Revision as of 19:01, 22 January 2010

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

Personal attack by User:Skywriter

This user has accused me of being a sockpuppet with no other reason other that I have reverted one of his edits. He has made this accusation both on my discussion page and in an article's talk page. He has also, intentionally apparently, misrepresented (lied about?) the extent of my user contributions in this edit. I have asked him to remove the accusation or at least explain why he thinks I am a sock. He stands mute. Can someone please offer some guidance on what I should do with this? I'm trying to assume good faith but from the very first this user appeared very belligerent. Thanks. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, good faith doesn't enter into it. People can be belligerent in good faith, silly as it may seem. Talking about whether he's acting in good faith doesn't lead anywhere good; trust me.

That said, he's clearly wrong about your contributions. Someone has pointed that out on his talk page, I note. You might or might not get an explanation out of him. It's not worth demanding one, because ultimately we don't have that kind of control over editors here.

There seems to be an underlying content dispute, and some reverting going on. I've commented at the talk page in question. If he keeps reverting you and insisting you're a sock, then he's out of line, but let's see what happens at The Professors... -GTBacchus 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi 76.231.247.6. I see that you are annoyed, and why. That said, I think you are reading too much into Skywriter's remarks. I don't see where Skywriter accused you of being a sockpuppet. Skywriter asked if you are an established editor, and hinted that if you are and you don't say so, that might be construed as sockpuppetry. Some editors do use IPs when they are on travel or for other acceptable reasons. Or they don't realize their login has expired. Okay? When asked, they say "oh, yes I am so-and-so." Skywriter's comment about your edit history I think is a poorly worded reference to the fact that you have only two edits on Talk:The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

So, what should you do about Skywriter? I would now ignore Skywriter's questions and personal remarks to you, and get on with collaborating on the article. --Una Smith (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Una. Una the reason you don't see the sockpuppet accusation is that Skywriter later overlaid it. If interested you can find them here and here. Although I feel roughed up a bit I have decided for the time being to continued to collaborate on the talk page with the help of GTBacchus. But I'm going to ask you, Una, to consider for a moment the implications of this kind of belligerent behavior.

Someone, like myself, uses Misplaced Pages alot and decides to "give back" in a small way by correcting/improving it whenever he can. This goes along fine for a couple of months and then he is suddenly subject to a vicious attack by an established editor. He finds himself labelled as a sockpuppet for no reason. His motives, intelligence, character are called into question all because he happened to hit the wrong article and the wrong editor who guards it. Do you think this IP editor would ever come back? Especially when the offending editor has not owned up to his behavior, has made no apology or even offered up any explanation for his bad behavior? Instead he attacks again making baseless retaliatory edits like the one below. I will tell you from my own experience that this IP editor would not come back and that is a loss for the encyclopedia.

I would suggest to you that this kind of behavior should not be just ignored. Misplaced Pages has rules, laws if you will, to protect it's users from this kind of stuff. The Admins are a sort of police force. They need to be relied upon to make sure the offending editor has reason not to continue this kind of behavior. I don't know what that should be, a temporary block? I would leave that up to them. I'm not being vindictive. But this behavior needs to be countered with the strongest kind of discouragment.

Thanks for your feedback. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The "admins as police" metaphor can be a little bit misleading. Since there's no real centralized authority over individuals' behavior, since we don't really have firm "rules", and since the community aspect of Misplaced Pages doesn't justify its own existence except insofar as it supports the encyclopedia... it gets complicated. An admin who acts very much like a cop is likely to be de-sysopped before too long.

You're right about new editors' reactions to being attacked personally for their edits. Our policy Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers (or WP:BITE as we call it) turns out not to be a policy, but a guideline. That distinction means nothing in the long run, but in the short run it influences how people talk about it. This board is a good place to come to in cases where there's biting going on.

Because everything here is grounded in the encyclopedia, there are really just two options for dealing with behavior issues. The preferred one is to simply move past them and get back to editing. In that case, we just need to persuade everyone to start talking about edits (either informally like this, or via something like WP:3O (third opinions) or WP:RFC (requests for comment)). If this works, then the comments about other contributors are just water under the bridge. In the effort to work on the article and not on each other, someone(s) may end up blocked for disruption if the heat gets high, in which case you want to be the one talking only about edits when the blocks start flying.

If article focus consistently fails to work, then there's the second option: You leave the article-space and work the dispute resolution process. This can take the form of reports to WP:WQA (here), WP:RFC/U (requests for comment on an editor), WP:ANI (the administrators' noticeboard, but that place is dangerous and insane), and eventually WP:ARBCOM (arbitration committe). After WQA, these avenues are only to be pursued for editors who are chronically disruptive.

I hope some of that helps, or at least makes sense. Some of it probably seems bizarre, but I'm not sure how to change how the wiki works... -GTBacchus 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered user 76.231.247.6 seems very experienced in the ways of Misplaced Pages ---much more than I am, and I've been editing here for five years-- and have never filed a grievance such as this. According to 76.231.247.6 had made a total of 19 edits on 10 days beginning in November 2009 and had never before appeared on Misplaced Pages to edit anything.

Over less than 60 days, for a total of only a few hours, 76.231.247.6 made a few small edits to a few articles, in some cases, using sophisticated tags, And then, 76.231.247.6 suddenly showed up at The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America and reverted to an old version of the article that includes a long list of 100 professors whom David Horowitz charges are "dangerous." Note that this article has very little content, indeed, not even content from the book itself, short of this list. Thisarticle is pure WP:spam for Horowitz and his enterprises and I hope Misplaced Pages is at least collecting an advertising fee.

76.231.247.6 claims to be a novice user or an experienced user (I can't figure out what is the claim) but ramped up to a sophisticated level of attack in no time at all. With no civility whatsoever or discussion, 76.231.247.6 slapped my talk page with too nasty-assed warnings, to wit. and .

76.231.247.6 sure knows how to move around Misplaced Pages at warp speed to get what 76.231.247.6 wants. I wonder where that experience derives.

After spending only a tiny amount of time on Misplaced Pages, this was the sequence that led to this brouhaha. (cur) (prev) 22:58, January 13, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (13,597 bytes) (Undid revision 337134321 by Skywriter (talk)restoring the list per discussion @ talk page) (undo) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Professors:_The_101_Most_Dangerous_Academics_in_America&oldid=337690311

04:04, January 11, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (13,549 bytes) (Undid revision 336849264 by Skywriter (talk)Why are you lying about my user contribution numbers? Which are irrelevant anyway?) (undo) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Professors:_The_101_Most_Dangerous_Academics_in_America&oldid=337128243

19:34, January 9, 2010 Skywriter (talk | contribs) (5,010 bytes) (Please take to talk page; Unregistered user at IP 76.231.247.6 has no history on Misplaced Pages beyond 2 reverts, this article..) (undo)

17:41, January 9, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (13,549 bytes) (Undid revision 335844417 by Skywriter (talk)rmv judgmental edit that deletes crux information from article) (undo)

18:30, January 9, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (13,549 bytes) (Undid revision 336832966 by Skywriter (talk)Pls do not remove text based on your own personal opinion. Others may not agree.) (undo)

17:58, January 9, 2010 Skywriter (talk | contribs) (5,010 bytes) (rv unregistered user from IP 76.231.247.6 for WP:soapbox; Misplaced Pages is encyclopedia, not personal attack channel.) (undo)

18:14, January 4, 2010 Skywriter (talk | contribs) (5,020 bytes) (Removing list as it is gratuitous advertising for this book and unsupported opinion by publicity seeker) (undo)

For someone with only 20 total edits on Misplaced Pages, and unless 76.231.247.6 is using another identity, 76.231.247.6 went from zero to Mach 1 in mastering the ways of Misplaced Pages. For example, 76.231.247.6 figured out in no time at all how to engage in edit warring, how to bring a grievance against a longtime editor and wallow in the sympathy of being the "wronged" party. Best of all, 76.231.247.6 figured out how to keep the edit war going long enough to keep cheap, unsubstantiated attacks on 100 academics going in an article that is pure advertising WP:SPAM for an author who is genius at using Misplaced Pages to push his brand-- and getting deleted all serious criticism of his books from Misplaced Pages. Where's the proof of this? It's in the history of The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America going back to 2006. Look at all the reverts of serious criticism of this book and decide for yourself. The facts are there. It is, for example, as if [http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=25 Facts Count | FactsCount: An Analysis of David Horowitz’s The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America Free Exchange on Campus May 2006] had never been written. It is as if the many replies by the professors whom Horowitz attacked had never been written-- because, before I added a couple of their replies, in the last few days, few if any were present..

I wish Misplaced Pages was not being used to proliferate spam for David Horowitz enterprises and to censor opposing viewpoints, but it sure is, at least in the articles linking to David Horowitz. Skywriter (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Skywriter has a history of making personal attacks. APK whisper in my ear 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User AgnosticPreachersKid (APK), are you engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING? Or, do you just like piling on? Anyone can read the article And you are lynching Negroes and its talk page for a fair accounting. You have had no role in editing that article. Why are you attacking me with an unrelated matter? Skywriter (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; he's recently re-opened an edit war which had been dormant for over two years in the Samuel Eliot Morison‎ article, and is claiming that I have a 'history of censoring viewpoints' for removing the lengthy quotes which it was decided were best handled as a summary several years ago . When combined with the above posts and report in April last year it suggests that this editor uses personal attacks as a standard means of trying to get their own way in content disputes. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D, your position is in opposition to historiography and it will not hold up. Changes to Samuel Eliot Morison‎ focuses on whether the review of Morison's work, by his peers, over the last 50 years can be used to evaluate the writing of this prominent historian. The work of every prominent historian is subject to review in that the writing of history consists, in part, of the critical examination of sources, the selection of items from primary sources, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods. There is much that is positive about Morison's life work and that is reflected in the article. To try, as you have been doing, to minimize or smother critical voices-- this is not the policy of Misplaced Pages. Using solid sourcing, I will continue to try to persuade you that reviews of Morison's work is more complicated than what this article now reflects. Skywriter (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:QueenofBattle pt 2

QueenofBattle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Personal attacks on own user page, calling other editors WP:DICKs. ]. Although user page is templated retired, user continues to edit ]. Gerardw (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DICK is an accepted essay ... the use of it in this manner although frowned upon has been held as considered "ok", as the essay describes specific types of activities that are considered to be "dickish". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an accepted essay, but that doesn't make calling someone a "WP:DICK" a good idea. Most situations where that essay applies are terrible places to actually cite it. It's entirely likely to add heat to a situation, and entirely unlikely to produce the desired effect on the other party's behavior. -GTBacchus 19:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The essay itself states The presence of this page does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as “a dick”.Gerardw (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

She also calles them "tools", but links "tools" to the page on "wanker". Spitfire 20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

...actually, the wanker/tools comment is grammatically meant for more than just the one editor :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, grammatically it was for 3 named users. That doesn't make it any better, it is still a personal attack, which I have removed. Personal attacks are not allowed. Weakopedia (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling people names is foolish behavior on Misplaced Pages. It leads to WQA reports. Anyone wishing to focus on article writing would do well to avoid a lot of wasted time by simply not calling people names. There's nothing complicated about it, and nobody should have to read any policy page to know what it means to treat others well. Just do it. -GTBacchus 21:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, folks, why is this coming up again? The first bad faith WQA made against me (by another editor who engaged in attacks against me, no notification, etc.) was closed. This second bad faith WQA also seems to be running to resolution. The reference to the essay is acceptable, although ill advised (thanks for the advice), and the rest is a statement of fact. Those editors have made it very easy for me to make the decision to try to retire. What does anyone consider a personal attack? Please cite specifics and I'll take it under advisement. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Referring to a specific user as a DICK is a full-out personal attack, whether or not you believe it to be the truth - comment on edits, never editors. Calling others wankers, although not a direct PA, is still uncivil. You would quickly find your userpage/talkpage deleted should you retire with them there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Saying: "The editors who I have had dissagrements with have made it very easy for me to leave the project" would be acceptable.

Saying: "Don't be a dick your entire lives, huh? You tools/wanker have made it very easy for me to retire" is not acceptable, WP:CIVIL states clearly that things such as "Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions" are all unacceptable. Please remove the wanker, tools and dick comments. Kind regards, Spitfire 17:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, Spitfire, you are the first editor to ask me nicely and respectfully (or to even ask me, come to think of it) to remove the text that you consider to be personal attacks. The other self-appointed politeness mall cops have merely sought to remove them from my user page in contravention of stated policy. Let that be a lesson to you folks. I do not consider the words to be personal attacks, but I am happy to remove the dick and tool/wanker references. The points have been well-made at this point. Regards, QueenofBattle (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not logical to send a request to a retired Misplaced Pages editor. Gerardw (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Npa#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F states "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (emphasis original). So saying "you have made it very easy for me to retire." is a personal attack. Gerardw (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. It is a statement of fact. If you still believe it is a personal attack, find someone to block me. Enough with this. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is your position QueenofBattle, then consider this a final warning regarding personal attacks. You may not consider words like "wanker" etc to be a personal attack but they in fact are when used to insult someone. I far prefer your idea of removing the insults than your other idea of getting blocked. Chillum 17:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already removed what Spitfire considers to be personal attacks, largely because he/she asked nicely. The rest need to work on their bedside manners lest they take their, umm, duties, too seriously. Block if you must, I am trying to retire. If others want to remove from their pages what they think are personal attacks, they are more than welcome. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, but saying someone led to or helped in your decision to retire is not really a personal attack in my opinion. The name calling is unambiguous though. Chillum 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it. WP:Duck and all that. How can a statement saying "you made it easy for me to leave" improve Misplaced Pages? Gerardw (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Then, I consider this matter closed. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, as one of the editors that Queen was making personal attacks against,, and I did consider them personal attacks, I mentioned it to Queen on her talk page and Queen removed it ]. Then Queen executed several personal attacks on me, ] for the lovely edit summary and the entire section is Queen making more personal attacks so if there is an option up there for blocking, I'd support it. RTRimmel (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RTRimmel knows full well that I am a male, so to continue to refer to me as a female can only be uncivil, at best, and a personal attack, at worst. The first bad faith WQA (not bothering to notify me) coupled with misquoting me on his user page should be viewed with skepticism by the community as to his motivations and prejudice as to his request to have me blocked. I have no intentions to return to editing, and was trying to retire, when RTRimmel came to my talk page to protest (via his own personal attack) what I have placed on my user page. Then we've got other editors claiming they didn't feel the need to simply ask me to remove the remarks (which I did when asked) because it's "not logical to send a request to a retired Misplaced Pages editor," yet felt the need to open this second WQA after the first was closed, because I was "still editing." Which one is it? Either way Gerardw is wrong and has wronged me. The whole thing stinks. And, to think there is wonder and amazement as to why I've decided to retire from Misplaced Pages?! Onerem seems to have a reasonable approach to me. We all should take his/her advice and let this unfortunate and bizarre episode expire of natural causes. I've enjoyed all the years editing here; thanks, community, for the parting gift. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative. There's no reason to block now based on comments from over a week ago, especially if the editor truly plans to retire. The user page comments have been tamed down a bit. Please just let it drop and see if QueenofBattle is also willing to let it drop. If they retire, the result on your future experience is the same. If they don't, and attacks continue, then bring it back to the attention of the community. --Onorem♠Dil 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your points have been adressed - see QoBs counter WQA posted below. By their actions it does not seem that user QoB has any intention of retiring or letting anything drop - that 'Retired' notice has been on their page for a long time now. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia should AGF. I have stated I plan to retire and when this unfortunate episode has come to an end, I can assure you I will comfortably retire. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

QueenOfBattle, thank you for the removal of name calling on your user page. There isn't currently a consensus as to whether the remaining remarks constitute a personal or not. One possible conclusion would be for you to remove them, rending the point moot. Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue I have here is that Queen keeps saying that I'm making personal attacks... yet queen called me a tool, a wanker, a dick, a liberal elitest, a wanker again, a cheater, a told me I was editing under the influence. And misquoting him, which of course is odd given that I'm using a direct quote from Queen, but whatever, Queen can argue that I'm not using it in the proper context but that is another issue and I'll happily remove it from my talk page as soon as the link from his talk page vanishes. So I feel, based on the repeated and pointless personal attacks, Queen has established a pattern of incivility. My responses have been to call Queen petty, a bully, and quoting from Queen "not an unbiased editor, in fact I am a very POV editor". So despite Queen's insistence that I somehow am on the same level as him is on its face an absolute farce. I'm sorry I called a Queen a girl, I do that because the English language specifies that you use her when addressing women and Queen decided he was macho enough to take a demonstrably feminine name and then become upset when people screw it up. This is certainly not the first time this has happened, and I'm certainly not the only editor that has done it, and I forgot and I'm sorry. As for not notifying Queen, Queen had retired and deleted comments off of his talk page so I had mistakenly assumed that Queen was going to... retire, as the big banners on his page had indicated. I had simply put up the WQA as a pretext to deleting the personal attack from a users talk page with another editors, preferably an administrators, go ahead. Next time someone posts a string of personal attacks against me and other editors, I'll be more careful not to upset their sensibilities. RTRimmel (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of excuses here from RTR, but none of them hold any water. There is no policy of Misplaced Pages that says something to the effect of "personal attacks are not allowed, unless another editor attacks you first..." The "I-did-it-only-because-he/she-did-it" excuse is lame. RTR has misquoted me by taking my words out of context, a fact that is without dispute. During our many content disputes, he has accused me of POV pushing. He has not extended me the courtesy of a notification because I "had retired", yet opened a WQA on me even though he thought I had retired?! This pathetic excuse is nonsensical. And, lastly, his excuse that he was following some sort of gender-specified naming convention is discredited by the fact that he has other very recent edits in the Misplaced Pages where he has correctly referred to me as a "he" or "him"; he seems to enjoy alternating between referring to me in male and female vernaculars. I'm sorry RTR got his feelings hurt and feels I bullied him; I wish I had treated him with a softer approach. Perhaps, though, he should reflect on his actions that contributed to the souring of our relationship and recognize that his actions played a part in it (as did mine). But, to feign wonderment wrapped in a victim's mentality is disingenuous and just plain silly on his part. One only need look at his talk page and his many other edits to see that he doesn't play nice with those who cross him or challenge his viewpoints. I had hoped there was a bit more gusto and gravitas with him. So, as to the resolution of all this, I have removed the offending remarks directed at RTR and the others, and have simply referred to "the others" without naming names. I hope RTR will follow through on his promise to remove my quote, which he has maliciously taken out of context (and any other references to me, for what it's worth) and we will all move on. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As an update, I have removed the offending remarks from my user page and RTRimmel has removed my out-of-context quote from his. This issue is resolved. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have verified that the personal attacks are removed what Queen felt was an out of context quote. Good resolution. RTRimmel (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Disparaging personal attacks by User:RTRimmel

Editor has continued to make disparaging comments by referring to me in the female context here, here, and here when he knows (or should have known) that I am a male. Additionally, he has accused me of POV pushing and has taken my words out of context. From No personal attacks: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. I consider these to be personal attacks. Other comments from uninvolved editors are welcome. QueenofBattle (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The first reference you supply is from your own WQA, the second in quick succession, where you were admonished for calling the user you are complaining about a 'dick', a 'tool' and a 'wanker'. You say that RTRs remarks at you own WQA are disparaging by referring to you as female, but you reference a discussion held some 9 months ago. Your userpage is blanked as 'retired' so since you have the word 'Queen' in your username and have posted no information stating your gender on your talk page and last discussed the matter with RTR 9 months ago it is quite a stretch of the imagination to regard this as a disparaging remark. What do you have against females anyway?

In fact the first three references are from the last week or so, 9 months after the discussion you had with RTR. You are a 'retired' user with no talk page and Queen in your name, it is natural for anyone to assume that you are female, and it is not the responsibility of every Wikipedian to check back through history to discover the gender of the person they are talking to. In a world of faceless online contributors 'he' and 'she' are simply abbreviations designed to improve the flow of conversation.

If you have a problem with being assumed as female it is your responsibility to do something about it, not the communities. The fact that you talked to RTR 9 months ago about this and are only complaining about RTR calling you female during this last week, it is obvious that you should have first spoken to RTR about it rather than levered the matter into a WQA. 9 months is a long time, long enough to forget that a 'retired' user is female or not.

Let us not forget the manner in which you decided to approach RTR about this 9 months ago. You opened your statement to RTR with 'Look you condescending SOB' which is hardly good etiquette nor a great way to diffuse a situation. Referring to someone on Misplaced Pages as a 'son of a bitch' is considered bad etiquette, and certainly a poor way to begin a section designed to address what you see as bad etiquette.

As to the rest of your complaint, the reference you provide shows that in the discussion with RTR about your NPOV or lack thereof you begin by saying 'Waah, waah. Umm, wanker'. You have already been admonished for the use of such language on Misplaced Pages. You will of course know that 'Wanker is a pejorative term of English origin, common in Commonwealth and ex Commonwealth countries, including Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. It initially referred to an onanist but has since become a general insult.'. Your use of the term is explicitly insulting, and from your own WQA above it is obvious that you intended it to be such.

Misplaced Pages policy on civility is clear and says that 'Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment.', however the references that you have supplied do not show that you have followed this policy. Weakopedia (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RTR and I have a long history together on Misplaced Pages, both working together and working against each other. It is very clear that RTR knows I am not female, and so his continual (but oddly, not consistent) use of female terminology can only be a personal insult. It matters not what I think of females (I happen to like and respect them), and it matters not if RTR thinks I insulted him first. His actions, which are all he has control over, have been to insult me purposely because his feeling are hurt, I suspect. As for the rest, Weakopedia, you have failed to see humor and sarcasm when it is present. By reading the whole text from nine months ago, and not merely the title, one can clearly see that we were having a cordial discussion but using slightly crass language. It's also unfortunate Weakopedia that you have assumed that I lack NPOV. I asked for uninvolved editors to weigh in. Given that you have engaged in a heated discussion with me yesterday about your actions, and then removed my comments that you didn't like but left the rest, you are not univolved. You appear to have taken RTR's side, even though he has engaged in the very same activities for which you are attempting to adomonish me. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not 'taken sides', I simply gave some context. My comment does not suggest that you have any point of view in particular, if you read carefully you will see that I was referring to the discussion between you and RTR on the matter - I have made no claims whatsoever regarding POV. You can ask for what you consider to be uninvolved editors to respond but doing so does not change the guidelines for who may respond. If you were 'heated' in our previous conversation then you were the only one, I find matters such as this insufficient to become heated over. And once you had brought that conversation to a close yet insisted on reopening it I informed you that discussion would be better continued elsewhere and discontinued the conversation. I received your messages, their deletion served as notification of that fact. If there has been more relevant contact between you and RTR during the intervening 9 months then please try to supply the diffs rather than rely on a 9 month out of date conversation. This enables the uninvolved editors you seek to come to a reasonable conclusion. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Weakopedia, I know of no one who retains their own comments, but selectively removes another's (as you did) and then claims that they are dispassionate about the discussion. Be that as it may, further discussion about RTR's actions are detail above. It is quite clear, and evidence proves, that RTR clearly knows I am a male, be it through a discussion from nine months back or from his edit made less than two weeks ago where he correctly refers to me as a "him". QueenofBattle (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not resort to telling lies as your last action before finally retiring. The reference you supplied clearly shows that I discontinued the conversation and informed you of that fact. There was no selective removal of your comments, that is simply an untruth. You were informed that further discussion on the matter was inappropriate and your subsequent comments were rightfully deleted. Weakopedia (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me?! You are going to try to admonish me for personal attacks by launching a personal attack yourself? You are planning to lecture me about my Wikiquette by engaging in poor Wikiquette yourself? Allow me to refresh your memory, Weakopedia, about the conversation in question between the two of us, which ended by you removing my last edit, but leaving all of yours. Later, you removed another edit of mine, but continued to leave all of yours. Then, you threatened to report me to 3RR for removing my own words. And, curiously, you have now removed what remained of the conversation in question (hint, it remains in the history section forever). And, now you are calling me a liar? The diffs don't lie. Does anyone else see the quirky irony here? Weakopedia, I might suggest a) you owe me an apology for a wholly-inappropriate remark, and b) you might not resort to the actions that you are presumably on this noticeboard to help others avoid. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my remarks - it is no longer possible to assume good faith regarding your misrepresentation of my actions. Happy retirement. Weakopedia (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, your position is very unfortunate. RTR and I have resolved our differences because we were introspective and recognized that we were both wrong. Please don't accuse others of lying; it's very bad Wikiquette and the folks that come to these noticeboards seeking assistance expect more from those that are offering that assistance. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with where things currently stand with Queen and have no desire to further provoke this situation. RTRimmel (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am satisfied with where RTR and I stand. Now, about Weakopedia. Perhaps someone can visit with him/her about the inappropriatness of calling another editor a liar on the WQA noticeboard, of all places? QueenofBattle (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that this disagreement should simply be laid to rest. All continuing this discussion will do is to lead to further disagreements. Be introspective, realize you are retiring, and let it pass. RTRimmel (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of impropriety...too much, or is this acceptable? You tell me.

I'm being constantly accused of a number of things by User:Jclemens. He started off by accusing me of sockpuppetry, and then when the investigation he initiated came back in my favor, switched to allegations of meatpuppetry. Not just once, but over and over again. Then it was dishonesty. Now its "tenditious editing, editwarring, refusal to get the point, and assumed ownership." He's threatening to "report me." He's calling me "clueless." Two other editors have asked him to stop focusing on my behavior and focus on the issues.

Allegations of sock/meatpuppetry:

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Unreferenced.3F
• Misplaced Pages:Editor_assistance/Requests&oldid=331736929

All other issues mentioned above:

• Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Essay_Tag

Personal attacks:

• User_talk:Jclemens#Answer_to_your_comment....

I would love a review of both my behavior and his to better understand where I may have gone off-track, if anywhere, and how I should handle this sort of situation in the future. I am totally open to constructive criticism. Thank you for your consideration. ɳoɍɑfʈ 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that filing a WQA immediately after a Medcab case has been opened at your request is a good idea -- in fact if I were the mediator it would probably cause me to close the case. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is that? ɳoɍɑfʈ 20:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Case was not opened, as acceptance by all parties was not gained. ɳoɍɑfʈ 21:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotta say, Noraft, WP:PLAXICO certainly seems to apply here. Feel free to take Noraft up on his invitation to review his (and his sock/meatpuppets') behavior.

To answer your question, here's how to get a better outcome next time:

1) Follow BRD, don't try and wikilawyer out of it. 1a) Don't demand that a huge radical change be accepted and then changes made off of your "new and improved" version of a project-space page. 1b) Don't re-revert anyone who's reverted you--an edit summary is not a substitute for a talk page discussion.

2) Don't use IP editors, be they meat- or sock-puppets, to try and gain leverage. If an anonymous IP violently endorses you and edit wars on your behalf, they're simply undermining your credibility. "Not enough evidence tying Noraft to these IPs" is not an exoneration, either.

3) Don't whine (or cry "incivility!") when people call you on either of the above. That includes when people tell you you're going about things wrong, or that you've exhausted good faith. Incivility is saying "Your mother smelled of elderberries!", not "You're not editing collaboratively."

4) Oh, and don't lie. Moreover don't lie, cry AGF when you're called a liar, and then cry incivility when the possibility is raised that you may indeed not have understood the issue.

That should pretty much do it. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that we've heard from the person that led me to post the alert, I'd love to hear from a third party. ɳoɍɑfʈ 12:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pan-Celticism#Flag

Can someone have a word with User:MacRusgail in regards to his comments and tone at Pan-Celticism

You started this dialog ] with quite an agressive tone the ref added is not a RS and as such I will keep removing it until such time a WP:V is added and it meets WP:RS . A more consensus seeking approach will likely give you better results in the future. MacRusgail, it'd be helpful if you try to restrict your comments to the content, not the contributor. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that is aggressive more a statement of fact and intention as the flag had been added un-cited several times. However if it reads as aggressive then I offer my apologies it was not my intention Gnevin (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think Gnevin's edits regarding the flag of Ireland have been useful or helpful, and I think I have the right to express that opinion. With the rugby union articles, there was a basis for the removal of the tricolour, because the IRFU does not use it for all-Ireland... however, that debate tied up many users for hours on end, which could have been employed more constructively.

In the case of Pan-Celticism, however, it is a non-issue. Irish Unionists/Loyalists do not support pan-Celticism (other than some link-up with Scotland in a bizarre way perhaps), but Irish nationalists/republicans do, including those of the Celtic League. They also happen to consider the tricolour the flag of all-Ireland, not just the Republic, and the tricolour is flown across such areas in Northern Ireland. Despite including orange (as well as green) to represent the protestant population, that flag hasn't found much favour in that group, but then again, neither has pan-Celticism, so it's not an issue.

As I have said, I think this is a waste of time, which could be better spent on improving wikipedia.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, incivility and accusations of POV-pushing by User:Rudrasharman

This user recently contested additions to Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia in the section R1a1. He arbitrarily inserted that it was observed mainly in "high-caste populations" without citing anything, (the Kivisild (2003) article at the end of the paragraph makes no such claim) on the basis that one source used had numerical inaccuracies (though the Bamshad (2001) study which claims that European Y-DNA correlates to caste rank is also (and it is safe to say more) problematic in that its conclusion doesn't correspond to the data (middle castes are more European than upper castes, for example, and there is no regional variation in the subjects chosen)).

This neglects all other sources which state that R1a (M17) is most likely South Asian in origin including those used on the main article for the subject, Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). When I left a comment asking him whether he was an Aryan Invasion Theory proponent based on his attempt to deviate from the (presently mainstream) belief that South Asia is the most likely origin of Haplogroup R1a, as is suggested by sources used on the page linked to above, he did not leave a substantial reply, just a silly ad hominem because I had attempted then retracted an argument against his criticism of Sharma (2009), he then reverted my edit which cited three other valid sources which are all used on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) to substantiate a South Asian origin, on the basis that one out of the four sources was questionable without a single comment on the others, and accused me of POV pushing in his edit summary.

He also says that the results presented in Underhill (2009) do not agree with "what I want it to" (perhaps he is hinting that I think R1a has something to do with Indo-European migrations, though I have not made any comment on that on this article or talk page), but it is in fact most compatible (as also stated on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) with sources) with an Indian origin of Haplogroup R1a: "The highest STR diversity of R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes are observed outside Europe, in particular in South Asia ... but given the lack of informative SNP markers the ultimate source area of haplogroup R1a dispersals remains yet to be refined." and "Analysis of associated STR diversity profiles revealed that among the R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes the highest diversity is observed among populations of the Indus Valley yielding coalescent times above 14 KYA (thousands of years ago), whereas the R1a1a* diversity declines toward Europe where its maximum diversity and coalescent times of 11.2 KYA are observed in Poland, Slovakia and Crete."

If that's not enough, he has also made persistent personal attacks on users including myself such as that they subscribe to "blog warriors", childish "you did it first" comments, and most recently accusing me of being unable to read or comprehend sources, among other things, crying POV-pushing, even though I have used these sources in the exact same way they are used on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) to state the exact same content, (not to mention that out of these citations; , and , none of them is the Sharma (2009) he had complained about), but I have generously chosen not to leave him the {{Uw-npa4im}} that this behavior has unambiguously warranted. GSMR (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's most helpful here if discussion is limited to the civility issues, not content. That said Rudrasharman is inappropriate. Gerardw (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have stated civility issues. GSMR (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "content dispute". It is the all too common case of a POV-pusher trying to escalate his way out of his difficulties, by usual ploys such as wikilawyering and forum-shopping. The full history of this farcical incident is here, and a typical example of why GSMR cannot be taken seriously is here. If anyone feels the urge to get involved, please be sure to first familiarize yourself with the dreary history and background of the POV issues that have plagued this article and related ones for a long time by now. "Incivility" is the least of any problems here, and far from any real ones. rudra (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF issue with IP address 94.193.135.142

]. What the IP user calls " opiniated BBC pov editing" is nothing of the sort, and I consider that an assumption of bad faith, and an offensive comment to make - I have no idea why they are going to an unrelated editor's talk page offering to "pursue to Misplaced Pages editors and admins". Just to concisely state the problem, the IP editor asserts that there was no evidence the jamming of BBC Persian Television came from Iran, however the source contradicts that. Rapido (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And for some reason they have copied postings from my talk page, and pasted them here Talk:BBC Persian Television. Not sure if that's allowed or not, but I find it a bit strange, as it's supposed to be personal communication between myself and another editor. Rapido (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore him. He has no standing to raise any stink over a content (non-)issue. IP editors sling ridiculous threats like this all the time. --King Öomie 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ignore them, however they keep reverting to 'their version' and even put in an edit summary Are u the Misplaced Pages version of Stalin?, apparently because I deleted the copying and pasting of my entire talk page onto the article's talk page. Rapido (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I now get called A REVERT-TROLL by the IP user, however the IP user has broken the 3RR rule, and I haven't. Rapido (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP user in question was blocked for 24 hours for breaking 3RR, unfortunately they are back talking about my Troll-like attitude and they seem to want to have my account, and other editors accounts (I have reported many of your kind successfully before) suspended. They keep saying that I am not discussing my edits and that I am violating Misplaced Pages rules, however I have given explanation in my edit summaries, and on the article talk page, and I cannot see that I am breaking any rules. Also accuses me of being a Political activist lurking around Misplaced Pages which is absolute nonsense. Rapido (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Now accusing me of lying . Rapido (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I now have a user based trait to engage in deceptive editing . Amongst other accusations of bad faith and false assumptions. Rapido (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

he has a strategy to get me blocked or is just arrogant (Neither is true, of course). Rapido (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Some more, and starting to get personal attacks: ] in the face of being exposed for starting an edit war and having an arrogant attitude, others have bullied and others; repeated here , calling me 'incompete' and with a 'prejudist attitude against I.P. editors', plus 'Rapido is lying' , more accusations that I am lying , arrogan . The IP editor has made little attempt to address the concerns of the article, only attacking editors. Rapido (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do check the article history, and my numerous invitations for Rapido to discuss with me the issues. Please look at the discussion page of the article and form your own judgement. He is again, trying to make me look bad, and thinks I am a mob, calling me "they", reverted without annotating or responding to my revert annotations and criticisms. And yes, he is lying, which you can see first hand by checking the BBC Persian Television article's History and discussion, and my numerous objections on Rapido's own talk page. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to take this to WP:ANI. It requires admin intervention, and admins don't systematically watch this page. (Sometimes, but often not.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Original 3RR report made by Rapido:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.193.135.142_reported_by_User:Rapido_.28Result:_24h.29

EdJohnstons user page who kindly protected the BBC Television page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EdJohnston#I_have_commented_on_Rapido.27s_false_claims_under_his_report

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EdJohnston#Rapido_has_removed_my_links_on_your_talk_page

The article:

History and proof of Rapido's uncoperative editing style:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BBC_Persian_Television&action=history

Discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:BBC_Persian_Television#Satelite_Jamming_dispute

I would also liked to remind you, Cunando, replied in the discussion that he agree's Rapido's sourcing is weak.

Rapid's discussion page:

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

Regards --94.193.135.142 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

repeated personal attacks

I already have write you, but nothing is changed. Many times I have asked him to comment on content, not on the contributor, but User:FkpCascais continually labeled me as:

• extremist
• hateriot
• racist
• nationalist
• highly provocative
• "merely insignificant"
• hateriot again
• hateriot again and again

There is more, but I am tired of searching. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All of this is found on the talk pages of the articles of Kingdom of Serbia and Greater Serbia articles. This user has a highly nationalistic and NPOV way of editing, and he has been warned to stop many times, and by several users. I did pointed him the reasons, but he ignores me, not by not responding but by insisting in the same edits (throu said, he started responding only now, when he noteced that other editors also don´t agree with his edits, before he usualy angaged in edit wars). I would also like to know if there is a possibility of ending this highly NPOV editing by same user of sensitive historical and political articles of Balkans and Serbia related articles. FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the first thing for both of you is that there is no such word as "hateriot" -- the word is "hatred". To Mladifilozof, if you want to give examples of what you consider incivility, please give diffs rather than pointers to pages that are full of stuff. Without more specific pointers, it is impossible to get anywhere without an unreasonable amount of investigation. Looie496 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Goethean

Goethean has made a number of uncivil comments. A few include accusing another editor of being a megalomaniac and a liar, called another user's contributions to an ongoing discussion pathetic and did a revert with the edit summary undoing hatcheding (sic) of article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 12:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm the hatchet-wielder. It amused me that he responded negatively to my objection to being insulted... then made substantially the same edit himself a few minutes later. I confess to being moderately pissed off. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You deleted a giant section of text. I moved it to a new article, following summary style. I stand by my characterization of your edit. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My primary concern about this user (and this is a good example) is that she appears not to understand what a personal attack is, or that it is possible or desirable to edit without them. We've all seen users with that problem before, and they are inevitably permanently blocked as the community loses patience with them. My own opinion is that this user has been fully and sufficiently warned, and that from this point forward, all personal attacks should result in blocks, beginning with 24 hours and following the usual pattern of escalating lengths. No amount of useful editing is worth keeping a user who can't play nicely with others. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Comments

Apart from what has been said above, I have more things to add, Goethean has actively been involved in personal attacks, uncivil remarks on Ramakrishna article. Here are some of the civility issues ranging from 2008:

• "bunch of liars"
• "What a mess. The new additions by Nvineeth are disasterous. It is comical ..."
• Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_4 , Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_5 , Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_6 have sections related to civility problems.
• "Claim that discussing sex in lede is undue" ( The more accurate (and civil) term is sexuality, not sex )
• "gang of religious believers"
• "...You think that a scholar can write this and not think that Ramakrishna had homoerotic impulses. You are being deliberately obtuse."
• "It's because the recent sources contradict the points of faith of the swamis, like that Ramakrishna was a sexless ephebe."
• Edit summary uncivility : "+refs --- keep in mind that I can provide extensive quotations from each of these to buttress my claim that SRK's sexuality is generally taken to be ambiguous."
• Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_7#4th_rv_on_POV_tag
• "...discredited, cult-like religious organization"
• "... I would expect some abuse from my peers" ( This is Goethean's justification for his personal attacks )
• "egg-throwing right-wing hindu nationalistic fanatics are not actually pluralistic, despite how they portray themselves" ( Edit summary vandalism, possible BLP violation attack. )

I would also like to point out he was using his user page to launch attacks on at least 5 other editors, before uninvolved and neutral admin User:Abecedare asked him to remove it. ( The user page was later deleted and recreated. )

These come from just 2 articles. To add to this, he has added some really nasty controversial claims, not present in the sources cited whatsoever( ex: ) and even fought for its inclusion. (Had it been some minor original research, nobody would have bothered, but this is a baseless controversial claim, and was discovered after over an year, after it was copied to another article, from Goethean's initial addition !) I would like to point out that he is hell bent on proving "eccentric", "ambiguous" "sexuality" and even neutral opinions by other admins like User:RegentsPark are greeted with "pathetic" message. I would say that he is trying to illustrate a point ( also indicated by other uninvolved editor here ) by bullying on editors and violating WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL --TheMandarin (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I've run across Goethean on 3 or 4 different pages (ramakrishna, Spiral Dynamics, a couple of philosophy/philosopher pages that I can't recall off hand), usually because I've responded to an RfC about some argument where he's a central player. He's tenacious about his arguments (which is a good thing in my books) but he is consistently rude, and tends to see opposition as conspiracy (both of which are bad). For instance, the ongoing debate about ramakrishna's sexuality is still ongoing mostly (IMO) because Goethean has decided that sexuality should be a primary focus of the article, and sees any attempt to place the reference in a perspective based on weight of sources as complicit with Vedantic efforts to whitewash RK's reputation. It makes for a very difficult and unpleasant editing atmosphere. --Ludwigs2 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Goethean has decided that sexuality should be a primary focus of the article, and sees any attempt to place the reference in a perspective based on weight of sources as complicit with Vedantic efforts to whitewash RK's reputation.

False. I would like the biographical section of the article to reflect academic opinion rather than the dogma of a religious cult. I don't mind being pilloried for this desire. — goethean ॐ 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. The only "academic opinion" that counts in your book is the bunch of self-absorbed wannabes in so-called Religious Studies, most of whom go out of their way to "sexualize" anything to do with Hindus and/or Hinduism. This is a well-known problem, and the very reason that, in the real world, the only people who take these Religious Studies clowns seriously are those clowns themselves. The point, however, is that these clowns, while meeting WP's "reliable source" standards, are not the only reliable sources around. Plenty of people have written plenty about Ramakrishna. Skewing it all to give the Kali's Child fiasco pride of place, as has been your agenda, is tail-wagging-dogism run amok. rudra (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Academia is nothing but a bunch of perverts, and the Ramakrishna Mission religious organization has got it right all along. Fascinating. I can't imagine why I'm so frustated and angry all of the time when I have such rational, well-reasoned, open-minded interlocutors to edit articles with. — goethean ॐ 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you won't hear about it on WP, because the clowns have the only "reliable sources" you would look at locked up. But you could venture into the wider world and look this up. (You might even learn about abuse of the praṇava, maybe.) rudra (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I do appreciate your wide-ranging speculation on what my agenda is. Surely your comment is the epitome of civility. — goethean ॐ 20:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

After, as of some time today, 732 edits of Ramakrishna and 572 posts to its Talk page, words other than "agenda" were possible. rudra (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please keep it up. It appears that you don't have to play by the same rules that I do. — goethean ॐ 17:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You might consider avoiding sarcastically admonishing others for WP:CIVIL violations. Kind of difficult to take the statement seriously. --King Öomie 21:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you for reaffirming my point... --Ludwigs2 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Claim that discussing sex in lede is undue" ( The more accurate (and civil) term is sexuality, not sex )

Um...QED. — goethean ॐ 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted by content issues. The basic point here is that Goethean has repeatedly made personal attacks. Not all of the examples above fit that description, but enough of them do. Personal attacks are disruptive to the editing process regardless of the level of provocation. Goethean is strongly advised to show more restraint. Looie496 (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the provocation, it's the Victorian standards. User:TheMandarin thinks that using the word "sex" in an edit summary is uncivil. This is not in line with typical 21st century standards of what constitutes civility. — goethean ॐ 20:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not correct that you have been admonished primarily for using the word 'sex' in an edit summary. You have been admonished for violating WP:CIVIL. I am sincerely curious now: is there any one of the above links that you think were uncivil and inappropriate? So far, you have not indicated that you understand what we are asking from you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I personally don't care if you use 'sex' in an edit summary. I do care about the constant stream of sarcasm, indirect insults, and inflammatory statements that seem to come from your direction. it's frigging annoying. you can be assertive on your points without having to put down everyone around you, you know. --Ludwigs2 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My experience of Goethean at Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory supports most of the above comments. Its an intimidatory style and s/he is more than happy to ignore WP:BRD and/or ignore any attempt to achieve a consensus. I've also seen gaming; s/he attempted to claim I had a commercial interest in one article, and when his/her appeal to the relevant forum gained no support, continued to make the accusation. Happy to find the diff. if someone wants them, but this editor constantly violates WP:CIVIL with no sign that s/he accepts any fault and can't resist attacking other editors rather than focusing on content issues. --Snowded 21:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Goethean is a "HE"... small point, but just like to see the discussion on this Thuggee kept factual. See this thread here for more information CLICK HERE76.202.245.18 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned User:Joehazelton knows my gender because he has literally stalked me to my doorstep as part of his long-term abuse of myself and other users. — goethean ॐ 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will say, I don't know if that IP is a banned user, but I do not appreciate that kind of 'thuggee' comment, which is rude and counterproductive. Goethean, if you believe that's a banned user, you're within your rights to report it at SPI. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that the sock cares about your civility warning or your SPI? All he has to do is log in from a different IP and the pointless bureauocratic process has to start all over again. — goethean ॐ 17:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

no, but if the SPI comes back positive it will get that IP (or range thereof) blocked, which will keep him out of your hair for a while. It's an unfortunate fact of life that there's always someone making a mess somewhere. best to put a stop to it in what little ways you can, as you can. --Ludwigs2 18:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that I have been inappropriately harsh in my comments and edit summaries to many users. I did this because I let my emotions get the better of me. I apologize to those to whom I have been rude. In the future I will endeavor to control my emotions and to avoid personal attacks, harsh comments, and edit summaries. — goethean ॐ 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an absolutely perfect response. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. While I added this Wikquette alert I have a high regard for Goethean's article contributions. I am happy to mediate/mentor Goethean as time permits, if he is willing. He just needs to post a message to my talk page or send me an email if he feels that a dispute is getting out of hand and I will endeavour to assist. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I do love it when wikiquette ends like this. Thank you Goethean - I wish more editors could manage that kind of perspective. --Ludwigs2 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

IP:99.19.92.173

The IP:99.19.92.173 has been giving problems on the Johnny Test and List of Johnny Test characters articles. My problem with this IP began on January 15, when I ran across and removed several references that felt were unreliable as they used original research such as "Parody of Darth Vader" and didn't use any kind of source template. Shortly after the IP reverted my removal. So I removed them again and added in my edit summary that they were unreliable and not to add them again. So the following January 18, they resorted to blanking the article and adding "Knock if off Sarujo" in it's place, as seen here. After their attempts to add those sources failed, they began moving the main character section back to the main article and added a further information tag in it's place on January 19, which deemed as vandalism I restored back. So now they have resorted to tag the article for deletion on concerns that it fails crystal, cruft, and original. Claiming that they proposed that the article be merged back with the main article. However, records show that no such proposal was ever made. Instead, they have simply tried to move the main characters section into the main Johnny Test article without prior notice. Now keep in mind that I agree that the article is in bad shape, but it's issues can be treated some copy editing, and an outright deletion or a redirect is a harsh and unnecessary action. It has been pointed out that main articles on various media such as television and video games should always only focus on the series itself and not on it's stars ad characters. Yet it is becoming more and more clear to me that since the IP couldn't edit the article as it suited them, then they would just rather delete it. Which to me comes off as an attempt to "game the system".

It is my belief that this IP is also in reality the editor that previously went by the the name Warmpuppy and the socks Warmpuppy2, E-Asiegbu, and IP:66.99.23.194. As this IP appeared after the aforementioned editor was indefinitely blocked for the same shenanigans that this IP is engaged in. When I called them on this, they went and used strikethrough on the section of my comment that included the statement and responded with quote: "What Warmpuppy? That ship has sailed.", all of which can be seen here. I am also not the only one that shares in this belief. They have also vandalized the main article at least once as seen here. Their talk page has quite a few warnings from other editors on their actions. Sarujo (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA is designed for situations where it is reasonable to hope that an editor will be responsive to feedback. For situations like this one where any possible assumption of good faith has been exhausted and admin action is necessary, it's more productive to ask for help at WP:ANI. Note that both this page and ANI require that you inform any editor that you open a request about. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the IP possibly being another editor may be reported at ] Gerardw (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Off2riorob

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have had several unexpectedly unpleasant interactions with Off2riorob in recent days. Off2riorob responded to a BLP/N question concerning possible synthesis in a biography I had created. The editor who raised the complaint agreed, after discussion and presentation of additional sources, that the sources supported the original statement, yet Off2riorob not only continued to insist they did not, but also removed from the article a statement summarising an episode reported in about 10% of reliable sources on the subject and thus in accordance with weight and BLP.

Off2riorob then called the 31-year-old subject of another article I had written a "girl", nominated the article for deletion, and began to delete relevant and well-sourced information, writing "its rubbish". The user, who because of past problems has promised to avoid edit warring, repeatedly reverted (e.g., and ) to maintain the deletions, made further deletions, including without edit summaries and attacked me personally ( and ) when I asked for talk page discussion of these deletions. My explanation of the editing environment at related articles (where several editors with strong personal interests in a particular illness usually dominate the editing) only prompted further attacks, along with a profession of pride for past behaviour resulting in blocks.

Considering:

• the user's prominence and potential influence at BLP/N,
• the user's extensive block history,
• a past promise not to edit war, contrasting with behaviour yesterday,
• several unexplained, unprovoked and surprisingly strongly worded personal attacks accusing me of agenda editing (the validity of which accusations I categorically reject)
• and a profession of pride for the user's block record,

I would like to request that others review the user's behaviour. I believe this user has done some good work at BLP/N, and has the potential to do more, but episodes such as this one are unpleasant and disruptive. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I second the motion. Despite some good work on the project, in my experience I find the user to be much more of a disruption than a help. The user's unpleasant demeanour is well-documented, and I am unsurprised to see that others are dismayed by the user's personal attacks to the extent of bringing the issue here. The user appears to see Misplaced Pages as a personal battleground instead of a field of civil collaboration, and previous blocks seem to have made little moderation in the undesirable behavior. (Full disclosure: the user brought me to this page some months ago with charges that were rapidly dismissed. When the user attempted to reopen the charges (regarding my bringing up the aforementioned blocks), he was rebuked by the admin in question. It is not my intent to reopen my own personal history with this user, but to back up others who feel the user has an ongoing problem with basic civility.) Jusdafax 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The third diff on DGG's talk page is not an attack, and calling any female a "girl" may be deemed un-PC, but not an attack, and not directed at the user. The fourth diff is one word "coatracking", again not an attack. The fifth diff is from August, not an attack. The sixth and seventh diffs are reverts, yes, but not attacks. The 8th diff appears to be a repeat diff of the single comment, the 9th is Off2riorob's attempt to explain his removal of material at the page in question, not an attack. The tenth diff is Off2riorob expressign frustration at POV in BLP, again not an attack. The past promise to not edit war does not impact on correctly removing POV statements, and the final diff about blocks agains has no attacks. That Off2riorob sees being blocked as part of the back and forth in WP is not a breach of Wikiquette, just a statment. As in uninvolved user I don't see any evidence here that Off2riorob has breached any wikiquette, he called a 31yo woman a girl but what does that have to do with the price of bread? The dispute is over a BLP article which may not meet the bar for notability, all Off2riorob has done is try to excise sections of the article which do not apply to the individual concerned. Keepcalmandcarryon is being a little sensitive about an issue which is being addressed at an AfD. If I was Off2riorob I would have nominated this for AfD after my first revert, rather than continuing to revert, but there's no breach of Wikiquette that I can see, nor has been presented here. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that although Off2riorob professes to wear his block log with pride, he hasn't been blocked since August. He is however violating his promise not to edit-war -- I would suggest thinking very carefully before deciding to do any more multi-reversion. The "it's rubbish" comment was also uncivil when directed toward the person who created the article. In short, Off2riorob needs to dial back the level of aggression. However, the most obvious thing about this matter is that there is a heated content dispute going on in which both sides are being overly aggressive. (To Darren: yes, the past promise not to edit war does impact on removing POV statements.) Looie496 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

@Looie496, surely Off2riorob is only "violating his promise" if he was carrying out an edit war? Off2riorob and Keepcalmandcarryon engaged in one parallel series of edits over a ~40 min period from ~23:15 on Jan 20. The two sets of diffs that Off2riorob made are and . Yes these include a partial redo, but if you check the difference text and history, you will see that the comments given by Off2riorob clearly explain the reason for his edits. Both of these sets were reverted by Keepcalmandcarryon and at this point move to the discussion pages. As far as I understand, one isolated incident does not make an edit war; it was also Off2riorob and not Keepcalmandcarryon who gave ground here before moving to discussion. -- TerryE (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Looie496, The "Its rubbish" talk page header was about the article, not the person. Off2riorob was saying the article was rubbish, not that Staycalmandcarryon was a rubbish editor. This section is titled "Personal attacks by Off2riorob", yet all that has been linked are reverts of POV pushing, discussion of those edits and promises made last August to not edit war. There are no personal attacks here, Off2riorob did express frustration over poorly written BLPs but that's not an attack. Off2riorob did make three edits that would have formed a 3RR report (version reverted to, 1RR, 2RR) but he stopped before making the 3rd reversion and discussed the edits. Unless the word "coatracking" is considered a personal insult then there is no breach, and this report should be closed. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point: the user accused me of agenda editing and POV pushing in several of the diffs given above. That's a personal attack. This is an editor with eight blocks in the span of several months in 2009 for precisely the sort of behaviour exhibited towards me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You did have a point of view, you felt that the parents, the foundation, the doctor and the medical trails for the new drug were relevant to a biography, Off2riorob felt that it was coatracking. He reverted you, you reverted back, he reverted then discussed his view on your edits, then the AfD started. POV is not a personal attack, coatracking is not an attack, and to have a record of being blocked before is not relevant to accusations of a personal attack. In the AfD TerryE agrees that the article is a coatrack. Since posting on your talk page on 19 January at 23:36 Off2riorob has not made edits to the article in question, the talk page or the AfD. There is no evidence of a personal attack, though Off2riorob's last post on your talk page could be called blunt it is not an attack, more of an opinion on editors and POV-pushing in general. The exchanges are about content, not Wikiquette. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just logged back in, after a couple of days break, (which I was in need of) to comment regarding the report..I called the woman a girl, that was a slip of the discussion, so she is a woman, fine by me, I meant nothing by it. My block record, actually I have seven blocks, I am not ashamed about them, although I do not want any more, it is wrong thinking about it to say that I am proud of them, I am not but they are part of my growth here and I know the specifics of what each and every one was regarding, a couple were edit wars and I also had a good growth experience of working for one month to one revert a day and this was a good lesson and a good process to learn how edit wars never work, and I think I also stopped well short of edit warring here, if I had stepped on or over the bright line that is edit warring this report would have gone straight to the 3RR noticeboard I was upset though, at the end of my tether you could say. As for my near the knuckle comments on User:Keepcalmandcarryon talkpage..I did ask User:Keepcalmandcarryon "Do you mind if we have a open discussion about this, as adults? expressing our honest opinions?" I don't know if he understood what I meant but I meant could we talk without the restrictions that some of wikis policies put on general discussion, and he appeared to say that was ok and as we were on talkpage I said things I was feeling which I would not have said without asking if we could talk openly as adults.User:Keepcalmandcarryon took my commenting that the content was coatracking as an attack, it was not, coatracking can be easily done and easily corrected by a merger or some other solution. I was perhaps over reacting to the situation which perhaps was compounded by multiple unrelated situations at other articles and nothing to do with User:Keepcalmandcarryon, so although I feel I haven't stepped over any bright lines here I am prepared to take the report on board and learn from the report. So if I was a bit near the knuckle with User:Keepcalmandcarryon I am sorry that he became upset through our interaction and happily apologize to him about that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive response, I think that it addresses all the issues. It would be well to realize in future that people may easily be offended by harsh language even if they express willingness to have an open discussion -- things like that should always be handled cautiously. Looie496 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jemma Redgrave

I saw on the entry for Jemma Redgrave that someone has posted under the Personal Life heading:"She is married to Tim Owen, with whom she has one weirdo Gabriel and one child Alfie".

I do not know Ms Redgrave or her family, but this seems unkind. Perhaps it should be changed to reflect that Ms Redgrave has two children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.18.80 (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just vandalism, not an etiquette problem, but thanks for pointing it out. Its been fixed. Tobyc75 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

House1090 making personal attacks/civility violations/abuses against the English language on my talk page

Thread located here: User_talk:Amerique#Double_Check. I have diffs of other incidents... I would try explaining civility and NPA policies to him personally but don't think he would listen to me. Amerique 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit by House1090 (talk · contribs) looks very much like trolling, and this response is completely unacceptable. Given that both House1090 and Amerique have been warned against edit-warring with each other, House1090 is advised that in my opinion these edits are already uncivil enough to justify a block. Even so, Amerique is advised that it would have been better to check for sources before removing the passage in question here. Clearly this is a case of two editors who have a bad interaction with each other, but the behavior by House1090 is unacceptable regardless. Looie496 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What! It was not intended to be uncivil but rather a warning. He's the one that told me to shut up, then I recommended him to read Misplaced Pages:Civil. He has all ways told me mean and unappropriate things. Honestly, if I do get a block or something, so should he. House1090 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WQA is not the place to come for blocks, it is the place to come for outside opinions about civility. I don't want to express a view about other interactions that I haven't looked at, but in any case it is not acceptable to carry out vendettas. In this interaction, you started it, you provoked an angry response, and then you responded in a way that is so uncivil as to justify a block. There can never be any excuse for "deal with me like civilized americans or get out! No one needs nor wants you here." That is way outside the limits. Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay it was bad from my part but Amerique has never respected me. I am at the point where I dont want to respect him either. I have never insulted him until today, and I admit it was wrong of me. Also how is warning someone provoking a fight/argument? He does it to me all the time and I just learned to ignore it. But you can only push some one so far, and he pushed me that far today. I said things I should of never had said, and I am going to be the bigger person by apologizing first. Sorry. House1090 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nice, House. I concede that my response was less than completely civil, but from my perspective I am dealing with someone who routinely misunderstands what he reads, fails to WP:AGF and then makes accusations or false claims of others based upon his faulty understanding, such as:

• Here: where he represents User:MissionInn.Jim as supporting a page move he spent several days arguing against here: Talk:Inland_Empire_(California)#Name_Change.

• Here: where he accuses User:SoCal_L.A. of vandalism for editing his preferred version of that portal.

• Here:User:Emerson7/archiv#What.3F.21 where House's misunderstanding of the concept of extension causes him to take offense and accuse User:Emerson7 of vandalism and edit warring over this: Talk:San_Bernardino_County,_California#Named_for...

• Here: where he accuses User:Binksternet of vandalism for editing out his POV here: Crafton, California.

His "complaint" against me on my talk page likewise shows that he doesn't know what the term "revert" means and so he "warns" me against violating his confused apprehension of that, in the process violating the policies he cites. I don't know if this guy knows himself to be consciously lying or if he actually believes what he says at the moment. In real life I would avoid people like this but if the content of Misplaced Pages I care something about is to be defended I must engage. I am trying to remain as civil as I can in that process. So House, again, "put up" by learning to make coherent arguments or "shut up" if this is impossible. Amerique 02:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cant you say it nicer? With your large expansive vocabulary? To tell you the truth I wont shut up "put up", and I am done discussing this. FYI, I just wanted to tell you to be careful of what you do is all! I did not know you were going to make a big scene about it. House1090 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Check yourself before bringing your bs accusations to other's talk pages and engaging in revert wars. Regards, Amerique 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility begets incivility. Gerardw (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Amerique, the most you can expect at WQA is for the other editor to admit being wrong. You got that, and instead of accepting it, you put yourself in the wrong by poking at the wound. House1090 started the current episode by poking at you for no good reason; after he backed down, you poked at him for no good reason. Both of you need to stop shoving each other. If one of you is behaving so badly that it disrupts the ability to edit articles, the other needs to go to WP:ANI and ask for admin intervention -- there is nothing more that WQA can accomplish here. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All right. I realize my language was harsh but quite frankly I find what seems to be a form of functional illiteracy errant on WP far more offensive than incivility. This is obviously a deep prejudice of mine... I have a low tolerance for this, and if this is what his behavior shows, how to deal with it? The only reason I haven't gone to ANI is because if allowed to continue editing over the long term he may be able to use WP to learn how to write and how to make evidence-based arguments. However, I don't know if the problem is correctable, if attempts to fix his edits are met with reverts and accusations of vandalism, etc. I've seen that he has been able to do promising work with some other people, that he is capable of editing some aspects of the encyclopedia in ways that are within his means, so I don't really want him off Misplaced Pages, but I also don't want the content of WP to be... "misinformed" might be a polite way of putting it, when he tries to edit in areas that are outside of his competency.

That is where I am at with this. I say this knowing we all have our limitations, and I acknowledge that I have limited patience for dealing with what seems to me functional illiteracy on WP. Encountering this can lead me to make civility violations of my own. I realize trading incivility for incivility or illiteracy is not the right way of approaching the issue, but I'm not by profession a teacher and view bad grammar in any adult as evidence of the larger failure of the educational system. So, encountering what looks like this upsets me, I have a lot of contempt for this, but I know that taking it out on the bearer does not help the immediate or the larger situation. I would like to be able to change both in a real way. To the extent my apology can progress these circumstances, House1090 has that. I apologize to House1090. I will try harder not to be incivil to him in the future. Amerique 06:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That's not entirely satisfactory, but we're not going to accomplish anything by continuing here. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution