Revision as of 18:07, 19 June 2009

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

Active alerts

User:JdeJ

This started when I updated the map and left a comment on the article Algeria, showing the different professional styles of the Algeria maps and previously added on the article where's a administrator allowed it after my edit. But JdeJ was reverting all my contributions....

Article Conflicts;

JdeJ saying "here have been long discussions on which maps to use" here, but I read all the historial before, and there's nothing about, but yes with some european articles maps, so I reverted it saying "In this country not, Africa has not European countries consensus" here, but JdeJ again reverted me saying "Your edits start to look increasingly like vandalism" here. So I reverted saying "don't accuse me of vandalism, there's a consensus about the map" here, and finally an admin came there here, and the user JdeJ didn't revert again.

Article's Talk Page Conflicts;

As I said I wrote about the map here but JdeJ insult my english and accused me to convince others about quality of my maps or dragging in other contributors' nationalities here, then I told him don't accuses me because can be reported here.

Warnings deleted;

Now JdeJ deleted my warnings that I wrote him when he's accusing me of vandalism and dragging in other contributors' nationalities or even of personal attacks as unfounded warnings here, JdeJ is of course well-meaning, but has repeatedly brought in unrelated or personal opinions to a discussion about article content or subject notability.--TownDown 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can a Admin call a user a asshole?

This is not a good image for Misplaced Pages . Honestly I am not mad because the insult its behind a computer but what should I do? Thank you --Taulant23 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No admin should call anyone an asshole, and they need to say sorry. They were not using their admin tools but they are representative of authority here and as Jimbo explained.. they are expected to be above the guidlines ...and this asshole comment fails WP:CIVIL which is a core principle of Misplaced Pages . (Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

Thank you Off2riorob for trying to help.

We are debating about Illyrian-Albanian continuity. Most of the users are bringing a lot of sources and we can still not use them. That’s wrong (in my opinion) but honestly I don't feel I did anything inappropriate to be called like that.We need to find a common languange when we edit articles in here. He wants to use Genetics and I am saying let's use linguistic, books and other sources.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC

The usage of this and that and sources are another thing. You are not an Asshole . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

As I said before, he hides behind a computer to insult me, because he is not capable in face to face, so he chooses to try to make up for it by being a bully in Misplaced Pages.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

More ad hominem attacks.

Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word. Misrepresenting that I said something unsupported as a straw man, and then responding basically with 'Lol! God you're an idiot', is the kind of behavior I expect from UFO nuts and conspiracy theorists when they have no substantial argument for their POV. I certainly don't appreciate personal attacks like that on my talk page.

As for the topic at hand, I know basically nothing about it, and was trying to stop an edit war over apparently unfounded claims that Albanians are the "direct" descendants of the Illyrians. AFAIK, as reasonable as that idea may be, the evidence is so poor as to make any claim subjective, and we can hardly make definitive claims, as several editors have been insisting we do. The only evidence I know of is linguistic and geographical, which AFAIK are ambiguous and insubstantive, resp. We should probably say something in the lede, as the idea was (once) popular, and redirect the reader to the article that covers the topic in detail (origins of the Albanians), but shouldn't assume a conclusion to that debate in the Illyrian article, especially when it is largely peripheral to the topic. kwami (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the dispute just between the two of you? Would a third opinion be helpful? Or is there a uninvolved veteran editor that you would both trust to mediate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying I am sorry Taulant you keep insulting me. Maybe you got tired yesterday and I was feeling bad I reported you (don't forget I said I love you man/I respect you and your work) but when you keep still insulting me than I am mad. So plz since you are in California, let’s meet somewhere I am in LA.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If your words were sincere, then I do owe you an apology. I took "I love you man" to be sarcastic—a continuation of 'Lol, you've made my day by being such an idiot.' From my POV, you've continued the insult by calling me a bully above, when it was you who made the personal attack, or at least what sounded like a personal attack, on my talk page. But perhaps I've completely misread you? If that's the case, I feel like a fool, and, as I said, owe you an apology. The only times I've heard people use words like that on wikipedia were edit warriors when they wanted to insult someone but were afraid of getting in trouble if they said anything directly. kwami (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

After various edit conflicts

Taulant did you actually called him idiot(which user rejects), you shouldn't do that much too.(not if he didn't say of course) But idiot (by a new user) is better than swearing (by an admin)

If you are much insistent another admin will talk about him not to repeat such behaviour. But I doubt the forced apology part (he actually admitted he was wrong in the meantime I am writing by some indirect way), and since no editor has any right to do that, you shouldn't worry about that part, most possibly he can't swear you again. But you may also not focus on the 1 time swearing much, if it is not repeated, since discussions may waste a lot of your editing time, if you are more focused on developing the article context.

The user asked for some guidance for dispute resolution that requires expertise. Can anyone help him further on the issue. Kasaalan (talk)

I did not call him names plz check here ]. He is insulting me again.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As regards the unnecessary rude name calling.. we are almost there,kwami has said.. my language was inappropriate..so if Taulant23 is happy with that simple statement then its a better feeling and we can move on.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

See above (edit conflict). If Taulant has been sincere, then I evidently misread him, and I apologize. But I have not continued to insult him here. (BTW, I don't understand why one insult is "swearing" and bad, but another is "insulting" and okay.) kwami (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• No apologies and move on?? What kind of admin calls editors asshole?? What kind of admin does not even say I am sorry man??

plus, really who insults you behind a pc?? OK let's move on and let's block Taulant in 3 days so he can shut his mouth. Thank you guys.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've apologized three times now, on various pages. But now you're insulting everyone here by suggesting they'd block you for complaining, while claiming I'm still insulting you. This is the kind of behaviour that made me think you were being insincere in the first place. kwami (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with kwami over this. He has retracted his comment and that is fine, so please step away from the dead horse Taulant23 . (Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

• Kwami, please erase your insult and please understand, nor me or you would like to be called asswhole specially as a act of bullying in Misplaced Pages.

• Off2riorob, got the message I am taking a break. Wiki needs people like you. Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with admin for some parts. First "Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word." is not an actual apology. First half is yes, second half is actually solidifying the previous insult. Second, admin claims user called him an idiot, which user denies and apparently an interpretation or misread of the user's "Doesn't all of mankind originate from Africa? Kwami Love you man lol" comment since admin didn't proved user called him an idiot yet. I don't like sarcasm much either like the admin, but if no "idiot" word is added to that sarcasm by the user, it is fully acceptable. Also user acts a bit over emotional, yet has a point I cannot ignore. If an apology will be made, it should be full hearted, not "my language was inappropriate (I shouldn't say it) but you actually acted like one" or "if I was misread then I feel like a fool". "If"s and "but"s in apologies weakens them a lot. This is no good orientation for a new user. New users get easily frustrated over such disputes, while admins have to deal with lots of hard cases each day, so may got angry easily. The user may even be a teenager, so we shouldn't go hard on him or over the admin. Both parties has some point and if both parties take a step to each other, the case may be fully closed. Kasaalan (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am an outsider on kwami-Taulant dispute (although I have been editing the page itself and banned for it), but really, calling someone asshole, is not just a clear case of insult, but a behavior that should be used by no editor (of course admins should be more carefull then other editors). An apology would be enough if the editor did not know WP:Wikiquette, but it is unnaceptable for an administrator, for this website.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone may get off rule time to time. The most important part is making them aware they are doing mistake, and avoid future ones. You have a point, but a full public apology from the user may possibly solve the case, we shouldn't go hard on admin either for a single mistake (even it is serious). Yet a sincere full public and talk page apology under every related discussion is preferable for a full solution. Of course they can still harshly debate over their unsolved conflict over text dispute. Kasaalan (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for anyone to call anyone an "asshole", as it's a violation of WP:CIVIL. However, let me quote: "hmmm where that came from?? well since it is behind a computer I will let it go.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)". You "let it go" and then filed both an ANI and WQA report, which does not quite sound like "letting it go". You also need to get off the whole swearing thing - Misplaced Pages is not censored, and articles like WP:DICK and WP:FUCK clearly use swearing. This does not mean it's ok to call someone a rude name, but the use of swearing is (whether right or not) somewhat acceptable. Kwami has been admonished, he knows he's done wrong - he's not going to lose admin over it, so what else do you want other than a little more WP:DEADHORSE?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

uninvolved here, but i took his "let it go" to mean he wasn't going to engage in a back and forth insult match with the admin on that talk page. taking it to the noticeboards should be encouraged in cases like this. i also agree that there has only been a backhanded apology by the admin involved, as well as not being able to find an instance where kwami was called an idiot first (pls provide a diff or retract this). i also agree that admins should model policy for other users. he should be formally warned and apologize unreservedly (without saying, in effect, 'it was inappropriate but you really are an asshole') as would be required of any non-admin editor in a similar situation.untwirl(talk) 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been resolved and if no one objects then I will mark it as such. The admin has more or less apologised and the complainant has more or less accepted. In my opinion adhering to WP:CIVIL is the only chance for any kind of Debate on wikipedia. Comment on the article and not the editor. Swearing is allowed and we are (almost) all adults, but personal insults are not allowed. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Accusing a new user will not help, accusing admin will not help either. However the admin just said, "Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word" we cannot kid ourselves that was nowhere near an apology (not even more or less). I don't even know who both user are or their edits except their discussion. But if the admin will not apologize, at least he should first strike all of his insulting comments before the case closed. User was right on one thing, admin double insulted him here, at least strike of the relevant texts are necessary, and if admin does not I won't take any action about the admin, but I will be offended as an editor too, since it indicates injustice. Also I won't like to discuss this case any further since my point is very clear. Kasaalan (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, kwami did what he thought the power of only an admin can do…I am sure he knew he cannot get in trouble that’s why I got that pathetic insult. I did not do anything wrong but in reality I was giving a simple friendly advice,keep genetics away from Balkan people,we never find the common languange that way.-BWilkins, I have been in many arguments even with vandals but I would never call someone behind a pc an asshole (it shows a weak character, my honest opinion). I am willing to let it go, plus what else can I do? Besides, it’s not my reputation in line here or to the average user who helps in here but to the admins who abuse with their power.

My questions to the other admins would be, if I was to call an admin asshole what will have been my consequences?Thank you --Taulant23 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Let me just remind Adminship is not a big deal and that they are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. In this case the admin not just did insult Taulant, but he also did not remove the insultion from his talk page and he did not apologize by saying that "Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word." (which means that I should not say Taulant is an asshole, but he is an asshole), a second insult in just few minuts difference. So, if Taulant, would even say WP:DICK to an admin he would be banned for incivility (because he is not an admin - who for some in here is a big deal - ), but kwami is an admin (big deal?) and so he shall be aloud to sayt whatever he likes here? Kwami has still done nothing to apologize, even when he "says that has done", he has continued insulting (as per above), which is just another non-admin-wise action by kwami (see WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.") So, is it a big deal to be an admin?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in that topic, but amdins can be humans to and react like himans sometimes too. However, on such situations, a block or ban by the admin. would be more appropriate than just a 'bad word' that can trigger major wiki-conflict. On the other hand, Taulant's discussion page lead is characteristic for its unencyclopedity (Achilles Albanian hut? what;s that timetravel?). In my opinion it;s better to block someone than to call him asshole.Alexikoua (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua, ban or blocked by the admin, apparently you don't know what we are talking about.There was no reason to ban no one. As for Achilles costume and picture this is not the right place, way off topic.You are more than welcome to leave a message in my talk page.--Taulant23 (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes, yes, calling someone a nasty name is a violation of WP:CIVIL and is to be regretted. However, editors do not get to hide behind WP:CIVIL in passive-aggressive displays, which is the case here with Taulant23 (talk · contribs). If someone waltzes over to an editor's talk page and posts a deliberate piece of snide sarcasm, they should not be surprised if they get a reaction. If you, Taulant, cannot be civil yourself - and your comment is unequivocally neither civil nor helpful - then expect to be called out on it. Frankly, this page too often attracts variations on "I poked the bear and then it attacked me" from self-styled, wide-eyed faux-ingenus. We need to take a stronger line against this kind of stuff. So bottom line: if you behave like a dick, don't be surprised when other editors observe as much. Eusebeus (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kaldari

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

I was notified that an image (Image Place Holder.png) I created and began using was nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 June 12 by User:Kaldari. While the message left on my talk page was civil and acceptable the comments made by User:Kaldari on the deletion nomination page I feel are out of line. Here is the posting with my response.

• Horribly tacky image that violates WP:SELF. When will this madness cease? Kaldari (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it necessary violates WP:SELF, but we already have enough placeholder images in Commons:Category:Image placeholders that we need another. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "Horribly tacky image" & "madness" - Hmm, whatever happened to Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:Attack? If the image isn't required, please delete. Shinerunner (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon further research I found that User:Kaldari had removed this image from use prior to nominating it for deletion with the comments listed below.

• 16:33, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Dalcha ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF) (top)
• 16:33, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Max's Famous Hotdogs ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF) (top)
• 16:33, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Eggs Neptune ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF) (top)
• 16:32, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Serendipity 3 ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF) (top)
• 16:32, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Lumière (restaurant) ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF)
• 16:31, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Moosewood Restaurant ‎ (removing horribly tacky image) (top)
• 16:30, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Seven-layer salad ‎ (Good god, that this a tacky image) (top)

I would just like to have this looked over to make sure that I'm not overreacting. I understand that if the image was of inferior quality or not needed then it should be deleted. The additional comments are what I'm having a problem with. My only other contact was on User:Kaldari's talk page with no response there or on the deletion page. Thank you Shinerunner (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA says to comment on edits, and not editors. He is commenting on an EDIT (albeit, an image), and is not calling you tacky. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, one point listed in engaging in incivility is "Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")" at Misplaced Pages:Civility. If I'm mistaken on this point then perhaps I can use similar summaries in my edits. Shinerunner (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to say "that image is tacky" without implying that the user is tacky - it's a valid reason why you the viewer don't like it - unlike your other examples where "stupidest thing ever" may be thought to imply the author is stupid ...and I think Kaldari's reference to madness was to do with the number of images of perceived tackiness that he was coming across, and no reflection on yourself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been a better course to mark the image as redundant and left it at that? I'm sure that many items created/uploaded by editors could be called into question by another editors personal taste. It does come across as judgemental. Plus there was a mission to remove the image from all pages used as opposed to repeatedly stumbling upon it. Shinerunner (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally I will admit that having looked at the image, I thought that it looked tacky, and unprofessional-looking. Nothing against you, so it was both redundant and unprofessional-looking. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, since this is resolved please mark it as such and I'll go spent my time elsewhere in non-Misplaced Pages pursuits. I hope that you will have a site full of "Professionals" in the near future. Shinerunner (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to do a little better job at taking constructive criticism. Your attempts to improve Misplaced Pages are completely welcome - a previous user AfD'd your picture, others agreed on the reasoning, including myself. You then move forward and keep at it, not go off in a huff. An article I spent years on got AfD'd too...I didn't threaten to leave Misplaced Pages because of it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I've had other items AFD'd in the past. The tone and manner used in this instance is what provoked me. I'm sure that you realize that if an image is nominated for deletion it is tagged and a bot completes the removal upon a decision. I've never had an item removed during the process. By removing the image from all articles it can then be renominated for AFD due to the fact that the item is not used in any articles. Even if the original AFD decision is to "Keep". As to constructive criticism what would be the purpose of reusing the offending statments (in my opinion) by you? Rubbing salt in a wound or pouring gasoline on a fire isn't the best way to get results. I already admitted that if the image isn't up to par it should be deleted. I am touchy about having my "nose rubbed in it" by the comments. Possibly a simple "yeah, the edit summaries could have been worded better" might have been all I was looking for. Shinerunner (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Shinerunner on this in that I feel it does violate WP:Civility in the same way that the "snipped rambling crap" does. Nothing in either really has any bearing on the editor themselves (though in both cases, you could argue it: one takes tacky pictures and the other rambles). That said, I don't think anything more than a slight nudge towards more neutral language is really required here. --Rob (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in civility or etiquette policy that says negative opinions or criticism should be censored. THe "snipped rambling crap" example is a completely different case. Using words like 'crap', 'rubbish', 'garbage' are not civil because they imply that an edit is worthless. However in this case the editor did not imply the edit was worthless but simply voiced a negative opinion of an image which is not incivility. --neon white talk 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

However, the civility policy does address rudeness. Unless the image was "sticky to the touch" I would be hard pressed to find an example when the terms tacky or tackiness is used as a positive. To my knowledge ascribing tackiness to a persons clothing, home, etc. is precieved as an impolite, or uncivil, statement on the person themself. Is it the fact that this is an image created by me rather than a written addition to an article that changes the response? Shinerunner (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Do I take it that in your neck of the woods 'tacky' has some extremely pejorative meaning that you wouldn't at all care to be associated with(perhaps 'resembling Cupid Stunt'? To me, tacky just means 'amateur dramatics production values' - ie something that looks on closer inspection to have been put together cheaply or quickly to fill a short term need.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even here on Misplaced Pages these are the definitions.

• Of a substance, slightly sticky.
• Of low quality.
• In poor taste.
• gaudy, flashy, showy, garish
• dowdy, shabbily dressed
• shabby, dowdy (in one's appearance) As you see most of these definitions have a highly charged negative connotation. Shinerunner (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

...and NONE of this was applied to YOU as an editor; they were applied to an IMAGE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:William Allen Simpson

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

You may remember a Wikiquette alert now archived at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive64#User:William_Allen_Simpson. The issues with WAS have not ended. We regularly intersect and often disagree at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion. WAS seems uninclined to disagree with me without adding some personal attacks. He has become a bit more careful in these attacks. I'd like to show some examples from after the 3rd-level warning he received :

"you were chastized at WP:ANI and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency.." (which was part of the wp:wqa discussion resulting in his 3rd-level warning) in the text and the edit summary

"You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." in the text (bold from the original and a similar edit summary

"Obviously, you are having some English as a second language issues here" and "That is currently in the process of being rejected" (referring to another proposal of mine)

"Your failure to understand is not the responsibility of others. Read the policies. Look at recent discussion. Pay attention" to my request "Perhaps you could specify which naming convention you are referring to and why"

These remarks, when viewed each in their own right, might seem minor or even partially justified (which I assure you they are not). Taken together, they form a pattern of a personal attack aimed at making any intersection with WAS a miserable experience, with the likely purpose of removing my opposition to various of his edits and proposals.

Character witnesses against WAS as an editor with a longstanding tradition of making personal attacks I have gathered previously in this edit. Please also note a very recent block for violating the wp:3rr rule in edit warring .

Likewise his edits have raised concerns for pushing points in unacceptable ways (that is, without consensus), as expressed by various editors in the following edits , , .

The following quote might be illustrative "Just because you are technically correct does not justify your attitude. You don't own this project, we are all working together. Misunderstandings can be handled in a civilized manner, with both parties being treated respectfully. You don't seem to have much respect for anyone other than yourself." Nothing has changed for the better since 2006...

In general, I think this user is an unbalancing factor in Misplaced Pages. In short term I would like to ask for some measures ensuring WAS will stop attacking me personally with all kinds of baseless accusations and derogatory comments. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: while I sympathise, I think this may have outgrown this venue, given that this is an editor-led, rather than an admin-led process.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Although that is saying he is beyond help. Do you have any advise? I've been told an Rfc is "horrendous". Debresser (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User conduct RFCs do require evidence that at least two editors have tried to resolve the situation and failed, and they also require multiple diffs demonstrating the problem. It is a rather involved process, however, I'm afraid I agree with Elen. WQA is very limited in what it can do, the user must be willing to engage in the process, and agree to abide by the advice given, there is no means here to take any other type of action. I think RFC or WP:ANI are your best bets if you wish to pursue this matter further. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise. I have opened a thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:William_Allen_Simpson. I hope that will help somehow resolve this matter. I'll consider this thread here closed unless somebody will notify me of continued discussion. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Verbal

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

This editor has been engaging in tendentious editing on the Astrology page. I have complained of NPOV and Systemic Bias there, but it is hard to get the few anti-astrology oriented editors to agree. Recently, this user has followed my edits on other pages and is intervening there. Today, when confronted, he said had been monitoring this page for some weeks. It doesn´t change a thing. Today, he then entered a false warning on my Talk page. His behavior falls within a pattern described as Wikihounding. I would like to request assistance from Administrators to stop it.Odin 85th gen (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, this is a non-binding voluntary form of dispute resolution, and there aren't really any admins here. If you feel strongly that a block is needed, you should report this at WP:ANI. Please indicate whether you would prefer to do that or continue discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• At a glance, I would say there is nothing here that warrants a block, or even a thread here. There aren't any personal attacks or over the top incivil remarks, just a dispute over the accuracy of an article. If you are unable to reach agreement, I suggest you initiate a request for comment on the subject in order to involve more editors and reach a consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a sad state of affairs. Rather than waste my time in such battles, I´ve decided to leave Misplaced Pages.Odin 85th gen (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but good luck in the future if you decide to return. Dayewalker (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevenmitchell

This user keeps blanking a redirect that has been in place for four years, claiming that at some point in the unexplained future, he's going to put content there. When I suggested that that is probably not the best action to take, this was his reply. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the first person to be the target of Stevenmitchell's lack of self-editing. See , User_talk:Adamfinmo#Nice_Job_on_Dot-Com_Bubble_List_Removal, , and . Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WTWAG just alerted me to this after I'd paid him a compliment. I've had run-ins with users like this in the past. The last one was enough to drive me away from the site for nearly two years. Reasoning and apologies didn't work and I absolutely, positively do not want to see this happen to a fine user like Who Then. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• The remark you linked certainly fits the description of a personal attack, what with the implication that you have a psychological problem, and is obviously not acceptable. Neither is blanking a page because you're planning to do something else with it later, for that matter. The other diffs provided show that this user does not grasp that sarcasm is rarely helpful in solving content disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

incivilty and personal attack

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

This editor has escalated uncivil comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ed_Fitzgerald#your_incivilty_and_personal_attack We have been involved in a discussion at ] and ] as well as at ]. I have tried to let things drop and stick to the discussion. I have also learned a lot about reliable sources, copyrights and plagiarism so that in the future much of the conflict can be avoided. I do not however feel that I deserve the insults and rude comments that have been directed at me. -Crunchy Numbers (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's put those in sequential order, and add one to get the complete picture: , , , and . Oh, and in line with that last discussion, you'll want these diffs where CN followed me around to delete perfectly reasonable edits from other articles totally unrelated to our dispute, apparently because he was annoyed at me: , and .

If you look at these discussions, I think you'll find a certain amount of sarcasm on my part, prompted by CN's inability to let go of his quest to delete links to a perfectly innocent and helpful little website. As he continues and refuses to hear what people are telling him, my sarcasm gets more pointed, but I don't think it ever crosses the boundary into incivility. I've repeatedly told CN that all he needs to do is stop and there's no problem between us (I don't know him from Adam's off ox), but he apparently has trouble letting go, and saw fit to take this additional step. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just read through the discussions, in order, and I take back one thing: there was no sarcasm of any kind until well at the end of the discussion, when CN's apparent inability to let go of his idee fixe started to get to me. Until then, the discussion was prefectly reasonable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs)'s talk page shows complaints about behavior coming in at a rate of about one a day, from a variety of editors. That's way high, and suggests that a toning down of provocation might be in order. And to be clear, sarcasm does qualify as incivility -- it is often more provoking that outright insults. Anything that carries an implicit "you're stupid" message is uncivil. Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind please showing what remark was an implicit "You're stupid"? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what was it that your quick glance picked up from my talk page? The notice of a GAR review? A discussion about whether a link is spam or not? A talk with a friend about another editor who got blocked? A discussion with another friend about image placement in an article? A discussion about an editor who later turned out to be a sockpuppet, due to my SPI report? More discussion with the same two friends about images? The notice that an image of mine was up for deletion? Because, with the exception of the complaint from Crunchy Numbers, that's what's on my talk page right now, and has been since I last archived it. So how you can "at a glance" characterize it as being chockful of civility complaints is beyond me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, Looie496, since complaints have been coming in at "about the rate of one a day", please list the 28 complaints that have come in about me since May 15th. I understand that your rate is an average, so I would say that anything above 22 or so would justify your remark. If you can't provide those 22 complaints, I'll be happy to accept your withdrawal of your statement. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Looie496 might be busy -- interestingly, he and Crunchy Numbers have both recently edited the articles Autism, Electric_motor and Eucharist, a rather esoteric concatenation of subjects (and even more interesting considering that while Looie has 2335 article edits, CN only has 539) -- so I'l help out. Perhaps he is referring to the complaint about my editing from User:LatinoAussie, who turned out to be a block-evading sockpuppet of User:Cazique? Or perhaps he was confused, and thought that this, where another editor called me a "stupid asshole" was a legitimate complaint about my editing.

That's two down - only 20 more to go! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Step away from the sarcasm and the defensive attacks. Nobody here is out to get you. Hold all of your "defence" to one post. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment was based on User talk:Ed Fitzgerald/archives 12 June 2009, where I counted 10 complaints for a period of 10 days, based, as I wrote, on a quick viewing. If you feel that I've wildly overestimated the rate at which people complain about your actions, I won't push the point. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at a few things: WP:BRD is important, as is WP:RS. The WP:RSN is an important tool on Misplaced Pages - if you have a concern about reliability, and you are BOLD and remove something and then it gets reverted, for Pete's sake, don't go back to removing it - it's a once-round cycle, that leads to discussion and eventually WP:CONSENSUS. Randomly deleting things across Misplaced Pages is not acceptable without consensus! This appears to have been the genesis of commentary by Ed Fitzgerald. Ed - you need to know that sarcasm is generally bad, as per WP:SARCASM. It is almost always uncivil. Bad actions by one user may explain your incivility, but it never excuses it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You ought to go a little easy about relying on WP:Sarcasm which, despite its sarcastic claim at the top, is merely an essay, not Misplaced Pages policy. I know it's been around for quite a while, and numerous people have contributed to it and cited it, but if it's so all-fire righteous, you'd think it would be policy by now. It ain't, though, and I rather think that ArbCom's view of what does and doesn't constitute civility may differ distinctly from yours.

Happy motoring! Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I'm not relying on an essay: I'm relying on a consensus that sarcasm can at times be uncivil. You've been around long enough (and read WP:ANI enough) to know that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm wondering who nominated Bwilkins as the Civility Police? Seriously though, I'd recommend not contributing your condescending remarks, as they don't help in the least. As for sarcasm, I'd say that your grasp on how that particular brand of humor works is quite astounding. Unitanode 13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiquette Alerts, Unitanode...the volunteers here are all trying to assist in the enforcement of WP:CIVIL andWP:NPA, or as a minimum try and diffuse situations before they need to go to WP:ANI. Every editor of Misplaced Pages is the "civility police". I have not stooped to condescending remarks, and I find your suggestion of such (and your belief that sarcasm being used against another editor is ok) to be a little odd. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't care what you find "odd." And I find it kind of sad that you think everyone should be the civility police. Aren't there better things to do with your time? Like, say, work on articles?

Lastly, you'll never know how deeply it wounds me that you find my acceptance of sarcasm in communication unacceptable. I will most likely weep the hot tears of despair as I vainly attempt to sleep tonight. Unitanode 02:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:IvoShandor

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

I nominated one of his article, Sidelight for speedy deletion because to me it didn't seem important to be its own article and should be apart of window. Anyway he started to use vulgar language "this is total bullshit" (his edit summary on sidelight). Then called me an a-hole "rmv trolling nonsense from asshole" (his edit summary on his talk page). I then told him to keep it civil or I'd report you. Then went to my talk page and said "Report me, you're still an ass. And still condescending. Find something constructive to do around here instead of monitoring material for deletion because you don't think it's tagged right. Fuck you." With the edit summary of fuck you dick. I understand that you can get pissed off, but not like this. I've gotten pissed once and only called him an ass, once, nothing worse and repeatedly calling him it.--Fire 55 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you want some kind of apology or shoulder rub to make you feel better. You're not getting it from me. I will accept the consequences of my actions. But, frankly, it is pretty much a total dick move to tag an article created by an experienced editor for speedy deletion (deletion means deletion, not merger - as you seem to think it does) mere minutes after its creation, especially in a topic area that has literally dozens of articles on similar topics, all with devoted pages. Did I go a little overboard with the incivility? You bet. And honestly, if my vulgar language and uncivil behavior discourages destructive editors like yourself, then it is by far worth any consequences. --IvoShandor (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a level 4 warning for NPA, and taken this to WP:ANI. ANY attempts to dissuade editors in this manner is a disruption to the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on posted apology, I'm changing this to resolved (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Fhue and User:NRen2k5

On the Sea Shepherd article, this editor has assumed bad faith and mirespresented/disregarded ongoing discussion when it wasn't going his way, proceeded to edit the article without consensus, edit warred, personally attacked me, and then continued to misrepresent things on the Editor Assistance page and elsewhere. "violent direct action" is misleading, , — NRen2k5, 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

do you even know what WP:bad faith is? or are you just parroting what you heard someone say, once. Fhue (talk)

Bad faith, to me, is failure to assume good faith, which you are a shining example of. Has there even been a single message here where you haven't antagonized me? — NRen2k5, 10:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also given boilerplate warnings on his talkpage, but he promptly disregarded and deleted them. — NRen2k5, 02:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

NRen2k5 continues to mischaracterize his role in this dispute as the victim. It is he in fact who heightened the conflict with arrogant dismissals and petty replies in the talk pages. I called him out on his bullying at first "with a grain of salt." Later I dared to disagree with him so he practically called me a liar. That is when I said he is "just lamely trolling." He replied in kind, so to cry foul about that now is disingenuous. Fhue (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Case in point (personal attacks): "arrogant", "petty", "bullying".

As for the trolling and projecting, I don't know what else to call accusing someone else of trolling while emoting a yawn. — NRen2k5, 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

you forgot to say 'bad faith' again. lol Fhue (talk)

Yep, we're here because you brought it here first. You can try all you want to appear unbiased and victimized, but the record speaks for itself. Fhue (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That it does. — NRen2k5, 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see above. And here: ] As anyone with an objective eye can see, this particular dispute has slowly boiled over from his repeated attempts to bully other contributors who dont agree with him. Even in the current Editor assistance request link above, he patronizes and dismisses. Fhue (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Case in point: further personal attacks, projection and general bad faith. — NRen2k5, 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

lol there it is. Fhue (talk)

I have combined the tit-for-tat filings into one, and those never do turn out well. This does appear to be a long-running dispute between 2 editors. An 3rd party attempted to mediate one aspect of an article, and one party refused to change their stance...that is not collegial editing, and is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policies and indeed its raison d'etre. I would like to see the two of you stay off that article (and its talkpage) for a week - and stay away from each other for the same length of time. Reflect on what it means to work together, and to respect others' point of view. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — NRen2k5, 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, — NRen2k5, 07:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

heh, are you still stalking this. jeez dude, get over it.
For anyone else interested in a good read and/or summary, see my Talk page. Fhue (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh*

1. I am staying away - I'm not touching any pages you're working on with a ten foot pole. I'm checking if you're keeping your word. Don't get indignant because I caught you breaking it.
2. I am not playing at trying to get the last word in. I'm trying to get my point across, but time and again you show me you still don't get it.
3. Stalking? Seriously, what?
4. I can't seem to respect anybody who disagrees with me? I'm not the one struggling to characterize everything I disagree with or fail to understand as a personal affront.
5. “I gave up trying to discuss the matter in talk pages and reverted your improper edit (based on POV)” - See #4. — NRen2k5, 09:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Caught?" seriously, get over yourself. i agreed & thanked Mr.Bw but then I changed my mind. that's why your first "record" is a deleted response . so i didnt break my word. If anyone did, it's you. "I am staying away - I'm not touching any pages.." -- can you see how wrong you are? because here you are.
 The other links you give are minor edits. Your other points are just as unfounded. I'll bet $1 you can't stay away from this page or any other with or without "a ten foot pole." Fhue (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

*Throws hands up in resignation.* — NRen2k5, 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Dolfrog - personal attacks

• Dolfrog (talk · contribs)

This user is making repeated disparaging and bad faith statements about my and other editors' capacity to judge a disputed issue. . He has continued despite personal attack warnings up to level 4 (see User talk:Dolfrog#Personal attacks and User_talk:Dolfrog#Personal attacks 2). Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If the other editors would take the time to read the supporing documented research that support my case rahter than just air their own uniformed opinions then all would be fine.

The research can befound on the Research articles of ther dyslexia project, which all of these editors have so far chose to ignore, or refuse to discuss.

• Dyslexia research
• Dyslexia: Orthography
• History of developmental dyslexia
• Theories of dyslexia
• Genetic research into dyslexia
• Brain scan research into dyslexia

So they are infact making parsonal attacks against my integrety and research abilities by ignoring the documented research in favour of their ill informed opinions.

I also have a communication disability Auditory Processing Disorder which some are aware of and seem to wish to take advantage.

dolfrog (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Eight, maybe nine editors, have told you now that we do not put Category:Dyslexia on articles not directly about dyslexia. The research is completely irrelevant to that decision, so quit dissing us for not being au fait with it.

which some are aware of and seem to wish to take advantage

Assume good faith, please. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, Gordonofcartoon. I see Dolfrog as a hard working and useful contributor that should be commended for their efforts. Everyone is new here at some stage and don't bite the newbies comes to mind. AF\\GF, AFG\\\AGF, please. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The research is key to forming opinions and only fools ignore it. So you are choosing to ignosre scientific fact in favour of your own andn the opinos of others who are ignorate of all the relvent facts. Until ypou can begin to have a constructive debate you are arte only acting in bad faith. You do not call views different to your own personal atacks, when you do the same to others and say that you mist always be right. dolfrog (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As discussion is taking place where it first should have, I'm putting this as stale, for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the stale after this user continued same tendentious trend on my talk page and after reviewing the editor's recent edit summaries. There is a tendentious and NPA problem here that should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, insulting other editors is a losing approach. Even if you are right, it won't work. You have to make a decision about whether it is better to be righteous and banned or to suppress your urge to tell everybody how stupid they are for the sake of accomplishing something here. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And "being right" is less important than supplying reliable sources for claims you make or categories you add. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried to explain how he can make his content case in a less contentious manner, but I'm not sure he understands the policies involved. I still think that most -- if not all -- of his "attacks" have been fairly innocuous, and not worthy of a big snit or anything, but if others disagree, I'll certainly bow out here. I personally think that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are being interpreted FAR too broadly on this page, but again, I'll not fight for my interpretation of them to be applied in this case. Unitanode 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fussed about his lack of civility and sarcastic edit summaries, but the tendentiousness of his editing should be nipped in the bud, as it affects articles. The trend shown in his edit summaries should be addressed. He's adding dyslexia cats all over the place without basing the addition on reliable sources, and then gets snitty when they're removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just left a comment to that effect at the related RfC. If he doesn't get the message soon, he may well be blocked for WP:3RR, if nothing else. Unitanode 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that he is not being blatantly incivil, but his attitude regarding "if you are not an expert you have no right to discuss the issue with me" is not acceptable. Likewise, his "the consensus is wrong" attitude directly stated in one of his recent edit summaries will lead to further disruption unless he recognizes that Misplaced Pages is not limited to experts in a given subject area, whether that is a good thing or not. He simply needs to accept that Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies trump the opinion of a minority of editors, even if those editors are experts in the field. As has been requested of Dolfrog on talk pages, if he provides citations the information he wants to include is welcome, but no one is obligated to bow down to his "I'm an expert and you are not so I don't have to listed to anyone else" attitude. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And the "expert" issue is spurious anyway. From his talk page: "Dolfrog is the internet name used by an individual who has a great interest in Auditory Processing Disorder. Dolfrog has been trying to promote a greater understanding of APD to help his children who have this condition." This editor needs to understand WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, tone done the tendentiousness, and take a deep breath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

the dolfrog on the internet and the dolfrog here one in the same. To get a bettter understanding of APD I have had to clarify the issues which surround dyslexia, much to my own dismay, as there appears to be a dyslexia industry out there intnet on blocking research and prevent progress so that they can continue to sell there products.

There must be other editors out there I know more about dyslexia then me and if so I wish they would help re-orginse the Dyslexia prjoct and realted issues so that i can get back to working on my APD interests. All I amtrying to do is to make the dyslexia artilcles reflect the scientific research and not the skewed oponions of program providors, all the program can help at least one group, but no program can help all dyslexics and the same applies to APD.

I find WIKI the most frustrating of place to work in a very alien environment with it strnage code, and wierd ways of behaving. If some one want to help me work aroun d my communication problems fine, but so far not many have bothered. dolfrog (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See this is exactly the type of frustration that WP needs to avoid. Dolfrog clearly is trying to help, and just needs to understand that they need to focus on content, not on who is adding the content, as well as the appropriate location for discussion, which is on the relevant article talk pages, not on a user talk page. I would suggest seeing if someone is willing to mentor User:dolfrog to assist them with learning the ropes. I am told they have been editing since 2005, but I can see that they only received a welcome message on their talk page today. Several edits have indicated frustration in trying to find out how to "spin the spider web" of Misplaced Pages. Note: I see that User:GTBacchus has offered to help them. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One for everyone to perhaps be aware of. If someone has dyslexia or a similar condition, our habit of leaving a slew of letters scattered through our communication will be absolutely baffling, because WP:NPA WP:V WP:RS WP:CIVIL and all the rest of them may just not compute - they may all look similar, and of course they don't mean anything, they are just codes and the kind of thought processes that people with a dyslexia type condition can have makes it hard to decipher codes (this is based on personal experience, not research, so may not apply in all cases, but hey guys, sometimes you have to spell things out not just use the shorthand).Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

civility issues for User:Rebecca

Rebecca (talk · contribs) continues to call me either "twit" or "troll" on the basis of this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Conservative Group. Whilst we may disagree on notability of the subject, there is no reason to continue name calling as per , , . despite notifying this user twice of incivil behavior: . I am placing this report to at least put on record for others to comment on. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I say drag her back onto the wp:AC. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

what's AC? LibStar (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Click on the link to find out. Majorly talk 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it surprising that someone who has been on AC acts like this. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the previous arb com case? --neon white talk 14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no previous ArbCom case. I think the point being made is that Rebecca was formerly a member of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Jack Merridew was joking that the behaviour being complained of was something ArbCom badly needed on board. (This is neither a comment on the alleged behaviour nor an endorsement of the comment) Orderinchaos 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice, and incorrect, original research. See Brad's more insightful comment. Jack Merridew 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

3 diffs that show incivility over the course of a single discussion does not make the civility issue "persistent" unless you can demonstrate that she has acted in this manner other times in the recent past. I agree that the three diffs you provide are demonstrative of incivility, but since she has already been minnow-slapped I am not sure what else should be done as she has not engaged in behavior worthy of a block. I will add here, users should avoid calling names regardless of whether they become frustrated in the course of a discussion, and obviously continued and habitual incivility becomes a blockable offense if users persist after warnings, but this case is hardly an egregious example of incivility. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that someone of that experience has been incivil several times but a friendly warning from other experiences editors would probably be a good idea. --neon white talk 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The minnow reference at the foot of her talk page was not directed at her; see WP:INDENT. Jack Merridew 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeking a block but posted here to prevent further escalation. I am further disappointed that this behavior came from a respected committee such as AC. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You may get one the way you're going. Sheesh, Jack Merridew 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please resist from unhelpful comments such as the above. --neon white talk 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

why? LibStar (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure NeonWhite was talking to Jack, not to you LibStar, though correct me if I am wrong. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ed Fitzgerald

This user has made the following comment at User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#Regarding_your_.22WHOA.21.22 which I find rather offensive. "She, he doesn't matter. An asshole is an asshole." Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, the user has been blocked for 3 hours. Thanks anyway! Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• You are wikistalking the contributions of Ed Fitzgerald, and have admitted as much. Somehow, you got a block-happy admin to block him, but that doesn't relieve you from the burden of your own unclean hands. Unitanode 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Errr, do you wish to get your facts straight regarding wikistalking? Please could you point to a specific part of WP:STALK which I have violated? Using an editors contributions history to revert controversial edits is in no way wikistalking, and I strongly suggest you think before making such serious allegations. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The facts are what they are. You admitted to going through his contribs and mass-reverting them. I strongly suggest you wash your own hands before lecturing others. Unitanode 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:by78

This user left a rather hateful comment on my talk page: "Sorry if that hurts your I-am-really-an-Aryan-German-despite-the-fact-I-am-from-India ego." I did not provoke him nor did I say anything about Indians being Aryans or anything of the sort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:GSMR

Though he did not sign this comment you can see he added it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:GSMR&diff=297288448&oldid=297282603 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSMR (talk • contribs) 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You actually replied to the editor about the post, and then you laughed it off, then disproved it having a racial connotation. Laughing at an attempted violation of WP:NPA is a great way to react. So, it wasn't a racist attack ... what action would you like (I have warned them about failure to use ~~~~) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

He intended for me to interpret that as having a racial connotation (because he compared Indians with Germans). He has previously been warned for personal attacks, seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Great_power/Archive_11#Great_Power_status_is_determined_only_by_the_United_Nations

"So, tell me now, do you wake up every morning and look at yourself in the mirror and keep repeating, "Eendiah, de laahgest deemahkrasi een de vehrald! Pawah to Eendiah! Eendiah vill be de Sooopa-Pawah in tdwantie-tdwantie"? If so, your power of self-

suggestion is strong indeed, as are the resulting delusions of granduer. By78 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)"

As he has been warned of this before, I suggest some form of temporary punishment? I am not fully aware of what Misplaced Pages's policies are but would blocking him temporarily from editing be sufficient? GSMR (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans

Disputed conduct

• User repeatedly accuses other editors of sockpuppetry and vandalism without evidence or in inappropriate venues:
  1. 8 June 2009
  2. 8 June 2009
  3. 10 June 2009
  4. 15 June 2009
  5. 18 June 2009

Evidence of warnings issued to user

• 8 June 2009 by Verbal - Explained definition of vandalism
• 8 June 2009 by Verbal - Advised about WP:AGF
• 9 June 2009 by Sifaka - Explained dispute resolution
• 10 June 2009 by Verbal

  read by Frei Hans on 10 June 2009

• 14 June 2009 by me

  read by Frei Hans on 15 June 2009

Background

• Frei Hans created the (now deleted) Telepathy and War article.
• Verbal nominated the article for deletion.
• The AfD discussion is archived here.
• I nominated a copyright violating image uploaded by Frei Hans here.
• Verbal, myself and other editors removed several sections of text from the article during the deletion discussion, which we believed to be obvious original research, synthesised opinion or wholly irrelevant to the article. We stated this repeatedly in edit summaries and throughout the deletion debate.
• Frei Hans has requested deletion review of the image here.

Possible resolution

I would ask that Frei Hans does the following:

1. Accept the definition of vandalism given at WP:VAND, and understand that content disputes and bold edits are explicitly not considered vandalism.
2. Agree not to accuse other editors of vandalism unless their conduct is explicitly defined as such at WP:VAND
3. Agree to follow the proper dispute resolution process if he disagrees with another editor
4. Agree to assume good faith from other editors
5. Agree to only make accusations of sockpuppetry at an appropriate venue, such as WP:SSP

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Papa November (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution