off of WP and is likely to get his way because I've had just about as much as I can take of his disingenious tactics. If any of you recognise this kind of situation from your own experience, and can offer any suggestions please do. Thanks Clooneymark (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To put questions on the reliable sources noticeboard is the most normal thing on WP. Why is that tiresome for you? Second opinions should not be heard if there is no concensus?

And now you seem to be following me around to every edit I do. People are welcome to go and read that chunk I deleted on Astrologer. As for following people around, have a look at WP:WIKIHOUNDING MakeSense64 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Kuebie and Historiographer and KoreanSentry

• Kuebie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Historiographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KoreanSentry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joseon Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To give very brief background, articles pertaining to China, Korea, and Japan often attract controversy over issues of historical interpretation, and the present disruptive behavior pertains to a Chinese/Korean conflict. The above-named editors have all been blocked in the past for edit-warring, and their present behavior reflects this tendency.

On the talk page of the Joseon Dynasty article, the editors Kuebie and Historiographer have continually reverted the addition of a "WikiProject China" banner. The banner was added due to the close tributary relationship between the states which lasted for several centuries. Even as an editor who is more interested in Korean history than Chinese history, I agree that the banner is appropriate, because it is impossible to discuss one nation's history without discussing the other- a little bit like Vatican City vis-a-vis Italy. (Edit: I just checked, and WikiProject Italy does indeed have a banner on Talk:Vatican City, with the article judged to be "Top" importance, to boot.) Kuebie and Historiographer, however, have expressed the view that the addition of a WikiProject banner is POV-pushing and tantamount to claiming that the Joseon Dynasty (a Korean state from the 14th to 19th century) was "a part of China" or else lacking in sovereignty. At least two editors (including myself) have explained to the above-named editors that WikiProject affiliations simply indicate that editors interested in topic x may be interested in helping to improve article y, and that WikiProject affiliations do not imply any endorsement of any particular point of view, nor have any bearing on content disputes. It would be helpful for a third party (or parties) to intervene and explain to the above-named users that deleting valid WikiProject affiliations is misguided and disruptive.

Edited to add KoreanSentry as a party; I initially missed his or her involvement.

Relevant diffs with regard to edit-warring behavior:

—Bill Price (nyb) 14:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a Wikiquette issue -- I recommend opening an WP:RFC. Gerardw (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Slavery in modern Africa

• 46.7.72.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slavery in modern Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user is inserting a causal relationship between slavery (which predates Islam) and it continuation to the leadership of Sudan and their Islamic faith. WP:SYNTH Asked to discuss on talk page, failed to bring sources argument and still continued to revert and edit war and disrupt other ongoing edits. Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A Good Man Goes to War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bit put out with Sarek's negative attitude towards my motives on this page, as shown by his giving me a template warning for edit warring on my talk page, and in the discussion I then began on his talk page (to which he has not exactly been forthcoming in explaining his actions). I don't wish to imply that Sarek has a personal vendetta against me, because I don't believe that to be the case, but feel I should point out that Sarek recently blocked me from Misplaced Pages for a day, a block that was subsequently overturned. U-Mos (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about your motives on that page. All I said was that you had reverted more times than you were supposed to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverts: . That's four reverts in 24 hours, with one more revert shortly before that: . The warning you received was perfectly appropriate, and no wikiquette problems are apparent. SarekofVulcan made no comments about your motives, and giving you one (correct) warning a month after a too hasty block is hardly a "vendetta". Fram (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no intention of suggesting Sarek holds a vendetta against me personally, but I do believe his over-zealous warnings etc. are highly unconstructive. I may have unintentionally slipped over 3RR on the page, but I was not involved in an edit war and so the warning (especially considering the edit that apparently triggered it) were totally inappropriate. U-Mos (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No one claimed that you intentionally slipped over 3RR, but note that the revert or edit you give here is not even included in the four reverts I listed above, so is not really relevant in the end. The text on your user page is the standard 3RR warning: Template:Uw-3rr, not some specific text SarekofVulcan made up. If you believe that that template is not friendly enough and "highly unconstructive", perhaps it would be better if you discussed that at the talk page of that template. If you believe that Sarek had better used some more personal, less confrontational text than the one supplied by the template, you could have suggested this on his talk page. Taking this to Wikiquette alerts was not the best approach to this though. Fram (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As Sarek's talk page shows, I did attempt to discuss this but was met with little to no response, and Sarek did highlight the edit I linked to above (which is in no way a revert). I would have preferred Sarek to have not used the arbitrary template, but my main issue was that I believed it to be a template aimed at tackling edit warring rather than 3RR, wheras it appears to serves the purpose of both. I will therefore take your advise and raise my concerns on the template's talk page. U-Mos (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

After taking another look at that fourth diff(-"Sontaran"), it appears it would indeed be a stretch to call that a revert. However, that still leaves you with 3 reverts, and warning at that point is usually a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Fram covered most of this in his above comments, although I will add a few points. U-Mos, I note that you said at the outset that you don't think Sarek has a vendetta against you; it does seem like you editing with the intention of improving the encylopedia, and you have clearly been here for long enough. But WQA was not going to accomplish much. Perhaps you can make a greater-still effort to abide by 3RR. Sarek, were you actively going against Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars? I don't see any indication from you that this was a mistake. Perhaps you can make a greater effort to avoid attracting this sort of attention by putting a bit more thought in what you are doing; this was quite small in the end, but the principle does seem to apply to the bigger issues you involve yourself in too. Seems like this is ripe to be marked as resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither WP:DTR or WP:TR are policy. Gerardw (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR is an exception to DTR. Experienced editors who violate 3RR ought to be happy to be let off with a template warning. Looie496 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just chiming in to think I agree with this. As a bright line and pretty clear cut rule, using the template for this is not the same as using say a vandalism or NPA template. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That it isn't explicitly written into policy does not mean admins don't understand what happens in practice or haven't seen that happen for themselves before; if you know certain people are likely to react in a certain way to a particular type of form, yet you actively use that form on them anyway, that is an issue because it increases the chances of attracting this sort of attention. The editor who filed this was put off by the admin's apparent attitude and the templated warning; not the warning itself; an appropriate personalised nudge can produce very different results to what we have seen here, even for 3RR. Yes, 3RR is a bright line rule, but it is not completely devoid of meaning either; it shouldn't be used at the expense of or as an excuse to replace what's more important (the underlying purpose of the project). Each admin is given additional responsibilities which come with their privileges, elected to use his/her judgement appropriately, and should fully reflect on and abide by the spirit of policy too; it was because not enough regard was paid to this that the admin's recent block of this editor was overturned. Next, the admin used a template on that same regular editor (in spite of WP:DTR), then when that editor came to his talk page to resolve the concern, the admin's only response is to post 4 diffs without any further followup, and then after this WQA, the admin admits it was a stretch to call one of the diffs a revert. If all of these circumstances isn't an indication that more thought and care could have prevented this escalation, I'm not sure what is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

True, discretion is needed and your comments are much more nuanced than mine! In this specific case I agree that the template should not have been used - context is as usual key here. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A proposal relating to this issue has been made at Misplaced Pages talk:Edit warring#RfC on proposed new 3RR exemption. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 10:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And my suggestion on the 3RR template can be found here. U-Mos (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about the validity of warning(s) from Adamrce

• Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Davidelah (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zakat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I got a warning from Adamrce for making edits, relating to a discussion on the talk page. I have tried to explain the situation of the discussion about what dispute or consensus there was or wasn't, and what policy guidelines that I felt have not been upheld when given me a new warning and reverting my edits here. I think that the warning and reverts have not had enough validity and would like to get this examined, because this has happened before. Davidelah (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also been involved in disputes with AdamRce, and am sick of him, leaving warnings on my page when he is in a dispute with me, like here. This maybe against wikipedia policy, per WP: Avoiding Civility , check out my user page, i have deleted about 4 or 5 warnings from him on my user page, but have kept some. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that a wikipedia Admin Intervention Notice was issued against this user (created by me), since i felt he was whitewashing controversial Islam related articles here (not many admins bothered replaying to that notice). Me and him also got banned for 24 hours for edit warring on the controversial Jihad article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 Note: I think I've explained enough on the claimer's talkpage, while I'll be happy to provide further details (if needed). --Adamrce ~ AdvertAdam 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am notifying all users who have been involved and i think have been victims of his fake warnings. I hope this does not constitute as canvassing. The users have edited the articles that AdamRce/AdvertAdam, has had disputes with. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find A's behaviour in this area irritating. Firstly, this warning is spurious and should not have been given (any experienced user will recognise it as spurious and ignore it. Inexperienced users may well be intimidated, which is bad). Second, his use of funny little symbols appears to be designed to give a spurious air of authority (it looks to me as though he is mimicking ANI-type "resolved" stuff). He should stop both practices William M. Connolley (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tjprochazka

• Tjprochazka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slap Bet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Tjprochazka is an editor who seems to be an SPA on the article for the How I Met Your Mother episode Slap Bet.

Quickly summing up the plotline on the show, one character (Barney) lost a bet, and another character (Marshall) gets to slap him five times, whenever he wants. The slaps have been an ongoing subplot of the show for years, and always a big deal (and clearly indicated by Marshall saying "that's one/two/etc") on the show. The show is told in flashback, and not in strict chronological order.

Since mid-May, this editor has inserted material indicating the fifth (and final) slap was given on an episode, where the editor fully admits no indication was given whatsoever that a slap delivered was the fifth slap. In the final diff given , the editor admits their addition is based on "visual perceptions," not any sourced material. They've been reverted by several other editors, but never used the talk page until I asked them today to please explain, where they basically responded with "it's in the episode." Relevant discussion is on the talk page here where I tried to make a point about speculation, which was ignored in favor of "the truth."

Where this rises above a slow-motion edit war is Tjprochazka's attitude towards my attempt to get him to discuss. His response was to insult me and ban me from his talk page. He then went to my page and called my good faith attempts to discuss "foolish" .

I have no desire to get into an edit war with someone who clearly believes their version is "the truth", and I doubt they'd be listening to me anyway. Would someone more patient than I please take a look at this situation? Thanks in advance for your time. Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone must have missed the rules at the top of the page here: "Avoid filing a report if: You have not followed the directions at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith." - Tjprochazka (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried, and left a message on your page and on the talk page discussion. You responded by calling me "Lame" , a "drama queen" , "lazy" , insulted my intellegence , and told me to stay off your talk page (after one post) . I've made my case on the talk page, sorry, but I don't have the patience to deal with your behavior right now. As such, I've brought the matter here for further attention. Dayewalker (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This criticism has been addressed elsewhere, as per Wikiquette protocol, and may have been resolved on the respective User talk pages and the article Discussion page. (Links provided above). Tjprochazka (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin

• Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Taoist Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Orangemarlin has been uncivil and bitey toward the new editor User:Jjnullww.

1. Orangemarlin adds cleanup tags to the edit summary of "This article is nonsense"
2. Orangemarlin nominates the article for deletion with a profane edit summary
3. Orangemarlin creates the AfD page and uses profanity both in the rationale and in the edit summary, with the new editor interprets as directed at him
4. Orangemarlin reverts User:Jjnullww's attempts to fix the article with the edit summary of "Deleting. This is not cited, and it's original research"
5. Orangemarlin reverts User:Jjnullww's attempts to fix the article using twinkle
6. I inform Orangemarlin that he has made 9 edits and two reverts, which could be interpreted as edit warring
7. Orangemarlin reverts my edit and uses profanity and personal attacks in the edit summary
8. Orangemarlin leaves a message on my talk page telling me to read WP:DTTR, that I can't count, and that I should never warn someone about edit warring again
9. I reply explaining my reasoning and inform him that he was incivil and bitey toward a new editor
10. I leave a talkback template on his talk page
11. Orangemarlin reverts my edit and states "Don't give a shit...when I get an apology, maybe I'll give a shit."

I then filed this report. Thoughts on how this should be dealt with? Thank you, Alpha Quadrant 04:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters, consecutive edits don't count as multiple reverts, so OrangeMarlin has 2 reverts at the most, which normally isn't considered edit warring. Also, this doesn't show profanity in the deletion nomination -- it shows him swearing at the multiple-issues template for not properly documenting how to use it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the swearing is inappropriate, but you're out of line here. He made 2 reverts. By definition that is not edit warring. For you to post on his page telling him he is edit-warring and out of line is simply inaccurate. I agree that he is brash in his comments, but which specific rule was he violating? As far as I can see the edits he was reverting were not sourced, which is the reason he gave for deleting it. You should withdraw this complaint.Ultimahero (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind OM that good editors don't need to be bullyish, it's enough to be good or smart or right. The rest is superflous and harms the community. It's also useful to encourage other editors to share their opinions, even if incorrect, and to show them better ways of doing things. Idealist, perhaps, but better than the current alternative, I think. Acting like the encyclopedia is constantly under attack by idiots is no way to live, nor is it a way to treat fellow editors. Ocaasi 05:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheese talk is tedious. We all understand your frustration, OM, but you can expose the flaws in the cheeser's thinking without making yourself look like a lout. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, after you finish rebuking Taoist, please remember that this kind of behavior is a constant problem (check the edit summary) with Orangemarlin, and it needs to be corrected. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Orangemarlin needs to learn that the proper course is to make a pretense of civility here, then fling insults from the safety of an external site. Or make accusations by innuendo, being careful to superficially distance oneself by claiming "I've been told by email..." or the like. Right, Cla68? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is policy, just like WP:NPOV. No one has permission to chuck one out the door to achieve the other. Misplaced Pages is a community-written encyclopedia. We would be wise to keep the community in mind while we write it. Improving the tension between believers and scientists is not just about keeping out the trash, it's about how we deal with people who share other views, fringe views, and sometimes unpopular or unwise but still encyclopedic views. As soon as WP:CIVIL is deprecated and replaced with WP:CIVILEXCEPTTOPEOPLEITHINKARENUTS, the culture of insult should cease. Smart people are smart enough to get their points across without ire or irritation. Ocaasi 14:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OM has a clear explanation of his behavioral expectations on his talkpage, which AQ ignored in posting there, drawing the predictable response. WP has broad tolerance for editors behavior on their own talkpages, and this certainly falls within that. AQ should simply apologize before aggravating the error further. The edit summary AQ describes as "profane" might be a tad salty, but had no mention of any hypothetical supernatural entity. Rather it expressed evident frustration with the state of template:multiple issues/doc. If anyone has reason to be upset by that it would be the editor(s) of that doc page, not the newbie. Meanwhile, the problem page Taoist medicineTaoist Medicine still doesn't belong in articlespace until properly sourced.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Noting that it is Taoist Medicine and is still in articlespace (with no sources). Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, thanks Doug. Refactored. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant: you aren't being honest here (possibly not even with yourself). You say "I inform Orangemarlin that he has made 9 edits and two reverts, which could be interpreted as edit warring ", but that isn't true. What you actually did was left a std template on OM's page (thereby violating DNTTR, as OM noted and complained at you for). You made no mention of 9 edits and 2 reverts: you said: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war". You further said "If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice". That asserts (a) that OM *was* (not might be; *was*) edit warring; and that he risked a block for it (both of which were false).

So: you need to (a) correct your erroneous report, (b) apologise to OM for your violation of DNTRR William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that WP:DNTTR is an essay which advises against templating the regulars. So one can't "violate" it. It also advises that "Recipients should still assume good faith". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cambalachero

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

here, Cambalachero call me "troll" and "harasser". When Cambalachero was expelled from Spanish Misplaced Pages, he lied about his puppets (he said he had never used their puppets to evade blocks, and I proved that this was a lie). For this reason, he hates me (anyway, I'm not the only user of Misplaced Pages in Spanish that he often insulting, but always he is careful to insult in Spanish language, either in Commons and in Misplaced Pages in English). He has transformed a license request for a "case of harassment". I request that Cambalachero delete these comments offensive to me. Ferbr1 (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution