Revision as of 23:54, 1 February 2009

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

Active alerts

User:Artw making personally acrimonious statements about me, poisoning the well

Artw (talk · contribs)

This user has made some very rude comments about me personally at an AfD nomination.

When I confronted him about it: he responded with more rudeness and condescension .

I don't care that he's voting keep on the article. I just want him to remove the rude and false accusations of bad faith.

Please help and advise.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read everything at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Talbott_(2nd_nomination) and I don't really see a problem. He stated his belief that you nominated it because you had a disagreement with someone elsewhere. That isn't something to make a case over. Dream Focus (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a personal statement that has no basis in any of the words on that page. Imagine if someone went around following you making false accusations about your motivations. Would you be happy? What recourse is there? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:AGF the claims he made about SA need to either be proven, or need to be refactored. Making a negative statement about someone's motivation is not civil, and is harmful to the encyclopedia when used to influence the AFD of an article. Additionally, responding to SA's requests for refactoring in the way Artw did is additionally uncivil, in effect it seemed to me that he said "I have dealt with SA before so I don't need to assume good faith about anything he does that I disagree with." As I said, if Artw cannot provide evidence to support his accusation, it is uncivil and should be withdrawn. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I beleive my comments to be entirely reasonable gven the dismissive tone of the AFD, the weakness of the case for deletion, and the conversation on WP:FTN (where SA appears to be having his own trouble with misrepresenting another user), and the conversations within the talk page.

For whatever it's worth there also appears to be some kind of weirdness with SA and scokpuppetry on a prior AFD, that I'm not sure I know how to interprete that.

I apologise if I was a little curt with on my talk page, but I donot beleive he has a case here, and from my point of veiw it seems like an attempt to cause noise and distraction. Artw (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'have a case.' This isn't a place where blocks are issued or anything. Please review Theseeker4's comments above regarding perceived incivil actions. A better way to deal with what you consider an attempt to cause noise and distraction, such the talk page comment would be a simple I believe the comments are appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Spotfixer

Personal Threats

Spotfixer (talk · contribs) has threatened Lyonscc (talk · contribs)]:

This has occurred because Spotfixer and Teledildonix314 have decided to use the Rick Warren page for a personal agenda, which is currently trying to insert terminology about anal sex in church teens into the article. This clearly violates WP:BLP, and they have been asked to wait at least 24 hours for consensus, since this is highly contentious and not verifiable. Lyonscc has tried to discuss the item, asking for civility and consensus (beyond two hours) for something that is rather clearly contradictory to WP:BLP.

No threat involved. I am reporting you right now. Spotfixer (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Threats

Spotfixer (talk · contribs) has threatened Manutdglory (talk · contribs) Spotfixer also threatened me on my talk page (see below), even though I had absolutely nothing to do with his fight with Lyonscc.

Look, I just reported Lyonscc‎ for WP:3RR violation and I still have the template up, so doing another is no big deal. Do you really want to follow him into block-land? Stop edit-warring, stop censoring. Spotfixer (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, something needs to be done. Manutdglory (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, not a threat. I am ready, able and willing to report you if you continue your edit war. Count on it. Spotfixer (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. this should be referred to the current Admin boards thread(s). -- Banjeboi 11:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Teledildonix314

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

Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs) has made uncivil personal remarks to Manutdglory (talk · contribs)

Teledildonix314 made this highly inappropriate personal comment about me (below). Oh yeah, he's also caused the Rick Warren article to be fully protected not once, but twice. Manutdglory (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::And now Manutdglory is trying to push for violation of the 3RR. I would like to point out: Manutdglory has openly mentioned that they are a member of the Saddleback Church and thus it seems there is a Conflict Of Interest when they try to delete anything which might go against their personal preferences for how to portray the Church with puffery and WhiteWashing. Teledildonix314 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

These are content disputes that led to edit wars, not matters of etiquette. Wrong forum. Spotfixer (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Headbomb

How should I respond to this personal attack? His tactics involve ... general dishonesty, blatant lying, and general Wikilawyering , etc... He should be flat out banned from the wiki. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading through things. They do seem rather hostile. Going to quote one bit:

• Strong oppose. You cannot change Misplaced Pages policy by ignoring it. I don't have time now, but I will respond in more detail after about 10 days. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ten whole days to edit in peace and not be incessantly badgered over a dead issue? Thank you so  much! When you come back, please lodge all future complaints at this e-mail address. Greg L (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems rather uncivilized. Dream Focus (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder to notify the user you are complaining about that you filed this report. I already left a message on their talk page but in the future, please leave a note when you file a report. Thanks. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your response should be to stop forumshopping, as well as to stop your general dishonesty, quote mining, blatant lying, representation bias, and to drop the issue. Relevant links can be found in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2 for those who wants them. You've become a single-purpose account who spent his last YEAR crying like a baby because you didn't get your way. THAT is why you should be banned. This is a personal attack to the extent that saying User:Sarenne was disruptive. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are better ways to deal with disruptive editors, responding by throwing around accusations and hyperbole is far from ideal regardless of the behaviour of the target. Let the admins deal with the editor and try not to get dragged down with them. --neon white talk 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with neon white; it is desirable you try to keep your cool and stay as civil as as possible, even when dealing with problem editors. If their editing is continuing to be a problem, then it should be taken to an admin noticeboard so that the community can decide if sanctions should be imposed yet. If you get dragged in and your own behaviour starts spiralling out of control as a result of another editor's, then the net loss is for the project. In this case, it is not a personal attack, but it is not the sort of commentary that one hopes to see either. Keep your cool. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• To Dream Focus: Thank you for mentioning Greg_L's behaviour. I have raised that here before and was advised by Jaysweet to await mediation. When mediation was offered, Greg_L turned it down.
• To the others: To make an accusation of dishonesty and lying without a shred of evidence is a personal attack ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence").

Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• To whome it may concern: What Headbomb and Greg have written cannot be considered a personal attack because what Headbomb and Greg have written are pure plain facts about Thunderbird2's poor behaviour. All the evidence of Thunderbird2's poor behaviour can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2. That page contains all the evidence of Thunderbird2 repeatedly being dishonest, lying, forum shopping, using bad faith edits, and violating policies and guidelines. So since all the evidence is at that page then obviously Thunderbird2 is again misrepresenting the situation (deliberately lying, again) when he wrote "without a shred of evidence". Since it is now obvious Thunderbird2 has not modified his behaviour, as has been demonstrated by this latest attempt to forum shop here, then as reflected by the consensus shown in the RfC/U please ban Thunderbird2 to stop the user from continuously disrupting Misplaced Pages in the future. Fnagaton 23:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:GroundhogTheater

This user sent another user's FAC to WP:AFD. I have my opinions about that, but I'll leave that out of this. However, the nominator of the AFD is using phrases like "DEFUNCT ROUTE FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS" and "NO AGAIN!" Something doesn't seem right about it... --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How does this fall under bad wikiquette? I don't think the article passes WP:N being a small route that disbanded 40 years ago. It also only served a hamlet of 38 people. If looked at the sources don't even pertain to the route, they pertain to the surrounding areas. I haven't mocked any user for giving their time for the article. I get discouraged when stuff of mine is questioned by others, but I realize it isn't personal. Every wiki user has a right to raise questions. It is a collective effort. But for some reason, User:Rschen7754, believes its personal just because I disagree with his feelings. With that said he isn't even the author of the article in question. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to make a suggestion the article isn't needed, but the all capitals is considered shouting . Gerardw (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is it should be only considered shouting when it is directed at another user personally. Groundhog said he was making a point, and not everyone knows every Wiki guideline through and through. He should in the future not use caps to eliminate confusion, but User:Rschen7754 also didn't need to bring this here. Let the two users settle their dispute on their own. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You're insulting another author's work, which can be taken as an insult to the author itself. Furthermore I do have the right to bring this up here, especially as I am an uninvolved party in the matter (it was not my article sent to AFD). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense -- if a comment about a piece of work is automatically about the author, then isn't all commentary about authors? And wouldn't every Afd be an insult to the work? Gerardw (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly could be taken that way. And that's the thing about AFD - you obviously have to criticize it somehow without seeming to be rude or insulting. But using ALL CAPS and writing it the way he did was being insulting. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The author didn't find it insulting. Check out Rschen's talk page. He uses caps to emphasize importance in his "week of" list. That's all I was doing. I did not single out anyone by name. You need to have thicker skin Rschen. I was not personally ripping anyone. Look at the context of the caps I used. I felt that was an important sentence as I've found people don't always read everything you write. Thanks. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"NO!" looks rude in just about any context. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that bringing an article at FAC to AFD is a violation of WP:POINT. If the subject of an article isn't notable, then its sources will be deficient for FAC purposes, and it will likely fail quickly. The fact that this didn't happen at FAC demonstrates to me that the article subject was judged to have sufficient notability by the community. The FAC would probably have been the best venue to discuss the issues he had with it. I think that while GroundhogTheater's actions in nominating the article were probably not incivil (nor do I feel they were intended to be), bringing the article to AFD shows poor judgement on his part. If the article had been in need of deletion, it would have inevitably failed FAC, and only after that happened would an AFD have been proper.

That said, I wasn't particularly happy with the tone of the AFD nomination as filed. AFDs should be brief and lay out the arguments for deletion in a calm, logical, concise method. Use of all-caps for emphasis is a bit rude...italics seems more polite. —Scott5114↗ 11:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has their own style of writing. And I don't believe the article should be anywhere near where it is. I believe it fails WP:N. Please disagreed, it got shot down quick and we've moved on. Even if I'm in an extreme minority, I still have a right to my opinion. And I did put it up for a discussion. I could have been WP:BOLD and just merged it all down. What's so bad about having a discussion. I won't be a puppet and just agree with everything. That would make Wiki quite boring and monotone. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You do have a right to express your opinion. However, when it is actively being considered for FA status, it seems like bad faith to nominate it for AFD. You have every right to argue it is not notable and to argue against its promotion to FA status. However, when enough editors not only think it is notable but also think it is deserving of FA status for it to be seriously discussed there, you shouldn't have brought it to AFD. I am certainly not saying you should be blocked for it or that you violated policies, but you really should use common sense when nominating articles for deletion, and even if you don't agree that it is notable, you should respect that consensus is against you and not nominate it for deletion during an active FAC discussion. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not something I just did, I gave it alot of thought, how is it bad faith to express an opinion? It obviously didn't hinder anything. But I just believe the page is a total fraud. My friend and I broke down the sources and none of them have nothing to do with the route. It took a lot of clever writing to bring the page to where it is. Plus its sister route (that is still active) only has a one line blurb about it. You may find it unusual, but in my opinion doesn't lie between the article being FA and GA, but whether it should exist or not. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not bad faith to express an opinion per se, but the method in which you chose to express that opinion—filing an AFD—is not the best way that you should be doing. Also, you should have looked at how the FAC was doing—if multiple users were expressing that they feel the page should be deleted, then you would have had good reason to take it to AFD. As I see it, only one other user has expressed anything anywhere close to that, and other users commented that they were being absurd and WP:POINTy. That other users were discussing the article on its other merits should have indicated that an AFD would be a waste of time as it would be likely to pass as keep (which is indeed what happened).

Now, I'd like to address the comment you just made. Calling the article a "total fraud", and insinuating that Mitch is being "clever" in writing the page, is absolutely a textbook assumption of bad faith (you're implying that Mitch is making up stuff and using the sources to support it in an inappropriate manner). I can assure you that Mitch, while he may write articles on routes of sometimes questionable notability (though I do not feel this is one of these cases), and though he makes mistakes sometimes (as do we all), is thoroughly honest in his work. Mitch has done a lot of stellar work for the U.S. Roads WikiProject—to accuse him of dishonesty is, frankly, unthinkable. In the future please assume good faith. —Scott5114↗ 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding obscure articles, I once looked up an obscure subject on google and found it on WP. I later found out that the author of that obscure article has written hundreds of obscure articles. So it is possible that others benefit from obscure articles. Whether these are allowed or not is a WP policy question. In case you are curious, the obscure articles author is Billy Hathorn. Chergles (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Examine the sources my friend, examine the sources. Did you see the comments User:BurpTheBaby made? I'm not implying Mitch is making stuff up, but I'm rather saying that he is stretching things to create a good looking article here. I did it in college! We all have. But I say again, examine the sources my friend, examine the sources! --GroundhogTheater (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's still an assumption of bad faith—an assumption of good faith, as policy ascribes, would be to assume that Mitch was merely misinterpreting the sources. To express suspicions that he was intentionally trying to game the system by misusing sources is assumption of bad faith. This is a very serious allegation; you are asserting that Mitch (who, I might note, is an administrator) has malicious intent to compromise the veracity of this project. I don't find it plausible that Mitch is capable of harming the encyclopedia like that. —Scott5114↗ 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You two seem to work very closely together. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I already told you that he's a friend of mine. You attacked him, I stuck up for him. You need to broaden your horizons on Wiki if all you've been doing is whining about people who may speak to your disliking. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As explained above ( Asking you ... ) a WQA is not a personal attack. GroundhogTheater's use of all capitals does not follow community standards for discourse. The content issue is not germane here. The You need to broaden comment is uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible resolution of this Wikiquette alert: Disclaimer: I have successfully worked with others in the past but have not participated in alerts before. Therefore, please allow some laxity if I am unfamiliar with any unwritten customs of this board.

The Misplaced Pages product should be the most important goal. Whether or not AFD was appropriate, it was done and has been concluded. Editors' energy should be primarily directed to improving the article of their choice in the most cooperative way possible. Changes in policy, such as to further define notability, may be useful depending on the editor's interests. Left unresolved is whether the tone of the original AFD was appropriate. Two possibilities are either to continue to debate that or to try to work cooperatively in other issues and leave that question unanswered. Chergles (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fabartus

On my talk page (User talk:pd_THOR#Worst thing in WP), Fabartus (talk · contribs) misinterpreted edits I made and referred to the editorial efforts on my part as "arrogant" and "evil", further describing unnamed editors as "nazi's" and rapists. While uncivil, I didn't find it warranted warning or further elabouration; I've had other editors call me names before. Had that been all, I would have ignored this editor's bile.

However, on the talk page of sgeureka (talk · contribs) (user talk:sgeureka#Fix the redirects), Fabartus make personal attacks and threats against that user today (bolding added):

FIX THE DOUBLE REDIRECTS FROM THIS EXAMPLE OF WHAT A TOTAL SCREW UP YOU ARE. and stay out of Charmed pages... I've spent six weeks of my free time trying to pick up the mess you created when fucking up the merge of these pages. FYI, had you not screwed up our coverage here, I wouldn't have seen so much of the series, so in a way I owe you thanks. Nonetheless, Pray, Really Pray we never meet face to face, for you won't enjoy the common sense I pound into your sorry and foolish ass. In between, study IAR... you seem to have missed the lesson. And get some consideration for others time spent. Raping their GF efforts that took hundreds of man-months because you aren't mature enough to know when not to apply a rule or two really shows how unqualified you are to be editing here, much less be an admin. Fortunately, you can find most of them using {{R to Charmed}}. // FrankB 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You know... you're fucking crazier than I thought. Try ADDING SOME CONTENT, not judging others. What a frigging piker. GROW THE FUCK UP. // FrankB 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

While wholly uncivil, a personal attack specifying violence seemed very over-the-top of acceptability. Fabartus was again politely warned against incivility and personal attacks by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) on the former's talk page (user talk:Fabartus#Please try to remain civil), to which he responded (original bolding preserved):

Over applying questionable guidelines aren't anything but a wast of time.

Why is it that every rookie around here thinks they need to say "WP:CIV... THAT WAS VERY CIVIL... you should see the first three drafts.

Rapists should be jailed or shot. What he did to the 180 charmed article is mind boggling. So. Sorry, don't agree... read the above exchange (a day or two back). Someone has to tell a fuck up the truth. It's also free speech. Mine, so thanks, but I'll do what's right. // FrankB 23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

While I didn't feel warning him yet again would garner any suitable result, I certainly didn't feel comfortable silently condoning comments about physical violence and guns with regards to other editors. I don't know if being clearly and detailedly warned by an administrator is the reminder needed, or if the comments themselves warrant something more, but comments and insinuations such as these are, I infer, unacceptable. — pd_THOR | 02:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur the behavior is uncivil. Misplaced Pages is not a USA public forum subject to free speech rules and editors are expected to abide by applicable guidelines and behaviors. Gerardw (talk)

Fabartus threatening someone with physical violence is totally unacceptable. Doesn't that warrant an automatic ban? Dream Focus (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest involving an admin at WP:ANI per the ownership issues, severe incivility, lack of any remorse about his behavior, and most importantly, threat of physical violence. I believe a block is in order and the above quoted response to a good-faith reminder of civility issues shows another third party warning this user will have no effect. The Seeker 4 Talk 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur, I recommend blocking user Fabartus. Having had the opportunity to look up the applicable sections;

• Civility
• Harassment (Threats)
• Battleground
• Personal attacks

This user, by his actions, has shown a complete disdain for the policies and procedures that we have in place to ensure that this type of behavior does not happen, and having displayed this, should be held to account by these same standards. Also concur that this needs to be taken to Administrator Notice Board, with a link back to this section for reference. Edit Centric (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Donadio

Once again the same user in the same article: White Brazilian. Last week, this user was blocked 2 times for his behavior in this article. Now that his block expired, he is back again to the same article, wih the same useless discussion in the Talk:White Brazilian. He's flooding this talk page with his personal opinions and theories about the figures of the Embassies of Italy and Lebanon in Brazil (his theory is that the Embassies are lying). He is frequently changing the article with his own theories, with unsouced informations (he has a "pro-Portuguese" point of view of the subject, and tries to erase the informations about Germans, Italians, Arabs and other ethnic groups).

WP:NOTFORUM -- Misplaced Pages is not forum, but Donadio is ignoring this rule, trying to cause troubles, not only in White Brazilian but in other articles as well. Opinoso (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If a user is blocked for disruption, and immediately on return engages in the same disruption, take it directly to WP:ANI. If a block is not enough to change his behavior, a polite request by a third party from this forum is not going to do any good, so a longer block is in order. Admins are obviously needed for that, so I suggest you place this on WP:ANI. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I placed this on WP:ANI. Opinoso (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso

Can someone please take a look at Opinoso's behaviour in the White Brazilians Talk Page? Donadio (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on ANI. Without supporting one side or the other in this dispute, I can say please discuss it there and on the article talk page and avoid pointy filings in retaliation. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, I should not post in the article's Talk Page because I'm being accused of "flooding it". But thanks for your advice, I will keep myself to the ANI page. Donadio (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:IslandShader

(Moved from where I originally posted, which was a less appropriate place) Could an admin have a word with this user, please? He's new, and I left a note on his talk page because he used the f-word twice in one edit summary , and he took exception, leaving uncivil comments on my talk page and continuing to swear in his edit summaries, like this . I don't know how admins deal with this kind of thing, so here it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

He is continuing to attack other editors Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

With a nice edit summary! This editor needs to have things explained in a way that might get through to him, by someone whose words carry some weight. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Since his behavior indicates average users will not carry any weight with their warnings, I have brought this issue to ANI. An admin there can decide to block or final warn this user as they deem appropriate. The Seeker 4 Talk 04:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Abusive behavior from a Misplaced Pages user

User:Kirihari: Wikihoarding, personal attacks, threats, gaming the system, disrespect, etc. , , , , , , SharkD (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please clarify which diff shows which violation that you're asserting here? I'm trying to find the "threats" that you've mentioned, and I'll definitely click through the diffs again, jic I missed something. What I'm most amused by is the "life-changing" comments. Come on. If someone makes major changes to the article, how is that going to change one's life? Lemme take another look... Edit Centric (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, as for the threats, they're not very serious but are maddening nonetheless. First, there are the edit summaries where I'm accused of violating WP:POINT for modifying content. Then there are the threats of notifying his inside source, the Wikimedia arbiter - which was never actually done according to his contribs log. What's the point of threatening to inform a moderator? Why not just do so matter-of-factly?

Please get rid of this annoyance, OK? :) SharkD (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, nice username, BTW. :) SharkD (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

SharkD, he is "amused" by our conversation... doesn't that tell you anything? Also, "Please get rid of this annoyance?", as if you control the admins? I have made no threats and I am not angry, by any account you have made the only threat "You don't want to go down that road with me", implying some kind of movie style threat. This is really humorous to me, you do know? Please try to be constructive so we can come to a solution. I apologize if I have offended you as I have said on my own talk page and in the article, can't we just work together to make this page as good as possible, or working together is not your style? --Kirihari (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the behavior I am talking about! Here he's trying to play the two of us against each other. He knows he can't win as long as he stays on the subject, so he changes the subject to something else in order create a disruption. I've tried cooperating civily with Kirihari, but he continually stonewalls conversations by rambling on about how he's really a good guy and my friend, and how there's really an outside majority who's right and they have my best interests in mind while I'm wrong. I can't work with someone who's purposefully incoherent! If this isn't gaming the system I don't know what is! SharkD (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, enough of the biting. I looked again, and don't see what you're talking about as far as threats, SharkD. What I DO see is an editor that cares a lot about the work that they have put into the article. Kirihari, you maybe care a bit too much, article changes aren't "life-altering", trust me on this. (You or SharkD could go make massive changes to the Foot drill article that I spent days on, and the sun will still rise tomorrow, my baby girl will still love her daddy.)

While I agree with you on some of the article points, such as it being a list and NOT a chronology, I'm quite disappointed in BOTH SharkD and Kirihari for the move and edit warring that is happening with this article. SharkD, if Kirihari states that he / she is going to "get a mediator", that is perfectly acceptable. It is not a threat, and you shouldn't take it as such. If Kirihari feels that, instead of edit warring, he / she wishes to have third-party mediation of the issue(s), then that is a far preferrable solution than carrying on an edit war.

As for "getting rid of this annoyance", that is ALSO not contributing to this situation being resoved. NOW, can you both work together on this article, or is the edit war (and yes, both of you are each just as culpable as the other in this!) going to result in blocks? I personally would much rather see the two of you working together, its quite apparent that you both have an interest in the subject matter! If both of you are serious about doing some good with the article and the encyclopedia as a whole, here is what I suggest;

• Wipe the slate clean. What's in the past is in the past, period.
• Leave the article content alone for now.
• Start a new dialogue on the talk page, stating and enumerating your individual aims for the article's improvement.
• I (that's me, Edit Centric) will join you over on that project, to provide a third set of eyes and constructive comment on each change, to aid in consensus-building.
• NO CHANGES COMMITTED unless by consensus.

This process would be in place for as long as necessary. It may take a few days, it may take a few weeks. The aim is to get everyone working toward the same goals. Is everyone okay with that? Edit Centric (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Frick, I think I love you Edit Centric! HEHEHE, Yeah, hell yeah, listen I will work with anyone who wants to make this article better. I will also start reading up on Misplaced Pages guidelines because I think I am lacking. I just really want to do my best and help make an awesome article and help get it moved from "Low priority" to at least "Mid" heheheh. Slate is clean! I will start a fresh edit tomorrow and hopefully we can come to a nice solution or solutions! Space combat sims are more than a hobby for my wife and I though.. ehhehe I can't help get excited about them, I mean especially with games like the new X Terran Conflict where the entire earth solar system is remarkably recreated, sorry for always getting worked up, but damnitt I think I own most of the games on the list, I will do my very best to be civil and more than understanding to other people's changes and try to work better towards a common goal. --Kirihari (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's one. SharkD, are you on-board with this? Also Kirihari, please start by discussing what your ideas are and what you would like to accomplish, on the talk page. Don't just jump in and start making changes to the article its self just yet. Let's first build a constructive dialogue, then we'll move on to implementation. Edit Centric (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried working with him in the past. It hasn't lead to anything positive. It hasn't even been possible to follow along with the discussion, much less participate, given how he commandeered the Talk page. And, I was flamed just for pointing this out! I don't see what you expect me to do. SharkD (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, here's another threat that I missed the first time: . "Basically add something to this conversation or start a new one, your antics are boring me." This is basically the second thing he said to me since I found the page. And, this is in response to merely suggesting that non-3D space sims be added to the list. This has characterized the tone of the discussions from the start. But I see you guys are getting along so well now... SharkD (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

SharkD - Are you saying above that you're not open to informal mediation? You're the one who brought this to WQA. If you were hoping to simply "get rid of this annoyance", this was not the place to make that happen. Those that mediate here are all about the dialogue, all about cooperation, unless a user is just not willing to give that a try, then other avenues are looked at and considered. In this case, I truly think that there is a chance to get something good from all of this. I have already gotten Kirihari to agree to the stips above. If I can mediate the Duke Math Journal article (and I know SQUAT about the Duke Math Journal!), then I can surely get you two to work constructively on a list of video games! Come on, SharkD. Give this a try? Edit Centric (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As I already said, I've tried. SharkD (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just browsed over to the new diffs that you posted, and I see absolutely no instance where you were "flamed". Criticized, yes. And maybe that criticizm was a bit unfounded. But definitely not flamed. Trust me, I've been flamed by some of the best in the biz, from BBS systems to IRC, to the web, so I know flaming when I see it. As for the restructuring of the talk page, that has already been addressed, so it's moot now. Trust me, SharkD, accepting this framework for informal mediation is a win-win scenario, for you, for Kirihari, and for Misplaced Pages. Edit Centric (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We must be looking at different pages. SharkD (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, are you turning down the offer for informal mediation? If so, I'll gladly change the "In progress" template at the top to the "Stuck" template. I suspect however, that others would encourage you to take me up on the offer. (Come on, I'm offering to help you guys on this thing, in the midst of my own personal emergency up in Anchorage! Take...the offer.) Edit Centric (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I came here to report uncivil behavior. I don't feel the need for assitance on the article itself; it's a small article! But if it's so easy to change "culpibility" from "both" to "me", then go ahead... SharkD (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, the purpose of this exercise was simply to vent? Okay, that in and of itself is a good thing. As I stated previously, the edit warring was a shared culpability. However, your own words here, "I don't feel I need assitance (sic) on the article itself; it's a small article!" sound dangerously like WP:OWN, which has me honestly concerned. At this point, I'd like some other third-parties to comment on this. Edit Centric (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Vent? You're putting words in my mouth. And the WP:OWNership is only true if I in fact intend to continue editing the article. Look, I came here to report incivility. The template at the top of the article states that this is the place to come to do so. I assumed that the person would be warned or reprimanded in some way. It says, " is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors (...) advice, informal mediation...". It says "or" to come for "advice and informal mediation". It doesn't say "and". There's no mention of mediation with regard to article content. As for the incivility, WP:Civility lists:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors
• Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them
• Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
• Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
• Harassment
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"

These are all things which Kirihari has subjected upon me--not some!

Finally, please don't break normal discussion flow. I find that disruptive.

As for the article--well, it's a list article. How much more material can it require? Going through this entire process of mediation just to add one or two items to a list seems silly, and is rather embarrassing. SharkD (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops! I misread that last post. I thought it was an straight-up admonishment. SharkD (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles are always in a state of change. When one party is willing to mediate, and the other party is unwilling, it says a lot about both parties. Mediation requires you to use the past as a route forward. A failure to try is a violation of the spirit of Misplaced Pages Community. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, I've already tried working with Kirihari, and it has not been successful. And there has already been mediation, whether by asking on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games or by patiently weighing Randomran's third opinions. Other editors have als come to voice their opinions. Yet Kirihari continued to spew his vitriol. This is not a case where mediation hasn't already been pursued!!! SharkD (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you please use the PREVIEW button before saving your changes to any article from now on. It should not take you 4 edits to write one paragraph. Use the preview button at all times (I could template you about it, but I won't .. yet) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think SharkD should consider carefully the sentence already quoted:

It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.

It is a misunderstanding to suppose that means a user can bind administrators to provide only perspective, or only advice or only informal mediation or only referral etc. just by demanding. Unless SharkD is willing to cease trying to prosecute Kirihari here and now, and accept Edit Centric's condition Wipe the slate clean. What's in the past is in the past, period. then nothing can be done here and it looks like SharkD is the problem. BTW I have zero interest in the article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well all, I just read through the entirety of the article talk page, (pretty good for 03:50 in the blessed AM!) and I've come to the healthy conclusion that BOTH users need warned at this point, about edit warring, maintaining civility, ownership of an article and making false accusations. (To include ballooning otherwise true statements up in scope!)

Right now, it looks like both of these editors are making an honest effort at working the issues over on the article talk page. As long as constructive communication is adhered to, I'm hopeful that this will work itself out. As for me, this one has me "brayne-fryde", I'm hitting the snore shelf! Good luck, all! Edit Centric (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone, I really appreciate everyone's help, I will do my best to remain positive and and keep the conversation constructive. Thank you so much for staying up late and trying to help! ;) --Kirihari (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm tagging this one as resolved for archiving, as both editors seem to have a new perspective over at the article's talk page. Hopefully everything remains above board and "on the level". Edit Centric (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mickproper

After I AFDed one of his articles and reverted some of his edits, Mickproper seriously lost it and posted this to my talk page and sent me a personal threat in email, which I took seriously enough to report to my local police. ("just so you know you punk...when I find out your real identity, you're going to have a VERY bad day!") I don't wish to be involved with this guy anymore. Someone should keep an eye on him, though - I think he is well-intentioned, but his edits are frequently unsourced, unverifiable, and/or contain original research. And he has a temper. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution