Revision as of 22:45, 16 November 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

Carolyn Baker III

• Carolyn Baker III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is showing acts of incivility by using the F word which can be seen here, here, here, and here. On one occasion the editor was asked to stop. I had taken this to the ANI, and was deferred to here. Sarujo (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The only possible problematic one on its own is this one since it appears to be related to specific editors. However, as a pattern, the editor comes across as a 12 year old who think it's cool to swear when mom and dad are not around. A little bit of invective can be useful in the right place, but in the long run, this is an encyclopedia, and not a whorehouse. Have you personally tried to deal with it on their userpage? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't think it would do any good seeing as in the episode on the editor Mathewignash's talk page as seen here, the editor Black Kite jumping in shortly after here, Mathewignash removing the comments, in responce Baker states "That's how I am", Mathewignash asking the Baker not to swear, Baker admitting to using the F word several times but claims they haven't been swearing. Then there was not too long ago today another editor pointing out their use of profanity on that project page. So I don't see how me calling out the editor on their incivility will be more than a drop in the bucket when the editor has failed to take other fellow editors' advice. Sarujo (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the time Sarujo reported Divebomb, this one might actually deserve some action taken. NotARealWord (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of the few swearing-related wqa that may actually be valid, whereas use of the word 'fuck' and its derivatives is in general not a big deal, this user seems excessive. But I think it is best dealt with by direct engagement rather than reporting here.  pablo 20:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But the editor was engaged personally and they fail to take advice. Are you suggesting to continue to personal call them out whenever they use profanity? Cause a remark like "that's how I am" doesn't give much prospect to them refraining from profanity in the future. Sarujo (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

By 'engaged' are you talking about Black Kite's message or did you yourself attempt to explain what your issue was? If you did, I've missed it. pablo 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sanjuro did not attempt to explain anything. Sanjuro also has a history of taking other users directly to ANI or here simply over them saying "Fuck." He last did it to user User:Divebomb last month. Based upon Sanjuro's diction and grammar, he is a non-native english speaker and perhaps has some exaggerated notion that the word "fuck" is inherently uncivil, whereas we native speakers understand better the nuances of the "fuck" (and other swear words). Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Pablo, I stated that other editors had confronted Baker over the their profanity and Baker chose to ignored them.

Carolyn Baker III, You're in no position to criticize any editor over their actions. So I'd suggest you refrain from the mudslinging. What I did here in the past is not the center of this discussion - it's your incivility. There's no point of calling out the fact that refrained from coming to you regarding the matter. As I can see in your comment, it would have been fruitless. Other editors addressed the situation to you and you continued to drop the F bomb. Also, your deduction of my gender and nationality is flawed. I'll have you know my grammar and diction is top notch. To suggest my grammar and diction as being awful by somebody who started a discussion in cutesy. I have a perfect understanding of what the F word is. It's apparent you don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. It may not any meaning in the New York/New Jersey area, but this is not the New York/New Jersey area - this is Misplaced Pages. Native speaker doesn't single out one urban area in the United States. There are plenty of "native speakers" will agree with me %110. Furthermore, I don't know why I'm responding to you since my names is not Sanjuro. So your comment's don't apply to me. Sarujo (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply Sanjuro, I am in the position to add to this discussion any way I see fit. Who made you the sole arbiter of what we editors can and cannot comment on? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That’s not arbitration, it’s a fact. You're clearly trying to pass the blame on to me and not take responsibility for your actions. I'm not the one on notice here - you are. So no, calling me out just take the heat off yourself is highly irrelevant and childish on your part. It won’t get you anywhere. I'd advise you to answer Fainites' question rather that trying to pick a fight with me. Oh and I refuse to respond to anymore of your childish responses until you get my name right. Who on Earth is Sanjuro? Sarujo (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The other diffs that are interesting are the two directly following the first one provided, where she "jacks it up", apparently not thinking the original message "strong" enough. It also shows she can control herself, and that being a New Yorker is not always an excuse for being excessively foul-mouthed. Not all New Yorkers "come off" that way, so she should try to "lay off" and speak in a more professional fashion. Most people curse, but this is excessive. Just my 2p... Doc talk 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I also found another instance regarding the deletion discussion for Jan Goossenaerts. I think that might be all of them. Sarujo (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read all your comments above, and am sorry it had to come to this. But honestly, I think I've been doing a lot better on the swearing lately. Regards, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have been trying to reduce the swearing recently? How recently? For today, I've found one arse, one bollocks and one fuck. Is that a reduction? For what it's worth, the occasional fuck or similar for emphasis is no big deal, however where the bollocks did you come from is somewhat aggressive and uncollegiate. Fainites scribs 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The user also created the redirect Fuck handles to clear heels for no obvious reason, at least as far as I can see. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason will become obvious, as you put it, if you check an earlier version of the article. And yes, the pace and frequency of the swearing has been slackening over the last few days in direct response to helpful feedback I have gotten from Black Kite and others. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. If in doubt, try the preview button. Are you clear about the difference between using a swear word for emphasis as opposed to using it directed at another editor? Fainites scribs 23:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of "fuck handles", it is no longer in the article, presumably because it is incorrect, fuck handles being useful protrusions of flesh. Fainites scribs 23:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, fuck handles are super high heels , us(6+ inches), useful for grabbing onto during sex for extra leverage. I don't know anything about "useful protrusions of flesh" being classified as fuck handles. Can you please elaborate? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Google it! The only reference to the high heels is the Urban Dictionary but there's lots to the other version. The kinder version is Love handles. However, this is all a bit off topic. Can we go back to my question on swearing please. Fainites scribs 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I try not to use google because of privacy concerns. I hope you understand. You know they save and index every search one enters on there. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. So what about my question above? Fainites scribs 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Caroline, can I ask you again please - are you clear about the difference between using a swear word for emphasis as opposed to using it directed at another editor? Fainites scribs 16:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

the extra flesh is usually called 'love handles' not 'fuck handles'. just an FYI

Caroline, allow me to point out the obvious. I personally don't give a crap about the word 'fuck' (and I don't really give a fuck about the word 'crap', either). But insisting on using the term when other people have asked you to tone it down is rude, disrespectful, and immature. This is not some punk forum where you are given the privilege of being obnoxiously self-righteous about every little whim that tickles your fancy. We are actually trying to hold productive discussions here, and when you run around stepping on peoples' toes for no damned good reason (beyond the egotistic notion that you're somehow 'entitled' to step on peoples' toes if you feel like it), you're just getting in the way. Tuck it in, zip it up, and play nice. ok? --Ludwigs2 18:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Still no answer to my question. No doubt the answer will become apparent over time. Fainites scribs 21:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor is more content with arguing with me than trying resolve the situation. Sarujo (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In case she doesn't know, "gross incivility" is listed as a common rationale for blocking a user. NotARealWord (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I got it. Now can we all move on and get back to writting articles? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that concession. This aspect is now resolved. Fainites scribs 14:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your candor and concern. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• This editor is posting annoying comments on my user page. When I read and remove them this user reverts it. Mathewignash (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Feel free to read and investigate these "annoying" comments about Matthew's AFD manipulation and socking. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've investigated the reversion by Carolyn. People are allowed to remove notices from their talkpage, it is a tacit acknowledgment that it has been read; reverting his removal from his own talkpage is WP:DISRUPTive. Don't do it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarujo hounding and threatening me.

User:Sarujo seems to revel in making sanctimonious accusations and overt threats. He recently left this note on my talk page after I politely asked him to stop hounding me, "Excuse you but I haven't been hounding you, this is the first time I've actually come to regarding your delay. And no, this is a serious issue that can only be resolved by your full cooperation with the admins. You're walking a thin line right now, so it's best that follow along. As there's no telling what may become of you. You were asked a question, so it's in your best interest to respond back at WQA. Sarujo (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)" (the link here)

I mean, I dont know what to make of this. He should lay off. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's not a threat. I really didn't know what would become of you if you didn't respond. You're already in hot water. Again, I have not been hounding you, as you so put it. I asked you once to respond. Then you tell me I've been harassing you, so I responded telling you I haven't. Clearly as the record shows you're making something out of nothing. Sarujo (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding. We'll just take care to let the populace sort this out. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not hounding. Sarujo asked you to respond to a question in the thread above. I see you have now finally done so. Can we close this and move on please. Fainites scribs 10:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

... and perhaps modifying one's possibly offensive behaviour might just mean that one would no longer need prods every now and again to reply to civility issues? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Carolyn Baker III has now been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Fainites scribs 13:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing that struck me as odd about the name: because Carolyn is a female name, and surnames pass through the paternal side of families, it is really possible to have a "Carolyn Baker The Third?" Jus' sayin'... ;> Doc talk 18:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Daicaregos

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

I requested sources on the talk page of Anglophobia after some deleted text was restored. After a discussion with another editor, Daicaregos has resorted to calling me a liar. This comes after a long edit war some time ago in which he, among others, halted the expansion of the article. I would appreciate it if someone would explain to him what it means to assume good faith and to be civil. BillMasen (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wquette people, if you think he did nothing wrong please at least have the courtesy to say so. BillMasen (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

talk page for Theraputic Touch article

• Theraputic touch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Would someone please look at the talk page and monitor it for mutual insults between editors (messages which disregard wp:civil policy). Please see the "Erroneous Article" section for details.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Talk:Therapeutic_touch#Erroneous_Article

Thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutic touch. Seems to be afflicted by SPA, single edit editors complaining about the entire article but not entering discussion, editing or suggesting actual improvements. Don't really see "mutual insults". Perhaps Famousdog's exasperated comment is a tad strongly worded, but understandably so in my view. The complainers are being invited to edit. I'll add it to my watch-list. Fainites scribs 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Things seem quiet here - so probably no need for further monitoring. Thanks for your help. Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace is contagious

• I was born in the Spring of 1973 & majored in Electrical Engineering with a minor on philosophy.

I'm interested in philosophical & historical points of view as well as clarity & transparency within Misplaced Pages articles.

"Reading old books is a way of resisting the cultural and intellectual uniformity that develops when one’s intellectual horizon is one’s own birth-date. A great deal of such uniformity is evident in modern American political and cultural and intellectual life."

Enjoy = )

• Caption1
• Caption2

• Kyle Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.

Belligerent, fairly new editor, User:Peace is contagious, who refuses to adhere to core Misplaced Pages policies, has heaped insult and name-calling against me on his talk page for about the last 24 hours. I've kept my tone professional at User talk:Peace is contagious, and I've asked him not to indulge in his bullying, uncivil behavior. Yet he has not stopped. A sampling:

• u comic-nerds (q.v.) are incorrigibly 'goofy'.
• ...take ur sweet time, Il Duce; I'm sure u get paid more than I, so I would not wish to cut into ur hectic schedule. Forgive my humble obstructions your grace (bows deeply here).
• some jerk who lives in his parents basement @ age 35 ;^)
• great, so ur a cynical old fart, ... ur jealous ?! ... U still read comics @ ur age ?

His behavior is not constructive, and neither are his insults nor his edits — which at least one other editor, independently, has reverted. I beseech someone to please help. He doesn't have a right to verbally abuse other people. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I've notified him (which the reporter should do tsk tsk :>) and hopefully explained why "undoing" edits is not a "misuse of authority". Cheers... Doc talk 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have; you're correct. I did notify him of a Admin Notice Board entry about his multiple vios and belligerence, and forgot to do a second notice.

That said, he's has since name-called me "stubborn," "old" — which is reprehensibly ageist — and "lazy" (which I think my contribution history would belie). I believe he feels he can continue to be verbally abusive. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I put the :> in for a reason - wasn't trying to give you a hard time. Insults are not the only apparent problem with this user, and I've asked him to respond. Hopefully he will. Doc talk 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

He reveals in this edit summary that he is Davidmedlar (talk · contribs), but I don't think it's a sock issue since that account hasn't edited since before the other was created. I think... Doc talk 01:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is now here and here as well. Fainites scribs 12:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Davidmedlar was at ANI here. The edting style is familiar. he also made edits on the Kyle Baker article about Shrek's donkey. As you say - it doesn't seem to be a socking issue but it does mean he is not a new user. Fainites scribs 12:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Untillu loose

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

I have just warned the user for his clearly uncivil attack on a user. The content is absolutely irrelevant for an edit summary like that.

Just saw his contribs, and he has serious issues. Lihaas (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked, as a vandalism-only sock puppet. Does the edit summary need to be REVDEL'd? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL the edit summaries in all of his contributions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

24/7 (TV series)

• 109.152.195.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.155.240.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24/7_(TV_series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User_talk:Hholt01#24.2F7 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flagrant PA as well as threeR, vandalism etc. Hholt01 (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the 24/7 (TV series) article, which might put a stop to the nonsense for a while. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster

• Loremaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Technological_utopianism#Dispute_over_new_lead (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I started editing the Article Technological utopianism but Loremaster objected to all my edits. Loremaster previously insulted me during my editing of the Singularitarianism Article, he said I was foolish and should get a life. It seems Loremaster has distinct anti-technology views specifically related to technology making the world a better place. He feels the world is heading for ecological catastrophe. He has been blocked previously on a number of occasions, which I can see: here is one example User_talk:Loremaster/Archive01#October_2010

Currently there is a discussion on-going between myself and Loremaster, which you can read here Talk:Technological_utopianism#Dispute_over_new_lead. The bias of Loremaster is prohibiting my editing of the article. He seems to be using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for his anti-technology agenda.

Here is the previous discussion regarding the insult Loremaster made towards me: "Forgive me for being insulting but if you truly believe the quote by Eliezer is a realistic scenario I regret to inform you that you are foolish and need to get a life."

Some pertinent quotes regarding Loremaster's views relating to the current discussion are as follows:

"I am an optimist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

It seems Loremaster is fighting to promote his views, he seems to be using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. This seems to be a campaign for Loremaster because he wants to avert ecological catastrophe. I feel the Misplaced Pages neutral point of view has not been adhered to.

I look forward to your advice and assistance.

Thank you from User:JackBlack86.173.28.149 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is basically a content dispute, and may be difficult to solve without getting input from other editors. That being said, I am not at all happy with this edit by Loremaster, which reverted a whole series of edits without so much as an edit summary by way of explanation. JackBlack, you need to notify Loremaster of this WQA, or it will simply be a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr.K.

This user has been rather aggressive towards me since Spring 2010, which came up in various circumstances. He initiated multiple ANIs and discussions, trying to intimidate and oppress me. Since he has a high command of Wiki Policies, it's rather difficult to pinpoint a direct blatant incivility in his actions, but there's a lot of pressure coming from him. He removed my polite messages from his talk page multiple times, calling them "hectoring". Since the last time he did this was just a few days ago, I'd like to request assistance of a mediator to somehow try and mitigate the situation. This is not an imperative request, but rather a suggestion if someone would like to have a friendly chat with Dr.K., which might ease his attitude a bit. To make the issue simple and easy to start with, I don't think it is very polite or helpful when my notifications are repeatedly tagged as "hectoring". This is also my first test of how useful and functional this noticeboard can actually be. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This complaint comes from an editor who works on virtually nothing except the article on Prahlad Jani, from what appears to be a somewhat credulous point of view, and is upset because Dr.K. insists on treating as a fringe theory the claim that Jani has lived for many years without eating or drinking anything. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"is upset because Dr.K. insists on treating as a fringe theory the claim that Jani has lived for many years without eating or drinking anything." -- this is not true. I myself said in article discussion that Jani's claims are fringe. but even if it was true, does it justify calling my notifications a "hectoring"? -- Nazar (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"This complaint comes from an editor who works on virtually nothing except the article on Prahlad Jani, from what appears to be a somewhat credulous point of view," -- this isn't true as well. I was involved into editing multiple articles, and even started nearly a dozen of them. Prahlad Jani is my current interest. I always represented a neutral point of view, so Looie496's remark is not very accurate, leaving out the fact that it is also not very polite to evaluate the volume and thematic focus of my contributions this way... -- Nazar (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken you to ANI for incivility multiple times. You keep attacking me on your talkpage but I always try to avoid you so I did not reply in your latest attack against me on your talkpage ironically while you were replying to users McGeddon and Nuujin who came to your talkpage to warn you about civility. Now you come to this board and you don't inform me. As Looie496 correctly states all you do is add SYNTH and OR on Prahlad Jani and Inedia and edit-war against multiple editors and when I come to tutor you about these policies you call it an attack and harassment. You do the same with users McGeddon and Nuujin. I have reported you to User:Prodego multiple times and provided links about your incivility and personal attacks. I have nothing to add here. For anyone interested please go on Prodego's page to read about this saga of personal attacks, false statements and incivility directed toward me. Dr.K.  20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In the link you provided you mentioned: == Skeptic SYNTH == Please kindly avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH into Prahlad Jani article. Your last edits removed reliably referenced factual information. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Your tone in telling me to avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH is reprehensible. Using the verb "push" against other editors is demeaning and incivil. I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me. It was a clear case of SYNTH on your part, yet you chose to come to my talkpage and accuse me of "pushing skeptic SYNTH", but you did not come to the article talk page to reply to my arguments and McGeddon's. I call this harassment. What is "Skeptic SYNTH" anyway? The only SYNTH added in the article is by you and it keeps getting removed by many other editors. If I need any mediation is by someone to save me from your personal attacks and innuendo. Dr.K.  21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that: He initiated multiple ANIs and discussions, trying to intimidate and oppress me. is ridiculous. I did not know that going to ANI is a method of intimidation and oppression, as opposed to say, having valid concerns about your behaviour and wanting to report it. I provided relevant diffs to support my ANI report and by going there I exposed myself to all kinds of criticism if my report was not valid. I did not get any such criticism because my report was well founded. I do not appreciate you coming long after my ANI reports claiming oppression and intimidation. Your claims simply do not ring true and it is more evidence of unfounded accusations on your part. Dr.K.  21:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• When I saw this Wikiquette alert, I went read Talk:Prahlad Jani, and I can fully understand the irritation (I don't see aggression, let alone intimidation) sometimes expressed by the other contributors towards Nazar, who argues his points, big and little, against consensus, with great stubbornness and much repetition. Such editing wastes other people's time woefully. It reminded me of the editor on the Shakespeare pages who has just been given a page ban for a year for Shakespeare pages, "broadly construed", including their talkpages. Perhaps seeking such a ban of Nazar is becoming appropriate here, Dr. K? Especially if you have already initiated a number of ANI threads about his editing. Or possibly an RFC/U, though those are only useful with editors who are somewhat prepared to take community criticism on board. The timewasting aspect struck me forcibly when I saw Nazar declare on the talkpage that he saw editing Prahlad Jani as a bit of a joke:

I also don't really care much about the changes. It's more a game for me. It's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react to ideas which are out of your conventional understanding. In the process of this game I also hope and try to improve Misplaced Pages, but that is a secondary priority for me personally, so, even if all my edits are deleted, that's really not a very big problem ;) -- Nazar (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

That was posted a month ago, and I don't suppose "playing with you sceptic guys" is the way Nazar consistently feels about it; after all, he has been upset enough to write an "alert" here. But if I was one of the editors on the talkpage, I'd still be discouraged by seeing it. For is Nazar's game fun for anybody else? Doubt it. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution