Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:45, 18 May 2007

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

April 28, 2007

Incivility from Calton

Myself and another user have noticed problems with this user's tone. See and and his response to the latter . Is it too much to ask for some uninvolved editors to keep an eye on this user and let him know when he is being uncivil? It seems he believes his is entitled to uncivil to users he disagrees with. IPSOS (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems he believes his is entitled to uncivil to users he disagrees with. Wrong, but you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you're good at.

I certainly believe that stalkers, spammers, edit-warriors, trolls, fanatics, nannies, busy-bodies, and people who actively make attempts to insult my intelligence shouldn't be coddled, encouraged, or enabled, no. I certainly hold an entire page devoted to encouraging unwarranted and intrusive nannyism -- like this one -- ought to be laughed at at every opportunity and its cast of do-gooders looking for chances to exercise their self-assigned moral superiority be treated with the disdain they deserve. You want to be a missionary instead actually, you know, editing and/or writing an encyclopedia, perhaps your local church has some openings for overseas missions.

I certainly think anyone who shows the generalized attack on some users that you, IPSOS, have on your user pages makes you a particularly rich choice for gassing on about civility, not to mention the general immaturity and contempt for other editors the "practical joke" on your page shows. Clean up your act, first, and maybe I'll listen. --Calton | Talk 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the above speaks volumes to Calton's incivility and his "holier-than-thou" attitude towards others. It also shows that Calton has no interest in changing his behaviour and will continue to be incivil towards anyone and everyone until he goes over that boundary between assertive and blantant incivility that he sits on, on a daily basis, and gets blocked or banned for it.

I suggest, regardless of the history that him and I might have, that he get himself back on the assertive side of that boundary and tone himself down alot. You can be assertive and civil at the same time. - SVRTVDude 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

...his "holier-than-thou" attitude towards others. Nope, simply my dislike of the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.

In any case, given your complete inability to follow your own advice in general or keep any of your promises in particular...well, let's just say that your advice isn't worth the electrons it took to put them up on the monitor for anyone to read. Personally, I'd suggest to you that you knock off the petty stalking, mmmkay, before you get blocked or banned for it. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"petty stalking"....oh, here we go with that again. Calton, first, I am not incivil with anyone not even you and second, this is about you and your incivility and has nothing to do with me. Anyway, you have and are clearly demonstrating that very incivility for us with your above statements. Calling anyone you come in contact with "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" is incivility at it's best (or worst in this case) and it is a surprise it hasn't gotten you in more trouble, but if you keep it up, it will and fast. You can't go head-to-head with an admin (as you have done in the past) and not expect some kind of consequence. You can't snap everyone's head off and give the "holier-than-thou" "don't insult my intelligence" routine or the "I'm being stalked" routine and not expect to have no one listen to you, have everyone think you are an egotist, and it get you in a helluva lot of trouble. You can't make a mistake and when someone politely let's you know of it, go on a paragraph and a half tirade. You can't berate anyone because they have a difference of opinion or revert an edit you have made. You have been blantantly incivil with no less than 100 people here on Misplaced Pages and you show no signs of stopping.

Personally, I would rather not deal with half the people I come in contact with on a daily basis and would LOVE to tell a ton of people exactly what I think, but I can't. It's that whole common sense and civility thing, that same thing you seem to be having a problem with. As the old saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar". You may not like it, but in life, you have to deal with it...and if you don't here, you are going to get blocked or banned.

Now, let's address that incivility and try and not make it about me, shall we? - SVRTVDude 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ip incivility and personal attacks on Talk:Men's rights

An anon Ip (User:89.100.237.34/User:89.100.225.58) has made a number of uncivil remarks and personal attacks gainst SatyrTN & Slp1 (calling Slp1 "small-minded and using excessive markup to make a point against SatyrTN) and showed general incivility on Talk:men's Rights after they were asked to provide sources for material they added to the article. They have shown symptoms of WP:OWN and general tigerish behaviour.--Cailil 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I replied. Maybe it will help. --Haemo 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from Admin. User: Steel359

Admin. User: Steel359 has been extremely uncivil (see archived history and history log comments for his talk page, relating to posts and content by user 4.236.xx's). Referred to legitimate post as "rubbish" and said "go away" and reverted (and kept protected) original Richard Hell page to an unproductive version he'd previously noted as such. Refused to civilly engage and has been hostile, uncivil/nasty AND performed vindictive and wrong admin. action on RHell page. He's preventing discussion on his talk page by protecting it; please resolve. This appears wholly wrong admin. conduct and action. (Perhaps email him to unprotect his page so you can post your response on it)4.236.15.30 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the correct page to report difficulties with administrators. This page is monitored only be regular editor volunteers. If you want help with an administor issue, you may wish to list your report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard or Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges. It may also be a good idea to review the dispute resolution Wikiguide. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

April 30, 2007

IP refusing to accept a set consensus

For around half a month, 208.27.127.30 has reverted a merger on Mighty the Armadillo. It was set around a month ago to merge all minor characters of that series to where ever they fit. At first I just assumed that it was just the regular fan not getting how the whole thing works, but then he started citing "votes" from a discussion during '05 as a consensus to "keep" the article. Since then, he has only come back every once and a while to revert whenever the page goes back to a redirect instead of even going to the talk page or going to the target article to start a discussion for a new consensus (like it has been recommended to him).

I was hoping he would become bored like the rest of them, but I guess he isn't like them. And before anyone says it, it was thoroughly discussed, so this doesn't require a new one. I assume this would be classified as a content dispute, even though it's just him (though there was one other person who has reverted it, but he's a separate case), so I assume it wouldn't belong on WP:ANI or anything. Nemu 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I see on the user's talk page that he/she has been given a direct warning to stop continuously reverting material. Perhaps you could leave at the user talk page a more specific invitation to join discussion at the article's talk page. If that has already been tried, I would suggest a firmer (civil) warning along the lines of the previous warning issued. Sancho (Review me) 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

May 1, 2007

Talk:Polish Defense

I am concerned that this discussion about concerns regarding this page will become a problem of commenting on the contributor instead of on the actual content. Also concerned about the same happening on Talk:Greco Defence. Mister.Manticore 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a sec, the only reason that people were commenting on the contributor is because that contributor was being, if not rude, certainly quite brusque ("Get back to me when you've improved it") Really Mr.M, it's a bit much to complain about NPA when you provoke people like that. EliminatorJR 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be especially bruque or rude. My apologies if it's taken that way, but if the worst you can say is "It's rude to say "Get back to me when you've improved it" then I'm afraid I'm not going to take your concern as any more valid than when you complained I removed Kasparov from a list of baby boomers. And given that you are hardly an uninvolved editor, I'm afraid I'm going to ask you to let somebody who isn't personally involved comment. Mister.Manticore 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Being completely neutral, I would've taken umbrage at that remark, as it sounds like you're ordering people about. I appreciate it might not have been meant in that way, but I can't blame Sjakkalle for being slightly peeved. EliminatorJR 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your claims of not being involved are not supportable. You're not neutral, and claiming that you are is hardly going to convince me of anything but that you are even less fair. Mister.Manticore 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I give up. I wasn't involved in this, and was merely trying to point out why the disagreement occurred. I don't see any point in continuing, so I'll back out of this one now EliminatorJR 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your involvement in this specific situation is irrelevant, you have a past involvement in the situation. Surely it's not so hard to fathom why I don't consider you truly neutral? Frankly, I'm baffled that you'd even claim otherwise. Mister.Manticore 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: Mister.Manticore is being borderline disruptive in both of those talk pages, and likely trolling at Talk:Sicilian Defence. The comments directed at him in them are valid. The other editors of the articles seem to be handling the situation appropriately and have given Mister.Manticore good advice; I hope he follows it. 75.62.7.22 07:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but I'm disinclined to follow the advice of an anonymous IP address since you could be any number of people who decided to log-out and try to anonymously swing support for your side. Pardon me if I seem suspicious, but sockpuppetry is a common problem. This is especially so since you seem somewhat informed of the situation from the start. Mister.Manticore 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not involved in any of these articles and don't know any of the people involved. After reading this discussion and the related talk pages, I see that tensions are somewhat elevated but I don't see troublesome violations of WP:CIVIL. My suggestion is that everyone just relax a bit and not take the comments so personally. Certainly, it's better to keep comments perfectly focused only on content and not on editors, but if someone strays from that and makes a comment that might be interpreted as insulting (whether intentional or not) just let it go. It can only affect us if we let it. Often, it's hard to tell how someone means something in a written note. On the other hand, if there are truly uncivil comments such as insults or threats, that would be different and would need to be addressed. When the comments are mostly just annoying,... just let them go and focus on content.

I don't mean to make light of anyone's experience here; I've encountered annoying editors plenty of times, and it's, well... annoying! I believe the best way to improve the articles and to enjoy editing is to de-escalate the emotional temperature and concentrate on facts, references, and clear writing. If the disruption becomes so much that it stops progress on the articles, then dispute resolution procedures may be needed. I don't see that in this situation though, at least not so far.

I'd like to offer links to a few articles. Some of these may seem basic, but for me, I find them valuable to review now and then for insights on how to respond in difficult situations: Misplaced Pages:Avoid personal remarks, Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, Misplaced Pages:No angry mastodons, Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Misplaced Pages:Truce.

Good luck with the articles! --Parzival418 _Hello 23:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also Mister.Manticore's participation at Aldol condensation and its talk page, as pointed out by another editor who Mister.Manticore ticked off (comment now removed ). 75.62.7.22 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an editor who has decided to attack me in a very rude and offensive fashion, such that it was removed for uncivility?? Is there some reason I should be concerned that that reaction reflects on my behavior? Mister.Manticore 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Readers can check your contributions and form their own opinions. 75.62.7.22 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why it's not necessary for anybody to make their point here, if anything, it's counter to the purpose of this page. Mister.Manticore 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

May 3, 2007

Insults from Calton

1 - recent conflict: The background is that a discussion over the deletion of a userpage ended with my acceptance that Alphachimp and Calton had acted properly in the tagging and deletion, thanks to Alphachimp's responses to my arguments.

My issue is with the insults by Calton made during this discussion, on my talk page. My responses are at Calton's talk page.

I don't believe I have been uncivil myself during this, but if I have then I would like to correct that and am prepared to apologise. I have already apologised to Alphachimp, for suggesting his deletion was an example of incivility, and withdrew that statement. The disagreement with Alphachimp was robust but without insults.

2 - Relevant history: After writing the above, I noticed there is already a complaint about tone, #Incivility from Calton, on this page.

Also, the comments at User_talk:Azukimonaka#Talk page comments are an example of "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" (WP:CIVIL#Examples). --Chriswaterguy talk 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Article: Kevin Potvin

I'm concerned about the repeated revisions of an editor on "Kevin Potvin." He or she has repeatedly removed references to articles that appeared in mainstream newspapers, including the National Post, and additional details that would shed light on an ongoing controversy. This includes Kevin Potvin's own writing. The editor seems to have confused libel with facts-that-are-just-unflattering to Mr. Potvin. Perhaps a more experienced editor could take a look? Thanks! FactsFirst 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is about a living person, special policies apply. Please review this article first:

• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

If you feel you need to follow-through with a report about this, then use one of the forums listed below.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

May 4, 2007

Conflict between Andrew c and LoveMonkey

There has been a history of conflict between myself and LoveMonkey, and I have tried to smooth things out in the past, see User talk:LoveMonkey#Personal issues with me. However, things are getting pretty heatead at Talk:Gospel of John. I have asked LoveMonkey to remain calm and civil, but the personal attacks towards me seem only to increase. I would like uninvolved editors to please examine the recent posts by both parties, starting with Talk:Gospel of John#Lead, authorship, and revert (sorry if it is a lot to read). You are also welcome to view our talk pages and some of the previous disputes we have been in. I want to know if I have done anything wrong, and I want to know if it's ok for me to be bothered by another editor calling me "unethical" and so on. Thanks.-Andrew c 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c - Good day. "EE" here. I've taken a look at the details regarding this conflict and it is my observation that the dispute in question is not particularly complicated. To the best of my judgement, your edits to the article merely reflected your concern for lead section policy, and I, and most editors would be in full agreement that there cannot be an overflow of content in the introductory section of any article; all the articles need are basic explanatory elements, and more than enough information is already provided. All in all, I've seen no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that your changes and explanations were not done for the right reasons. I must add, however, that LoveMonkey has not been uncivil to an extreme degree. Uncivil, yes. Closed minded, I'm not entirely sure, I think this user is acting only in perceived interests of the article, just not doing so properly at this time. I will try and reason. You've done nothing wrong, and I think this is a dispute that can be easily resolved. Hope this helps.EnglishEfternamn_contribs 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting and giving your thoughts. However, it doesn't seem like things are getting better. Do you have any advice for me? I've tried to clear things up, apologized, asked to move forward, asked the user to assume good faith, and to discuss article content instead of interpersonal disputes, etc, but nothing has changes, and the user still seems quite spiteful towards me. Are there next steps I can take? -Andrew c 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I invited the user to give his/her opinion right here on this page, but has declined to do so at this particular time. Maybe the message has not been recieved yet? I don't know. All I can recommend for now is that you sit tight. If you continue to experience more incivility, unnecessary reversions, or any otherwise hostile actions over the next day or so, don't hesitate to report him to the administrator noticeboard. I'll be glad to help you in that regard, but let's just wait and see if it really has to come to that. Give it one more day. EnglishEfternamn_contribs 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

May 9,2007

Activism and attacks by User:Green108

Could someone please take a look at Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University. There seems to be some intense activism against the subject and editors there. Now the attacks have extended to other pages. This example shows presumption of bad faith, using affiliation to discredit an editor and baseless accusations . Green108 has re-inserted the attack after it was deleted. Thanks 07:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

May 10, 2007

Misleading signature by User:TTN

The user has a signature that does not resemble his username and, more importantly, exactly matches that of another user, User:Nemu, but has ignored my requests that he change it. Rhindle The Red 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to instruct this user to change the sig, if he refuses, he should be reported to the administrator noticeboard.EnglishEfternamn_contribs 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update here, it looks like TTN has agreed to change the signature, though someone should be notified if he/she decides to change it back.EnglishEfternamn_contribs 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Mikkalai

User:Mikkalai, an admin, is becoming increasingly hostile, condescending, and non-encyclopedic in his/her talk edits. This is primarily evident at recent edits to the RFD for Illegal number, in which s/he repeatedly claims, "read my lips: "Whe-re is the re-fe-ren-ce for the term "il-le-gal num-ber?"'", etc., attacks every post wanting to keep the article in question, and has recently begun using low-level profanity, such as "bullshit". There have been a number of users who have complained about Mikkalai's conduct on that page. samwaltz 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any more behavior problems then just that one, because it was in a 2 day period, it could be some real life problems. Some more examples would be nice. --Drestros power 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Drestros power

I participated a little in this AfD, and have encountered Mikkalai in the past, and I can testify to his general incivility and rudeness. Just looking at the first ten of his contributions, right now (02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)), shows edit summaries like "rm unreferenced babble" () and "rm false statement you guys cannot read sources with attention: tsam was the only Jewish *captain*" (). Here, he again uses the term "unreferenced babble" (May 10); here, "bullshit" (May 11). For examples of consistent incivility, he seems to often let his POV against Romanians get in the way of editing the encyclopedia: he was involved in an edit war in early 2006 in Moldovan language over whether or not it was a distinct language from Romanian (see archive of talk page); he opposed the FA nomination for the article Rus' Khaganate (December 2006) quite vocally -- one user said, "It seems to me that the purpose of this reader is to derail this FAC nomination. It's his right to oppose, yet he makes several gross mistatements of fact that must not go unanswered."; in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bolohoveni (October 2006), he became quite uncivil when the discussion went against his POV, saying "The article is FALSE, for crying out loud. Did yoo care to read my explanations?", "This is English-language encyclopedia, which is not supposed to describe ignorance of Romanians. The article text is false" (and several other times claimed the "ignorance" of one thing or another), and, my favorite, "Why do I have to have an evidence that it is bullshit? It is the job of bullshit perpetrators to prove that they are correct. If it was not your question, then please ask exactly what you want." I'm sure I could find many more examples, but I think this is a pretty representative bunch. -- BlastOButter42 Hear _Speak 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai is indeed being uncivil. I would suggest leaving a message on his talk page and if nesicary reporting him. If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action according to Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges. Administrators can be removed if they misuse their powers. Currently, administrators may be removed either at the request of Jimbo Wales or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with stewards. There have been alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status, but none of them have achieved consensus. Some administrators will voluntarily stand for reconfirmation under certain circumstances; see Category:Administrators open to recall. An often paraphrased comment about adminship is the following, said by Jimbo Wales in Feb 2003, referring to administrators as sysops:

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

ASH1977LAW 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Mikkalai has also been blocked twice for violating 3RR because of his POV. -- BlastOButter42 Hear _Speak 03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can try to message him about his recent edits, but it seems like he would not answered because of his talk page..Saying that, but you can always try. --Drestros power 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Drestros power

sigh. I left her/him a message, which has since been deleted without comment. samwaltz 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The user is also removing important merge proposals from the page in question, without waiting for the proposal to be resolved, or giving her/his rationale. . samwaltz 04:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My advice is to take this to Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges ASH1977LAW 11:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He indeed has had soem problems with keeping control of himself. I'm tired of it. His language, yelling over the internet, sarchasm, and harshness on the newbs is disrespectful and brings the wrong image to wikipedia. This must be stopped. --Stealthrabbit 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To be strictly correct, I think this issue is about editing and user relations, not about misuse of admin privileges. A non-admin could equally well do the things Mikkalai is accused of, and they would be equally unacceptable from a non-admin. So I think this should go under Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#General_user_conduct. I'm not aware of this user being credibly accused of misuse of admin privileges. Maybe someone could say that his being an admin aggravates the other issues, but I'm not sure that's even really true; and if there's a punishment, I think it would be more appropriately a general editing block - as might be applied to a non-admin. Taking away his admin status wouldn't stop him from being able to do all the things he's accused of here. As the closest thing to an admin-priv abuse I've seen: he did at one point threaten me with "your IP will be blocked." However, I've heard that from plenty of abusive non-admin users too, and until he actually does block someone inappropriately or specifically threaten to do it himself, I think a passive-voice threat ("you will be blocked" as opposed to "I will block you") is just garden-variety incivility. What I'm getting at is that he didn't use his admin privileges to make the threat. I didn't even know he was an admin until several days after I first encountered him, and I was surprised (but not as surprised as I should be) when I found out.

Side issue: what about this business of deleting comments from his talk page, usually without resolution? The talk page even has a note explaining that that's his policy. I don't know all the rules of this place, but I thought that deleting others' comments from your talk page without resolving them was already a big WikiNoNo in and of itself, even without anything else going on. 67.158.73.188 14:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

May 11, 2007

Incivility by User: E. Sn0 =31337=

User: E. Sn0 =31337= has been very uncivil to many different vandals and has been warned at least twice. Here are five of the many examples (with more here and here on his talk page).

• You've visited my user page, I see no way in Hell's Kitchen you didn't see that perfectly clear message about bigoted troglodytes like you. I'm calling a spade a spade. Look at my contribs; you're not the first throwback to the Inquisition I have judged and found wanting, and you'll certainly not be the last. Now get your bigotry and hate off my Internet!

User talk:67.175.171.102

• (Undid revision 130162517 by 70.90.76.113 (because he is fat))

Revert to Minicomputer

• (Undid revision 130161344 by 70.90.76.113 (because he is a big fat loser who vandalizes wikipedia))

Revert to J. Presper Eckert

• Watch yourself, lest you cross me.

User talk:66.65.177.82

• Have a nice day, nerfherder.

User talk:Eggserroneous

Honestly, I am not sure how to deal with this situation. Thanks for any help. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• • User: E. Sn0 =31337= has been blocked one week by adminsitrator User:HighInBC for incivility. Hopefully this will correct the behavior.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

May 12, 2007

Incivility by User:DreamGuy

User:DreamGuy keeps calling me a blattant spammer and a sock puppet of User:Jsimlo, reverts and deletes everything I try to create. No warning, no explanation, just accusations with no proof. I am already involved in AfD because of him. I think I just got into a longer problem between the User:DreamGuy and User:Jsimlo, when I started to write an article about User:Jsimlo's software. Please, see my talk page and this talk page for direct accusation. Thank you. Give it back 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not reverting everything he does (even though he came to my talk page to dare me to), just the parts spamming User:Jsimlo's website, which up until today was all this new account had done. DreamGuy 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Until my complain here, you did revert or asked for deletion of everything I contributed with or to. If you should feel otherwise, give one sample I have written before the 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC). Sorry buddy, I am sure about my claim. And you still can not deny calling me a blattant spammer and a sock puppet on all occassions, without any proof or any inital warnings. Give it back 04:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything anoyone can do to stop User:DreamGuy accusing me of sock puppet on my own user page, even without evidence? This particalur issue was already written on the AfD page, his talk page, my talk page, some other admin talk pages, yet no one else suggests I am really a sock puppet of someone else. User:DreamGuy is still the only one that accuses me of so. I do not want my user page to be reading a sock puppet warning just because some User:DreamGuy does not like me, because he did not break me. Please help and explain what to do. Thanks. Give it back 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This sounds like it goes beyond the scope of Wikiquette alerts. You might want to take your concerns to the Mediation Cabal or file a Request for Comments. -- BlastOButter42 Hear _Speak 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Mediation Cabal or file a Request for Comments is the way to go here.ASH1977LAW 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy seems to have a pattern of deleting material without justification and being incivil to those who try to talk to him about it. My particular complaint is his deletion of Mixoparthenos and the ensuing discussion at Talk:Mixoparthenos, but his talk page suggests this behaviour is normal for him.--Yannick 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insults from User:Anittas and User:Icar

User:Anittas, who has been blocked for a long term before, has repeatedly posted inflammatory comments and made allegations about me, other users, and an ethnic group in general, all of these over the past days. The situation escalated on April 22, when he left a message in Romanian on User:Bogdangiusca's talk page, addressed at that user, but making deeply offensive comments about Wallachians in general, which are in line with other, less disruptive comments, he has made in the past. The text is to be found here. I shall translate the relevant part of the message, and I believe other Romanian users can confirm the rendition; note please: other parts of the message are also offensive, but I will not comment on them myself, since they did not implicate me.

You nose held up high you; I have said and will say it over and over: inhabiatants of Muntenia, Oltenia and the Banat are the uttermost criminals in Romania, if not in the world. Check out that morning star who thinks himself high and mighty for having picked up a few things abroad . He thinks he has greater objectivity than the rest of us. One thing should be clear to you: you can parade through all the universities in this world; you can have the most beautiful women; and the smartest children; and you can have social relations with the world's biggest cockerels, but in the end, you'll still be a nation of shoemakers. I remember when Bucharesters used to come to our city, and church bells would ring to announce their arrival. And what is it that they did? They came in like children proud to have never seen beetles and of being afraid of cows; and their parents would produce the odd phrase in French and they said over and over, "but we do not have that in Bucharest." "Well, of course, you stupid cow, that may well be because you are in Dorohoi and not in Bucharest!" is what I used to think to myself. Still, I do not get how come you are so arrogant. How much of it can be blamed on the Phanariotes? Why do you think you are so special? Well, it may be that you are exotic, but if I want to see parrots, I'll check them out at the Zoo. And that Morning Star , I am to gather, fraternizes with others like you for him to tell you "hey man"--"yeah, man" etc. Oh, oh you sorryasses have ruined Romania's image everywhere you went: in Spain, in Italy, in France, etc. And I am to gather that you, who call yourselves intellectuals; say you are different, but in what way are you different? Well, I'll leave you for now. Keep healthy and have a good time :).

I felt insulted by this type of comments, but I did not report it outright, since I figured this was not characteristic of Anittas, and figured that he was not going to repeat this type of attack. Therefore, I replied only to ask him, half-joking, if he was aiming to get himself blocked again ? Interestingly, his answer was: "Well, that depends: if you start sending off emails or beating a drum, these guys will pension me again. I thought it could stay here, between us. :)" . Over the past days, however, inflammatory comments specifically aimed at me surfaced over and over again (and again made mention of my Wallachian origins in contrast with his): , . Recently, there was this comment, made by User:Icar and making various allegations about me (including about me having "a Trotskyist POV" - which is speculatory misrepresentation; "a hatred of Romanians", an "abhorrent practice" etc.); Icar is the subject of a previous complaint here, for precisely the same type of accusations (I expect that to be taken into consideration). To this comment, Anittas has replied with the words: "I find a very destructive member, but I urge you to watch your step. He has connections". Note: since this is recurrent and I consider parts of it highly disruptive, I would like to ask editors who weigh in to point out what the next step should be (in case they agree with my assessment). Dahn 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This goes FAR beyond a simple etiquette concern and should be referred to WP:ANI or through the mediation process. If this user has been blocked before, such personal attacks may merit further disciplinary actions.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

May 13, 2007

Abuse from User:Ehheh

I've read over the guidelines for external links and have had a site (I didn't make) that I would like to recommend to the External Link section of of the PHP page. It has valid PHP articles, many PHP scripts available, a PHP forum with lots of resources available to members, such as; code snippets, forum support, and the site has been online for over 7 years. I believe this site has just as much rights (if not more) to be on that page as the External Link: Quercus has (which is just a java add on). However, this user keeps removing my link from the page without a reason. This user continues their abuse to constantly unedit any changes I make without a reason. The user's validity, as his user name 'Ehheh', gets me to believe that this person is just a spammer and stalker.

I'm stuck on how to handle this user and if he decides to follow me around more to remove any contributions I make. Or the user unfairly removes any links I decide to add. I can't constantly dispute this problem by just re-adding all my contributions. How would I handle this problem? Thanks everyone.

Dear Anonymous,

Normally we take the discussion of a wikiquette conflict to the place where the discussion is happening. In this case, though, it appears that you haven't yet taken the recommended steps toward opening a dialogue. Let me mention a few things here, then:

There are a number of factors that you might not be aware of. First and foremost, you are editing Misplaced Pages from an anonymous IP address. While that is allowed and welcomed, a large portion of spam and vandalism comes from anonymous accounts so many users tend to assume the worst.

Second, Ehheh has only made one edit to the PHP page, as far as I can see, this year. The first person who undid your edit indicated that they believed it to be link spam, which is an appropriate action especially in light of your unregistered status. When that occured last month, the appropriate next step was to bring the subject up on the talk page. You can still do that, and I highly recommend that be your next step.

I hope that you will continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and that my note here helps you understand what is going on with Ehheh and the other users. Please feel free to ask me directly if you have any questions--I'm not the most experienced editor but I would be happy to help you find answers to your questions in the documentation and the community.

Gruber76 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

May 14, 2007

Racist attacks by User:Hayden5650

For about two weeks this user uses disruptive language at Talk:Romani people. I gave him an initial advice, then I made a presentation of who this user is. However, the verbal violence increased, even boasting as the preserver of the NPOV of this page. Generally speaking, the racist attacks as a whole on this talk page become really stresfull, I think they should be monitored closely by the admin staff, to keep away violent language. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Jrod2

Myself and this user got into a dispute over whether certain references on Loudness War were "spam" or not. I disagreed, and reverted his removal of the source from the article. After he reverted it back, I submitted the matter to the informal Third Opinion page and I am currently waiting for a response. That whole situation is fine, and I admit I may have gotten a little heated in it as well, I even apologized and he apparently accepted my apology. However, since then, he's edited my user talk page and accused me of not acting in good faith and spamming Misplaced Pages and then marked the contested article Link Farm and Spam and threatened that it could be considered vandalism if I removed them. I'd be happy with just contesting the article, removing that stuff from my user page and ignoring him, but I'm worried he'll report me or something if I do so. Illuminatedwax 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

An addendum: he is now making threats about putting people on the Community Sanction Notice Board for removing a personalideas tag and making blind reverts (Talk:Loudness_war#Page_has_been_protected) Illuminatedwax 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

May 15, 2007

Incivility by User:Radiant!

Radiant is currently seeking to turn a discussion over policy at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability into something personal, by casting accusations about 'pushing agendas' and repeatedly posting on my talk page to goad me into argument. This is not the first time he has done so. --Barberio 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Barberio is objecting that I ask him questions on his own talk page. Ironically, this is not the first time he has done so; he has had a habit in the past of forbidding users to contact him on his talk page. WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 13:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The only user I have ever 'forbidden' from contacting me on my talk page was Radiant, when I asked him not to continue posting messages on a specific topic which I considered closed. --Barberio 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Radiant, I respect and like your obvious intensity of your drive toward goals, and I think it often gets you further than you would otherwise get. But I also think sometimes it makes you get a bit carried away. You tend to dismiss other folks' requests/stated desires if you feel you have a good reason to do so. Sometimes you're right (and may be in this case) and sometimes you aren't, but you don't really seem to care as long as you have a good reason. You've noted yourself that Misplaced Pages's not about rules or policies, but about the Misplaced Pages itself.
    I suggest to you that it may be bad for Misplaced Pages if you keep alienating editors by not caring about their requests or desires (i.e. that you leave them to their own devices, etc.). Further, if you've bad blood with a particular user, it might be best to leave well enough alone and wait for another like-minded editor to come along and object to the behaviors that bother you so much. This might help you avoid the appearance of acting in conflict of interest (i.e. you already have bad blood so why mess with this user again?). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Special offer: You can win a Barnstar today by editing this section and disagreeing with me! Supplies limited, submit your entries quickly! >Radiant< 13:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want a barnstar, but I will investigate the issue you reported at WP:ANI of a user who follows you around and posts negative comments about you on all your threads. Jehochman / _✔ 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, you suck, you are totally wrong and I disagree with you entirely. O:-) --Kim Bruning 14:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I even threw in a personal attack as a personal free bonus! O:-)

• Just fyi, I'm kind of... indifferent about barnstars, though it was a bit cheesy to get one from Barberio. I'll probably eventually move it to my user page. I think they're interesting for the variety they come in and the motives often attached, but I don't really need them to be here and go about my business. :) --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow up to this...

Radiant seems to be veering towards somewhat disturbing activity that seems to be heading in the direction of targeted harassment.

1. Making a perfunctory 'Vote' in a AfD nom I've been involved in for an article that he showed no other interest in. Then making a random unsupported accusation of sock puppetry.
2. Deleting comment asking him to substantiate both the sock puppetry accusation and his 'per WP:CORP' reference.
3. Sneaking in an 'under the radar' attempt to make substantial content alterations to WP:N, with a inconspicuous edit summary claiming to only be making a formatting changes. Later appearing to try to goad me into an edit war or personal dispute -
4. Making a revert which, sadly, I can only believe was based on who made the edit rather than the edit's merit.

Maybe an intervention is needed here? --Barberio 14:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed this... yes, I agree. ASH1977LAW 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

May 17, 2007

Possible/probable personal attacks from User:Bus stop on those who disagree with him

User:Bus stop repeatedly is accusing other editors who disagree with him regarding the content of List of notable converts to Christianity as antisemitic, blatantly pro-Christian, blatantly cabalistic, and so on, regularly impugning their motives for their actions, and rarely if ever responding to questions or comments which he is pointedly asked to respond to. John Carter 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbecoming Conduct from Administrator User:FCYTravis

I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages, and I did not know about the three-revert rule or understand the concept of Edit war prior to a recent censure from User:Alison. I now understand both concepts. Had I understood these concepts, I would not have gotten into an edit war. FCYTravis, however--as an administrator--understood both ideas, and yet he chose to engage in an edit war and slander me by labeling my edits “homophobic” rather than take on my arguments in Talk:Homosexuality. When he was cautioned by Alison on his Talk page, he stated, “I took it right up to the three-revert rule and no more.” That is terribly disappointing behavior from an “administrator” and it is a discredit to Misplaced Pages’s credibility. No comment was made to him on that subject.

I wrote a very similar comment to FCYTravis on his talk page. His response was to simply delete my comment. I expect better behavior from an administrator, and I would like to see FCYTravis censured and his unbecoming conduct go on the record.LCP 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Genjix

User Genjix called me an idiot Talk:Keepsake_(computer_game). I request a warning for his insult. Furthermore he insists with an edit war on an unsourced statement in the artice Keepsake (computer game) which is not in accordance with Misplaced Pages guidelines for reliable sources and no original research. --134.109.240.58 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution