Revision as of 22:29, 31 May 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

Problems with Doniago and Penbat

Problems with Penbat

I could really use some advice on how to proceed in resolving this situation. Several days ago I reverted edits made by Penbat. Said editor edited Mobbing to include links to numerous films, and then added same as a "See Also" link on multiple film articles in a very short period of time. Concerned that this might be vandalism as there were no edit summaries and the changes were being made extremely quickly, I reverted the edits and gave Penbat a Level 2 Vandalism warning, as Penbat isn't a new editor and past editors have raised concerns on Penbat's Talk page.

Penbat's initial reaction to my changes was to ask for adminhelp and open an item at WP:AN (a situation which was archived without resolution, btw) without notifying me of either action. Rather, they left a heated message on my Talk page which indicated they -might- take action (but didn't reflect the actions they actually took).

Since then Penbat has characterized my edits as Vandalism, reverted my reversion of their edits despite discussion on the Mobbing Talk Page which hadn't reached consensus but certainly didn't seem to support Penbat's initial changes, and has left edit summaries and notes on other users' Talk pages which border on personal attacks, if they don't in fact go well past the border.

I don't feel Penbat's reactions to my reversion of their edits are in any way warranted, and given their behavior since then I don't feel I can have a constructive dialog with them.

Please advise as to how I can best resolve this issue. It is very frustrating to see my good faith actions consistently criticized by a user who in turn shows no willingness to concede any responsibility of their own or a willingness to discuss the matter. Doniago (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If it is true that you reverted Penbat's links to numerous films, and similar links at See also, primarily because the edits were not accompanied by edit summaries, were made in a very short period of time, and because other Users have raised similar concerns at Penbat's Talk page, I would say your actions were inappropriate. Giving Penbat a vandalism warning was definitely not warranted. I am not surprised Penbat has not reacted well.

The quality of an edit must be based solely on the technical merit of the edit itself. Extraneous considerations such as the absence of edit summaries, the speed of editing, and what other Users have thought in the past are usually not relevant to the technical merit of the edit in question. When you see the need to revert an edit, but there is some possibility the edit might have been made in good faith, I recommend you leave a constructive message on the User's Talk page explaining why you reverted his edit(s). A vandalism warning, or an angry response of any kind, should be the last resort rather than the first action.

It will be quite a while before cordial relations between you and Penbat are possible. I suggest you take a break from editing Mobbing for at least a few days and allow things to cool down. Dolphin (t) 03:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to that page in several days at this time. In fact I wasn't even aware of its existence until Penbat's serial edits to the film articles.

IMO, far too much weight is being placed on the use of a warning template, especially given that the definition for the warning template used is a "no faith" assumption; i.e. I did -not- assume bad faith. Also...it's one message. It isn't as though Penbat was faced with any sort of disciplinary action.

Regardless of whether or not my edit was appropriate, I don't believe what I did in any way justifies the level of retaliation I've received since. As you didn't appear to specifically address that, I would appreciate some clarification on whether you feel that Penbat's actions -are- justfied. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe you have been subjected to retaliation from Penbat please respond here and give the diffs. For information on harvesting diffs see WP:D&L. The WP:WQA community will be happy to comment on specific instances of behaviour by Penbat, but you need to provide the diffs. Dolphin (t) 04:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You have already provided this diff and I have read it carefully. In this diff Penbat states that he is extremely annoyed but in my view that does not qualify as unreasonable retaliation or uncivil behaviour. Perhaps you can identify other examples that you regard as retaliation? Dolphin (t) 04:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Diffs-

Penbat threatens to report me to WP:AIV

Penbat reports me on WP:AN without notifying me

Penbat characterizes my good faith edits as Vandalism and disregards an ongoing discussion about their edits

I'm again accused of vandalism

And again

Rather than respond to my own WQA thread Penbat opens one of their own in apparent retaliation

Penbat continues to characterize my actions without any consideration for AGF

Doniago (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Doniago, thanks for providing the diffs.

I agree that in the following edit summaries Penbat mentions Doniago in a derogatory manner: diff1 and diff2

In general, User names should not be mentioned in an accusatory or derogatory manner in edit summaries, particularly as the content of edit summaries cannot be erased or revised.

Penbat made this adverse comment about you diff3 in response to this comment you made about him: diff

The rest of the diffs supplied by Doniago don’t illustrate significantly uncivil behaviour. It is every User’s prerogative, including Penbat’s, to raise issues of concern at WP:ANI and WP:WQA. Taking action to raise these issues, or threatening to do so, don’t constitute unsatisfactory or unacceptable behaviour.

My view of the situation is that communication between Doniago and Penbat has deteriorated progressively in a chain reaction. Each action by one has provoked an aggressive response from the other, and so on. In their frustration, both have resorted to antagonism as an attempt to repair the situation. Neither Doniago nor Penbat can claim to have displayed exemplary behaviour in recent times.

In future, Doniago should be more careful in reverting work that was done in good faith (or might have been done in good faith.) He should make greater use of User talk pages to communicate constructively about text he thinks is inappropriate or should be deleted for any reason.

In future, Penbat should resist the temptation to ridicule another User or mention another User in a derogatory manner, particularly in an edit summary. It should now be clear from this page that ridiculing another User can ultimately prove to be counterproductive. When a dispute over content gets too frustrating it is always possible to ask for input from other independent Users by raising the case at WP:RFC.

Doniago and Penbat should now both take a break of a few days from editing in areas that bring each other in to conflict. When they return, they should display exemplary behaviour towards each other. If either fails to do so, the matter can be raised again here at WP:WQA where stronger action might be considered appropriate. Dolphin (t) 06:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Doniago

I am having problems with user User:Doniago who has IMO behaved in a bizarre and audacious manner and i recommend that he is suspended. He has now compounded the issue by wasting even more valuable time of conscientious editors. He should have just behaved civilly by starting a discussion on Talk:Mobbing from the start instead of throwing bizarre accusations of vandalism around and making wholesale deletions to constructive text.

Tim Pierce examined my edits and no evidence of "vandalism" on my part, see User_talk:Penbat.

1. my edits on Mobbing are entirely constructive - I have added material and not deleted any material
2. the edits are supported by an authoritative cited source.
3. my cited source is the world's leading authority on mobbing Kenneth Westhues and it took him years to develop his list of films that feature mobbing.
4. while i deleted no text, User:Doniago edits made wholesale destructive deletions. He deleted each of the individual "see also" entries i made in the individual film articles as well as text in mobbing. If there was any vandalism involved, it was entirely by User:Doniago not me.
5. User:Doniago admitted that he knew absolutely nothing about the subject of mobbing while I am a relative expert
6. when user User:Doniago undid my edits he amazingly actually rolled back well before I started the contentious text and I have had to spend time clearing up the mess as another editor worked on mobbing in the meantime
7. Tim Pierce has already explained on Talk:Mobbing that the idea of using Category:Films involving mobbing is a non-starter and I totally agree with him for the reasons given.
8. the edits I did created an excellent synergy with an authoritative example list of films in Mobbing (with "See also" links back to mobbing from the individual film articles) where the concept of mobbing is discussed in detail and the link by Kenneth Westhues explains precisely why each film listed is an example of mobbing. From the point of view of the mobbing article, the film list provides useful illustrations of mobbing to the lay reader as the mobbing article otherwise mainly consists of quite dry academic material.--Penbat (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this already the subject of a recent AN thread?, and considering he filed a report about you above, this makes this report seem a bit retaliatory. Why not just reply above? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the question of retaliatory actions on Penbat's part, I'd submit User_talk:Twp#Mobbing and User_talk:FT2#Mobbing for consideration. Doniago (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Penbat. I can see that communications between you and Doniago have been seriously strained lately. There have been wholesale deletions of text, accusations of vandalism, reluctance to use Talk pages to discuss matters, and antagonism. The problems have escalated to the point of provocation, so both you and Doniago have been provoked to behaviour that is not normally acceptable on Misplaced Pages. I can see it has been very exasperating. Now there are matching reports here at WP:WQA. Hopefully those two reports can cause the heat to die down.

I have responded to Doniago’s Wikiquette alert. See the diff. I have recommended that Doniago should be more careful in reverting work that was done in good faith. I have recommended that you should resist the temptation to ridicule another User or mention another User in a derogatory manner.

Unfortunately we aren’t able to say that one User has behaved badly and the other User has behaved well. The only way ahead is for you both to leave the inappropriate and provocative behaviour in the past, and move on. I have recommended that you and Doniago take a break of at least a few days from editing in areas that are likely to bring you into conflict with each other. When you return you should both display a new, constructive approach to Misplaced Pages and to each other. If either fails to behave appropriately the matter should be raised again here and stronger action against the offender might be considered appropriate.

Wherever you see persistent problems with the content of articles it is always possible to use WP:3O to seek a third opinion from an independent User. Happy editing! Dolphin (t) 03:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Cush

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

I would like to document here the following uncivil comments made by User:Cush on a single talk page over a 48 hour span:

• "Of course theology is BS." (20:50, 26 May 2010)
• "Theology is just circle wank, nothing else." (10:17, 26 May 2010)
• "In private, I call that bullshit." (16:53, 25 May 2010)
• "BTW a huge date range such as 440 years rather indicates that the source has no fucking clue as to the actual date of origin." (16:12, 25 May 2010)
• "Radday assigns authorship to biblical patriarchs?? Including antediluvians? Are you shitting us?" (00:11, 25 May 2010)

If this is indicative of the rest of this user's conduct on Misplaced Pages, I should think it should be escalated beyond a "Wikiquette alert". It seems obvious from two prior requests for comment (15:13, 4 November 2009, and 21:36, 22 February 2010 that I'm not the first to make this observation. HokieRNB 02:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If this sort of concern was already escalated to RfC/U twice within the last 6 months (a step above WQA), then it's not very appropriate to bring it down to this venue. I'd suggest you move this straight to an admin noticeboard, and if that doesn't work, perhaps arbitration is the only remaining option. This is assuming that the concerns raised in the RfC/U are similar to those you are raising here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad behavior from User:Niteshift36

This user decided to make chest-puffing references to his personal fearsomeness in response to an admittedly harsh remark on my part, then proceeded to assert a unilateral right to deface my talk page. Hey, if he wants to show up to a Bullshido Throwdown, he has my invitation and blessing, but apparently he'd rather vandalize and patronize than adhere to WP:DONTBITE. Cy Q. Faunce (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to defend anything I wrote. I told the editor to stop posting on my talk page (and he continued to post on it). He did not make a similar request, so I made one further post there. As for his idea that I should fly halfway across the country to "prove myself" to him....I haven't stopped chuckling over that. And someone with as many WP:BITEy posts as he has in the AfD about his pet website has no room to invoke BITE at all. There isn't even a violation here for him to complain about. He's just getting pissy because I refuse to continue playing his game. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Cy Q. Faunce because his behaviour fell well beyond what is expected according to the civility policy but I would agree in part with Cy Q. Faunce that Niteshift36's comments aren't exactly conducive to a calm atmosphere either. All of these edits are examples which don't exactly promote a pleasant atmosphere. Adambro (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• No, they don't promote a pleasant atmoshpere. That wasn't my intention either. I'd already put up with days of his silliness, distortions and outright lies. Simply didn't care about promoting anything with him, pleasant or otherwise, by then. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

user:Andyjsmith's posting of illegal download and malware

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

In the discussion of pending deletion for Spaceduck, the user User:Andyjsmith has knowingly posted links to an illegal downloading site offering BBC copyrighted material (without identifying it as illegal). I was baited into clicking it and routed to a site which infected my computer with malware. I've spent the last hour scrubbing it from my hard drive.

Given Andyjsmith's growing hostility and harassment of me, I am sure that he deliberately tricked me into clicking that link to damage my computer. The link was near the bottom of the page; I've manually deleted it to protect others, but it can be seen in Andyjsmith's prior edit. Just be sure your AV software is up to date.

Even if not deliberate, shouldn't he be warned for knowingly posting illegal downloads to copyrighted material and malware sites on wikipedia?

Beyond that, I feel User:Andyjsmith has breached the civility guidelines with (1.c) ill-considered accusations (frivolous sock puppet investigation) (1.d) belittling a fellow editor, judgemental edit summaries Special:Contributions/Andyjsmith ("don't feed the trolls", "more hoaxing") (2.c) lying to mislead & asserting false information (claiming he had investigated links, but he hadn't)

as well as discrediting me on other peoples' talk pages, and making my own (talk) page look like a war zone with all the red alerts, when he could've easily told me on the article talk page what I was doing wrong.

A cursory look at his Special:Contributions/Andyjsmith shows that he's on a crusade to speedily delete anything he doesn't agree with, without offering any constructive input or discussion. I'm not the first newbie he's antagonized. Isn't there a rule about good faith and no biting?

I don't care so much about the harassment, but that illegal downloading site and malware attack was brutal. Clearly a violation of wiki rules and US federal law.

What can be done about a user like this? Chazella (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Chazella is engaged in sockpuppetry and trolling (of which this is an example). I foolishly fed the troll. This user's contributions, those of Wikisicky and the edit history of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spaceduck make the situation very clear. It's also worth noting that the article that this row is about, Spaceduck, has previously been speedied as an obvious hoax. andy (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Concur with andy - Chazella is not making reasonable arguments on the AfD discussion. GregJackP (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• I agree; this seems to be merely trolling. I began the AfD discussion in question but have refrained from further comment; if this is evidence of bias, so be it. I'll just suggest that anyone interested in this matter should look at the entire complicated edit history of the AfD and the talk pages of everyone mentioned in the above paragraphs, etc., and make up their own minds. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• This is nothing more than trolling. For those that are interested, this is the diff which gives the website details of the supposed 'malware' that Andy posted. I have checked the torrents website with AVG and perhaps not surprisingly AVG reports "Safe: This page contains no active threats". From all the research I've done the page seems to be legal and it is most certainly not trying to download malware to any computer! The BBC website mentioned is also showing up as OK and the BBC are definitely not an illegal website! Can I ask though why the AFD discussion now has a copyright tag placed on it? --5 albert square (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• As a note for the reviewing admin, Chazella was recently given an indefinite block for vandalism via the AIV process. GregJackP (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Just one more note - this got spammed to quite a number of pages. Probably best to ignore and move on. Shell 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Androstachys

In the course of a content dispute on Talk:Lindblad resonance, Androstachys has engaged in several personal attacks directed against me. Examples include:

• "It is not my job to teach you basic English"
• "None so blind as those who will not see"
• In the context of a discussion of dictionaries, "Do look up the word 'mumpsimus'". This not only implies I don't know what the word means, it also implies that I am one (for those who need a definition, it is "a person who obstinately adheres to old ways in spite of clear evidence that they are wrong; an ignorant and bigoted opponent of reform", per Wiktionary)
• This insult was then repeated, after I said my patience for personal attacks was running out, "Rather than making inappropriate threats have you even bothered looking up the word 'mumpsimus'?"

I also have grave complaints about Androstachys' editing behavior, though I recognize that this is probably not the right forum to discuss that. We have put out an RFC, but so far it has been ignored. But I especially would like something to be done about the personal attacks. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My Chambers Dictionary defines mumpsimus as "an error cherished after exposure: stubborn conservatism". It would need an ultra-sensitive soul to see a personal attack or insult in this. A large part of his/her indignation seems to be based on speculation as to what I was implying. I also resent BlueMoonlet's "grave complaints" about my "editing behaviour" without being specific. This really is much ado about nothing Androstachys (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You were talking specifically about looking up words on Wiktionary, where the definition is as I quoted it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Discuss the CONTENT of the article and not the CONTRIBUTOR. Active Banana (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No - you assumed that I wanted you to look up the word in Wiktionary. But ask yourself why I would invite you to consult Wiktionary when I had just criticised its treatment of the word "media". Really, cut me some slack! Androstachys (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So are you trying to say that you didn't mean any offense? There are less confrontational ways of saying so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't and of course there are. I think most other editors would have shrugged it off. Androstachys (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then let me put it more plainly: you think/thought wrong. Please strike those parts of your commentary quoted explicitly at the top of this Wikiquette alert report, and ensure you engage in appropriate conduct during discussions in the future (making a statement that you will would go a long way also). That will be enough to resolve this WQA (unless you want this to be marked stuck where the filing party would be required to escalate to the next step in dispute resolution). Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No - I don't think that any reasonable editor would feel that my words were uncivil. BlueMoonlet triggered this incident by patronisingly telling me "It is not Misplaced Pages's job to fix "mistakes" made by reliable sources. I am reverting the changes now. If you come up with relaible sources to support your view, we can talk again in this space about changing it back. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)" and then displaying hurt innocence when I responded in kind. Androstachys (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Something else - The heading of this complaint reads "Incivility by Androstachys" as if that were a foregone conclusion - the reason for the matter to be discussed here is to determine whether I was uncivil. It is a prejudicial heading. Androstachys (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A look at the comments suggests that it is an appropriate heading so there is no sense in changing it - that you are utterly unreceptive to the feedback that has been given to you suggests that there is little point in continuing this further at this venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the article and the dispute. A bit of shallow research clearly shows that BlueMoonlet is right on both accounts - grammar and (in)civility. IMO this was a civil remark, whereas this reply was uncivil. I have restored the grammatically "correct" version and left a comment on the talk page. DVdm (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up this matter, which needed your clear and incisive mind to cut through the complexities. Androstachys (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that "this matter was cleared up", then why did you continue acting on the article () and on the talk page () as if no matter was cleared up? Do you think that these edits are compatible with expressing thanks "for clearing up this matter"?

Furthermore, do you think that this ("which needed your clear and incisive mind to cut through the complexities") was a civil comment? DVdm (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have left a 3RR on Androstachys' talk page.

I also have reported this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit Warring by Androstachys. DVdm (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci

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

It didn't take long for the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arthur_Jensen:_Do_serious_accusations_from_potentially_biases_sources_require_a_higher_standard_of_proof.3F to degrade into name-calling. I'm almost relieve it all fell apart before I could manage my first reply to the abuse (and inevitably get sucked in): , , , . Rvcx (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem that you and Off2iorob attempted to make your own personal judgement on a 123 page paper written in 1969 in educational psychology.

Usually in psychology textbooks this particular paper is referred to as notorious or controversial. This is a preposterous thing to attempt to do. When we edit wikipedia articles, we can't read research like this ourselves - we need secondary sources and the same thing applies on WP:BLPN. There you claimed that ] was a malicious academic (what evidence?), that commentary from his article was malicious (what evidence), that Jensen hadn't published any statements on eugenics (what evidence?), or on rote learning vs abstract conceptual learning (what evidence?), that he had never published anything on applying this differentially to blacks and whites (what evidence?). You responded so quickly that you couldn't have looked at the sources I provided (about six different sources). You made claims of libel about published books by Cambridge University Press and University of Illinois Press, probably without ever looking at the books to substantiate that very serious allegation. The quick fire comments suggested that there was no attempt to examine sources. I would that would take the average person about 2 or 3 hours. Mathsci (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I did none of those things, however I did spend ninety minutes reading through a lot of material trying and failing to verify some text about Jensen's views on race. If reliable sources can be found for the statements then great; post them at the noticeboard. But I'm not able to work with you if you take such an insulting, condescending, and combative approach. Rvcx (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You responded extremely rapidly, making unfounded statements about potential libel. On the other hand, you cannot have had any chance to examine my arguments in a calm way nor to go about checking the sources, which as I say would take 2-3 hours. Instead you started analysing the 1969 paper of Jensen. I questioned why you thought you were in any position to make remarks on such a paper (as wikipedia editors we certainly can't). I objected because you were acting as if you had some expertise in being able to interpret such a paper. No wikipedian has that expertise. That is why we use secondary sources. Why did you make statements about libel? Why did you start trying to analyse whether Jensen had discussed eugenics? You were responding far too rapidly - too me at the speed of a video game - without carefully examining the sources, or indeed paying any attention to the detailed remarks that I wrote. The fact that you have brought this here is not particularly helpful, is it? Mathsci (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good grief; has it occurred to you that it might take less time to read or look up a source (particularly one that you've either already read, or have readily available) than it does to make a post on Misplaced Pages? Has it also occurred to you that calling other Wikipedians "amateurs", even during difficult situations, is likely to serve to escalate a dispute rather than deescalate? And finally, has it occurred to you that you could effectively convey the same point without the bad faith assumptions and increasingly strident rhetoric? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(od) May I suggest that mathsci refactor this post. Then we can all move on with our lives. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also consider refactoring the part about "reality" in this comment also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the part about arbcom which is uncalled for. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this aren't really helping the situation. Rvcx (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And we're still going. Rvcx (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or is MathSci's behavior absurd? Here he accuses me of accusing Williams Tucker of being "a dishonest and partisan liar," when, in fact, I have done nothing of the sort. If anything, I think that the problem is either that MathSci misinterprets Tucker or that Tucker has made an honest mistake. Perhaps a more senior admin could counsel MathSci about his behavior? He has heeded none of the advice provided above by other uninvolved editors. His contributions are 99% excellent, but his attitude when challenged on the other 1% is, I think, uncalled for. David.Kane (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What we have here is a clear over reaction to what seems to general indifference to the WP:CPUSH issues currently plaguing various race related articles. I don't think Mathsci's behaviour is excusable, but I expect that until the WP:CPUSH issue is resolved flareups like this will continue. A.Prock (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

<= In this case David.Kane opened a case on WP:BLPN claiming that only critics ill-disposed to Arthur Jensen had reported that he had suggested the possibility of rote learning for blacks. When I realized the submission had been made, two editors were simultaneously active on BLPN, rapidly adding comments, so that any carefully documented response by me always ended up with multiple edit conflicts: I found that extremely confusing. Just things going too fast. Now as it turns out, after a lot of hard work (as is usual with locating neutral secondary sources), I have found several other sources, two of which have now been posted on BLPN. They make exactly the same statement as the one contested by David.Kane, but this time are written by writers of straightforward textbooks (on psychology and gifted education). That lays to rest the claims of a BLP violation. On WP:BLPN I did have the impression that editors were too quick to assume that David.Kane's claims were correct; but it was quite a strange and highly unusual submission accompanied as it was by unsupported hearsay about two quite eminent academics, whose reputations remain unblemished. I imagine it was confusing for everybody; certainly it was for me. I apologize unreservedly to Rvcx for any offence accidentally caused during the handling of this extraordinary and, as it turns out, unwarranted submission. Apologies again. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First, your narrative of the events is just plain false. The initial notice requesting help verifying some text went up at 14:19, the first response was posted almost two hours later, your rebuttal came twenty minutes after that, my first post addressing the initial complaint was another twenty minutes later (i.e. three hours after the original notice), and my followup including a broader review of sources was another half hour after that. That's all it took for you to start attacking me as an ignorant amateur who hadn't read anything and didn't know what I was talking about.

You also mischaracterize the substance of the concerns that have been raised, but this isn't the venue for that discussion.

What I find particularly troubling is that even now you seem to deny any legitimacy to the points that other editors have raised. I appreciate your fresh attempt at a civil tone, but you still don't seem interested in real engagement, only in getting your own way. Rvcx (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What legitimacy could there be given a reasonable knowledge of the 123 spage manuscript, the high standards of an academic publisher like University of Illinois Press and the impeccable reputation of the two authors? I think I spent a lot of time writing and researching the article, so, like other editors on the page, familiar with the extensive literature (History of the race and intelligence controversy has over 80 references all put there by me), there was not much doubt of the correctness of the summary. But to make that evaluation needed a lot of experienece with the material: I've spent two months on this material, The problem is that wikipedians cannot make a summary of a primary source, particular in this case where it concerns a very controversial paper. We have to use use a secondary source. But of course, in real life, when we're not wearing our wikipedian hats, we're perfectly capable of checking what's said in the article, when it's not too technical. But that is no use for editing. Finding secondary sources takes a long time, sometimes hours just for one source or image. Ingenuity is required. It took me about twelve hours to find everything. For eugenics that would have been even harder, just because those writing on eugenics, particularly in the context of African Americans, are rarely neutral, for fairly obvious reasons. So for a complex historical document like this, finding new secondary sources when somebody requests them is not really feasible. Many editors commenting on that page, including administrators, judged that the request was without merit. Having looked at the two new sources, do you agree that the statements cited there are not BLP violations? Mathsci (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made my views on the content dispute clear over and over again, and every time you have simply refused to consider the possibility of any problems with what you've written. We all know that writing is hard. Finding sources is hard. But if you write something and it's tough to verify, or it assigns undue weight to one inconsequential matter, then it needs to be fixed. This isn't a negation of your time or effort. What's more, if there is one lesson you need to internalize about Misplaced Pages it's that justifying anything on the basis of your own expertise is completely inappropriate. Assuming that other editors don't have your expertise, and that they need to prove their qualifications before you will consider the input: also inappropriate. Rvcx (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

More insulting behavior from MathSci (note the edit comment). Is this sort of behavior encouraged at Misplaced Pages? If so, I should start making my edit summaries snappier! David.Kane (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment with alleged sexual innuendo

The following has been placed on my discussion page ] User:PeeJay2K3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brudder Andrusha (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont know that I agree about "sexual innuendo", but the reinsertion of that content on a userpage is inappropriate. I have left a note on the users talk page Active Banana (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not inappropriate to reinsert content when the other user refuses to take the message on board. By starting this discussion here, User:Brudder Andrusha has shown a complete disregard for the message contained within WP:DICK, which was the whole reason for me posting it on her talk page to begin with. – PeeJay 08:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is inappropriate. See WP:OWNTALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sean.hoyland and I add that this can lead to edit-warring which is obviously not a good practice, especially on other users' talkpages. Not to mention that I just noticed that the reverts were made using the rollback tool. In cases where there is no vandalism involved using rollback to revert is clearly improper and can lead to the removal of WP:ROLLBACK. Dr.K.  11:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• When someone removes something from their talk page, you shouldn't put it back again. They saw the message already, and don't want to see it again. Take your own advice, and don't be a dick about it. Dream Focus 12:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Picking up on the "sexual innuendo" part: no, it's not (as I'm sure Brudder Andrusha now realises). However, I'd recommend in future that PeeJay2K3 avoid such terse communications. If it's necessary to say "don't be a dick", I feel it's also necessary to explain why you feel another editor is being "a dick". This doesn't entirely fit within WP:DTTR, but it's not far off. TFOWR 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:G8crash3r has ignored a Final Warning about NPA

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

User:G8crash3r recieved a final warning regarding WP:NPA on May 22 . Today the editor resumed the personal attacks, calling me a Wikinazi.

(Before this most recent attack, I had previously brought the matter here to ask for a third party to intervene and remind G8crash3r that personal attacks are not acceptable. However, that request became entangled in another more complicated request and no one responded to either )

This time I am hoping that G8crash3r will be told in no uncertain terms that personal attacks are not tolerated. Active Banana (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC):

Oh, yeah, how about Ceoil, why not include him? --g8crash3r 18:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to fix your signature g8crash3r, per WP:SIGLINK. "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) So far, my knowledge of Ceoil personal attacks have been limited to one day and one editor, which have not quite reached the point that I feel seeking third party intervention is necessary. But if you have other evidence that this is a pattern of behavior which requires outside intervention, please feel free to compile the evidence and file a notice of his behavior on your own. If there have been editors other than myself that he has attacked, I fully support the community working in a manner that will reduce the enviornment that tacitly allows personal attacks to be made over time without consequences. Active Banana (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

while I was posting above, this series of edits appeared and did cross the line, but third parties were simultaneously intervening.' Active Banana (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it is egregious enough to warrant a block, with or without warnings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment: I'd almost be OK with "Wikinazi". I am not OK with the exact phrase used: ...Active Banana is such an arrogant Misplaced Pages Nazi... as it seems to clearly violate WP:NPA: ...political...epithets... directed against another contributor. TFOWR 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil's edit summaries calling the removal of "was blessed with" vandalism (eg and one shortly before that one) suggest that he doesn't understand the behavior we expect from editors. If G8crash3r does not make it clear that he understands that his behavior is not acceptable and that he will stop, he can expect to be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) (I know this is closed, but as Ceoil says his bare 'rv' edit summary wasn't meant to indicate vandalism, it's only fair that I mention it and not leave my edit as it stood. His talk page comments...) Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Such a comment is unacceptable, past history or not. I have blocked the user for 24 hours. As far as I am concerned, he can either take this block as a warning that such comments are not tolerated, or he can take advantage of an unblock request to evidence to an unblocking admin that he has, very much so, learnt to alter his behaviour and understands how to be civil. He has clearly been told before, and needs to learn that final warning means final warning. SGGH 18:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening SGGH; agree 100%. Will close this thread as the ANI is open on the same subject. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations from admin

See diffs: , . I tried to resolve this on the user's talk page, pointing out lack of evidence and the non-constructive nature of accusations like this that aren't acted on. As a new user, am I expected to act with complete disregard and ignorance in order to avoid this sort of thing? I don't want every action I make being given a black mark by an admin. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As your comments haven't addressed the issue, I'll ask the obvious question. Have you ever edited Misplaced Pages under a different user name? Dayewalker (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I've read a lot of policy over the years though, just through idle browsing of arguments on talk pages, etc., and I've certainly read through a few policy docs. I've made a few minor edits as an IP over the past five years. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD is a hotbed of sockpuppetry and many sockpuppets have been caught out by behavioural indicators like over-familiarity with process. There are no 'black marks' here, no template warnings on your talk page, no entries in your block log, no SPI report; righteous indignation at the suggestion that you're not a new user is an overreaction. If you're a new editor then ignore this and get on with editing. Fences&Windows 15:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't fancy having my comments invalidated because people like you decide to append them with "sockpuppet". This would have ended if you were able to swallow your pride and recant the statements you made, or explain how they are constructive and not just attacks on me because you disagreed with my AfD request; instead you restated them as fact. You're making these accusations publicly where other people will read them. I don't want an immediate negative reputation because of your problem. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But let's just forget it. I can't see you cooperating in any way, and this is publicly documented well enough for me now. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ÅlandÖland

I'd like to report some uncivility from the above user User:ÅlandÖland. See also

• I tried to enter a simple post at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stephen Griffiths to which the user responded, but continued to do so with sarcastic edit summaries such as "some truths" and "advice to inexperienced user" totally against WP:DONTBITE.
• At no point have I attacked him yet he has also left two messages on my talk page to suggest that I have. He also made an edit summary on his own talk page "reverting personal attack. even though i have tried to clam the user down" when I tried to talk to him.
• And finally when I left him another message, his advice was simply "One good way to stop this discussion is easy. I dont answer you and you dont write me anymore. If you continue to write me or being uncivil i will have to give you further warnings. Happy editing".

While I don't want to report him for any ban, I've been upset and offended by his tone with me, when all I was trying to do in the first place was make one suggestion. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the IP above. I messaged AlandOland on his talk page. (By the way, for being an IP with no other edits you look quite well experienced in policies and WP. Do you usually edit(ed) with another account? No accusation, just a curiosity.) --Cyclopia 22:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Have given a final reply on my talk page. Hope this is the end of this debate. There is always two sides of a coin. And i personally took offence by comment made by this IP adress to. But i am willing to look beyond that if our agreement stays as it is. I will not comment on this any further.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I've just used my IP for a while now having previously tried to use an account, but found the politics like this unsavoury incident put me off. I'd rather stay making just small edits without any of the politics on the large scale. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we can probably let this drop now. Whilst several people think Åland was plainly wrong, I don't think any good would come of pursuing this. The mature thing, imo, is just to move on. Blood Red Sandman 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum

Telling a user to "grow up" and responding "Fuck off" when warned about it . Searching Wikiquette alerts and checking their block log, it seems the user has been previously blocked for similar incivility and should know better. Yworo (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it appears pointless as you have already been adequately warned, but I don't see anything to indicate it is a joke. If so, it is a poor one: You must *sharply* dial back your abuse of other editors, or I feel confident you will not be able to edit, eventually. - Sinneed 02:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning editors to stop making personal attacks rarely works. More often, the warning simply makes them more upset. "Fuck off, troll" is a predictable response. Warnings are only effective with unregistered users and brand new users.

M.F. is a productive and hard-working editor who is not skilled at social interactions. He has contributed very much to the project, and he has gratuitously alienated a lot of people in the process. He's not a nice person, it turns out, and the fact that being nice is more effective in the long run than being rude doesn't register with him. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but M.F. doesn't care, at least not that I've ever seen.

Am I wrong, Malleus? Am I painting a false picture here? I'd like to be corrected, if I am wrong.

It is entirely possible, likely even, that M.F. will eventually be banned. However, this sort of thing takes a lot of effort, and usually drags out over weeks and months. Informing him of "infractions" against the NPA policy is simply not going to get you anywhere good. An RFC/U is probably more effective, not because it will have any impact on his behavior, but simply because it documents the problem for some future ArbCom case.

Sorry, but that's how it tends to go around here. I wish it weren't true. :( -GTBacchus 14:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wont comment on your particular assessment of User:Malleus Fatuorum, but your assessement of the process appears to be very valid. :-( Active Banana (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... I'd like to be wrong about both. Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment, but an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, it's rather successful. As a social experiment, it's an utter failure. Ultimately, the key to a satisfying experience here is to fully accept this fact. -GTBacchus 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, for its insight into the dishonesty and double standards at the heart of wikipedia. In which alternate universe is "I think you need to grow up" considered to be a "personal attack", but "He's not a nice person" isn't? Insane. Surely it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that GTBacchus is an administrator and I'm not, could it? Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, you're not going to 'quit' again are you? HalfShadow 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I don't think you're a bad person, Malleus. Do you think that you're "nice"? Is that how you describe yourself? I did asked to be corrected, if I'm wrong. Will you correct me?

As for my being an admin, I spoke the same way I speak now before I was an administrator, and if I ever stop being an administrator, I'll still speak that way. I'm honest.

Being not-very-nice isn't a sin, nor is it a crime. I think it's not very helpful, either, but you're a grown-up - you can decide how you want to interact with others.

I predict that the tone you take with others will eventually get you banned, and I'll be sad when that happens, because you do good work. Lots of it.

For sure, though, if my statement: "he's not a nice person" is inaccurate, then correct me. Show me my error.

By the way, I do not consider "I think you need to grow up" to be a personal attack, and I think that leaving a warning for it on your talk page was a foolish response. I think that "I think you need to grow up" is an honest assessment of someone's behavior, from your perspective - just like "he's not a nice person" is an honest assessment from my perspective. I consider "fuck off, troll" to be a incredibly misguided thing to say, which is too bad, because you are a lot smarter than that, no question.

Of course, if you look at the situation empirically... what percentage of the time do you think "you need to grow up" ends up being helpful, in the sense of really convincing the person to reconsider their actions? Is it about 90% of the time? 20%? 50%? And yes, I'm fully aware that "he's not a nice person" is unlikely to make you think twice about anything. I didn't say it for your benefit, but more to point out that giving you warnings is silly. Do you disagree? -GTBacchus 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, with the exception of your prediction that my honest assessment of the character, abilities, and honesty of certain other editors will inevitably result in my being banned. My hope is that wikipedia's rationally run replacement will be in situ by then, but if not, tough. Hopefully the cry-babies will one day be able to have this social experiment all to themselves, without the nuisance of having to pretend to be writing an encyclopedia. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How can you disagree with a question? Do you find that saying "you need to grow up" often makes people say, "gee, he's right. I need to grow up!"? If not, then why say it? I'm genuinely curious, what the thought process is there. I'm confident you've thought about it, because you clearly don't act mindlessly. -GTBacchus 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My view has always been that a rational person should behave in the way most likely to lead to the desired outcome, somewhat similar to that of Machiavelli. Sometimes that means being "nice", sometimes that means being "nasty"; there isn't a one size fits all. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I just haven't observed the cases where being nasty led to a desired outcome. Your statement of pragmatism is one I completely agree with, but I've found that showing (honest) respect is almost always more pragmatic than nastiness. If being nasty is sometimes helpful, perhaps we should document that, so people can learn how and when to be nasty. (I'm not being sarcastic.) -GTBacchus 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Oh dear, you're not going to 'quit' again are you?" What's it to you, HalfAssedShadow? I shall continue to do as I've always done, exactly as I like, when I like. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(after e.c., I am addressing GTBacchus here) I don't think it is helpful at all to make statements about what kind of a person someone is, unlike commenting on someone's edits or even someone's behaviour. I have seen Malleus Fatuorum assist young editors way beyond what is the norm here at Misplaced Pages. I think that is not only "nice", it also helps the encyclopedia. Just because someone is sometimes grumpy and cantankerous doesn't make him "not a nice person". Moreover, I find your prediction unhelpful, and just to balance it out for those who believe in self-fulfilling prophecies. I think MF will be here for quite a while, improving content, and showing the way to a lot of editors who request his assistance. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words Sluzzelin, but I'm always "grumpy and cantankerous". It's a genetic thing I think, means I'm unable and unwilling to tolerate fools. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, then you are a coconut, hard rough surface, soft milky inside. We have plenty of peaches at WP, with soft and fuzzy surfaces and hard rough pits in the belly, but hey, I like both, though I prefer strawberries :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If a fool comes to my talk page with stupid civility warnings then they ought to know what kind of a response they're likely to get. If that's a bannable offence, then so be it. The loser is wikipedia, not me. I find GTBacchus's obsession with being "nice" to be completely incomprehensible. The last thing I'd want anyone to call me was "nice". It's such a nothing word. In fact, I consider "nice" to be a personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just say that I would deeply and truly regret if GTBacchus's prophecy came true. I don't think it will, and I (cloutless though I am) would certainly try to prevent it from happening. I agree with your assessment of stupid civility warnings. I find them stupid too. It just would be regrettable if politics took over and the civility police (note, no quotation marks, I agree with that characterization) took over. In real life I grumble and lash out. Here, I manage to restrict myself. I don't care what you do, but please don't do anything that will get you in more trouble. Your contributions are far too valuable. And that's the quintessential truth, Ruth. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, civility has a very simple raison d'etre. This is a collaborative effort. We all collaborate better by being civil with each other. Like Sluzzelin, I am also very blunt in real life and in other online environments, but here I strive to be civil, because that's the way to go if we want this place to work. --Cyclopia 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We're not all the same Cyclopia; I value honesty and integrity way beyond "civility". If wikipedia doesn't, then that wikipedia's problem, not mine. Let's remind ourselves why this thread was started. I said that I believed that someone ought to grow up. During this thread, I've been told that I'm not a nice person and that as a result I'm going to be banned. Does any of that make any sense to you? Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(after edit coflict) No, Mal, I wasn't talking to you. There would be no point in telling you that you're not nice (which you seem to embrace anyway). I think there's a point in telling others that it's useless to leave civility warnings on your talk page. Do you agree, that such warnings are useless? -GTBacchus 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, completely useless, but what's worse, counter-productive. What will this silly little thread achieve, other than time wasted? Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. The waste of time could have been avoided in two ways: if you hadn't typed "fuck off, troll", or if the other guy had just fucked off quietly. The latter is, I expect, not very common. That's the only point I've ever tried to make about civility - an ounce of restraint prevents a pound of nonsense such as this. If you don't show the restraint, then you've pretty much requested the nonsense. That seems to be how the world works. -GTBacchus 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

1)I don't see how honesty and integrity conflict with civility. I agree with your value hierarchy, but that is no reason to be incivil. 2)To say "grow up" is not what I'd consider an attack and it doesn't concern me. But to answer "Fuck off, troll" is childish at best and has no justification whatsoever. --Cyclopia 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Obsession", wow. I only observe what works in some situations, and what tends to create static. I think avoiding static is good, for purely practical reasons. The wheels turn more smoothly without it.

Sluzzelin, thanks for your reply. I think you're essentially right. All I was really trying to say is what Malleus himself seems happy enough to say: He often behaves in a grumpy and cantankerous manner. He doesn't "suffer fools", nor does he want to (according to what he just said). I suppose it wasn't helpful to compress all of that content into "not a nice person".

When you refer to civility police, I don't know who you mean. Personally, I've always believed that treating civility like a rule or a law is completely foolish. I also think that doing things that get people's backs up is foolish, because it creates heat and static, and reports on boards like this. Apparently, it's "incomprehensible" that I think it's practical to avoid heat and static by taking a respectful tone (which I know I don't always succeed in doing).

That's just what it is, I guess. I'm not going to get bent out of shape over it, and I'm not going to put a warning on anyone's page. I wish you all a good day. -GTBacchus 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't get bent out of shape, don't put warnings on the talk pages of constructive content contributors, and don't report them on boards, then I think we are quite alike. The only difference is, perhaps, that despite my own efforts to remain "civil" (how I hate that word, by now), I really resent the attempts to get rid of consistently constructive content editors just because they said you need to fuck off. I will withdraw from this discussion now, unless someone is ambitious enough to bring it to WP:ANI. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I thought it was clear from my very first post in this thread that I don't think giving talk page warnings to established users is ever a good idea. I've never reported anyone on any kind of board, at least not that I can remember. I don't hate the word "civil", though, and I won't talk about "civility police", because I refuse to let that word be hijacked into meaning something it doesn't mean. Letting "civility" mean mindless avoidance of any blunt or direct criticism is a capitulation I won't make, because if you let your opponents define the terms in the language, then you have already let them win. -GTBacchus 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. I would never initiate one of these silly threads but others do, and nobody has the balls to say they're childish, because that would be "uncivil". Yet because I don't, others assume that the complaints brought here have some merit. Just look at Yworo's opening remarks: "Searching Wikiquette alerts and checking their block log ...". This place is deeply dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's so dishonest (and you're so "honest") - what would you recommend? I think WP will go on, personally... Doc9871 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did I misread something here? Isn't this the place where children come to complain about an editor being rude to them? When did it become a forum for a debate on wikipedia's inevitable demise? Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If its demise is inevitable, why stay aboard? I'd leave a ship if I thought it was sinking... Doc9871 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to fuck off any time you like, but please also allow me to make my own decisions about what I shall do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mdupont

Hello. Just wanted to ask someone (preferably admin) to help User:Mdupont with his edits. User add Albanian names wherever he find needed () constantly uses underscore in article space () uses some weird signature without links, () while his articles are in complete mess (Mosque Katip Sinan Qelebi). He also back up all of his articles in every possible place, including article talk page (), his personal pages, (most of them meaningless) and his talk page. I tried to help him, and explain, (, , ) but he didn't reacted on my advices and guidance links. As a final act of misunderstanding, he tried to open arbitration, but filled it wrongly. Last dialog can be seen here. (User talk:Mdupont#Districts) User is not vandal, or anything like that, it looks like he love wikipedia, and we is here for long years, but he just need some help that will explain him everything CLEARLY and UNDERSTANDABLY. I just tried to help as some other users did in the past (), but he didn't liked my help, per bit problematic point of view, that was already recognized earlier (). As i will not talk with user anymore, please, i ask from some neutral admin to send him link or two with some guidelines, and help him implement those. As users articles topic is under WP:ARBMAC restriction, his adding of Albanian language everywhere may be problem. For more, sure, i am here. :) --Tadija 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Subject moved to this page.

User repeatedly attacking privacy by adding inappropriate content to an article

Hi there is somebody who is not signed in and repeatedly adding content about Peter McCormick and Audrey Campbell into following article, and connecting them with various crimes. This is not acceptable and none of the mentioned above has nothing to do with that page. Can please provide with help how to stop such an abusive attack. Article : Escort_Ireland

Best regards John —Preceding unsigned comment added by John31031 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have cross posted a notice at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard requesting other editors to help watch for BLP issues at Escort_Ireland. Active Banana (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Highly disrupting editing

In the past few months, I have tolerated User:Digirami and User:MicroX in terms of editing South American football pages. While I understand that no editor owns the page, I know for a fact that wikipedia holds special consideration over those who have edited a page and made major contributions to them. It took me a while to realize it but the two fore mentioned have only serve to regress' progress on the pages. Just reading the history on this pages and their sub-pages are evidence of this (1, 2 and 3). Simply put, they are not editors; they just like to disrupt progress for the better with highly outdated ideals. It has surpassed that level of simply "edit warring" for having different views.

I have a keen interest in transforming every page in CONMEBOL to have a Featured status...I need help dealing with this problem.

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution