Revision as of 06:24, 25 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

Consensus, Cooperation & Civility with response from user in question

This was archived before it could be commented on by all involved & Minphie had their edit deleted because they pulled it out of the archives instead of starting a new process. So I've done it this way to give them a say. --Figs Might Ply

I've been editing a number of pages relating to drug policy recently, and have noticed a lot of conflict between a few of editors and, Minphie. Minphie and I have opposing views on how governments should respond to drug use, which is fine, however Minphie has been not been assuming good faith, not been civil and sometimes making edits that I believe are not in keeping with various[REDACTED] policy guidelines. I would like to request that someone reiterate to Minphie that consensus, cooperating and civility are important here on wikipedia. It's fine that we disagree on content, but we need to be in agreement about how to resolve this dispute as effective editors.

Examples of Minphie not adhering to wikiquette

• Threatening to "take it further"

On the Harm reduction talk page, Minphie has multiple times told other editors (Figs Might Ply, Steinberger, Rakkar) that they will be reported for vandalism or inappropriate editing. We have demonstrated multiple times with reference to WP:NOTVAND that our edits are fair. Minphie does not accept this and keeps telling us he is keeping a log of our "infringements" that he will use to report us. User:Rakkar was reported to administrator JohnCD in early april, and received thefollowing response: I have advised Minphie that this is a content dispute, not vandalism, and that if you and s/he cannot reach a WP:Consensus by discussion on talk pages you should follow the process described at WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD

• Undue weight

Without reigniting the arguments here, I would like to contend that Minphie is trying to unbalance a number of drug policy related articles by adding large amounts of criticism. As per Misplaced Pages:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, Minphie's versions of the articles listed at the end of this report often contain more criticism than content. I agree that drug policies are a contentious issue, and different people in the community oppose various methods. So it's good and fine for the article to contain information on this, but not so much that most of the article is about this opposition. If I could give the following example, Minphie added so much criticism that the article was about 70% criticism. Steinberger has trimmed it down, and regardless of the exact content, I believe that the article looks a lot easier to read now.

• Unwillingness to compromise

Minphie believes that they have unquestionable truth on a number of points, and is unwilling to engage in debate about these issues. on the Talk:Harm reduction page, they have made the following comments:

• Here is the reason I won't tolerate any further deletions on the Sweden issue. - Goes on to claim to have unquestionable information
• I won't tolerate this clear obstructionism in the future - claiming that because[REDACTED] policies around WP:Weasel have not been applied to every example of weasel words, his use of weasel words should be exempt.

Articles where disputes take place

• Talk:Harm reduction
• Harm reduction
• Needle-exchange_programme
• Safe_injection_site

I have tagged Minphie's talk page as requested. I hope we can reach an understanding between all editors. --Figs Might Ply (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Minphie’s reply

Minphie wanted to have their say on the matter after it was archived so I've dug it out of the archive and reposted it. --Figs Might Ply

I am re-posting the charges of Figs Might Ply on Wikiquette Alerts dated 09/05/2010 before replying below - Minphie

I seek to redress this issue in line with WP:Civility.B626mrk (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I believe that any objective adjudicator of this issue would want to know the following before providing assistance:

Consensus/Compromise?

I’ll first address this singular charge of unwillingness to compromise. I believe this charge arises out of an entirely fallacious and mistaken notion of consensus which, quite realistically, would not be given life within any academic forum. User:Gerardw expresses this false notion well on User talk:Minphie section – “taking it further’ where he urged:

"Strange as it might seem being correct is not the criteria for content on Misplaced Pages. Rather verifiable, balanced presentation as determined by consensus determines Misplaced Pages content. If you have one position and two or three editors have the other, than you are in the wrong to keep adding/reverting content. You can utilize article WP:RFC (or WP:THIRD if it's just two of you) to get more eyes on the issue."

This erroneous notion of consensus dictates that if I assert that 2+2=4 on Misplaced Pages, but a number of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Drug Policy members rather assert that 2+2=3, that consensus must be found by no longer seeking to be correct as User:Gerardw asserts, but by seeking compromise (perhaps 2+2 will equal 3.5 now on Misplaced Pages) or if by weight of numbers 2+2 will now equal 3 because they had the majority in the discussion. Of course, if the claim is made that Misplaced Pages cannot record anything without some level of agreement by those in the discussion, then 2+2 won’t ever be asserted on Misplaced Pages, no matter its importance to the world at large, while the stonewalling of the 2+2=3 cabal continues. The kind of irrational consensus promoted by user Gerardw would be given no credence whatsoever in any academic or cooperative forum, and Misplaced Pages would lose its credibility if it was. True rational consensus is about agreeing on what, amongst the correct information available, is relevant to the topic at hand. Thus being correct is still absolutely critical to Misplaced Pages’s credibility.

The ‘contentious’ issue that has brought this complaint from User:Figs Might Ply is whether: 1. Sweden has attained the lowest illicit drug use in the OECD (see Revision History of Harm Reduction from 29 April to present) 2. whether this is due to its restrictive drug policy introduced in 1982. (see Revision History of Harm Reduction for May 4,5)

Evidencing issue 1 is my citation from the United Nations Office of Drug Control (UNODC) World Report 2000 showing that Sweden had the lowest cumulative drug use in the developed world, which is easily calculated from the percentages on the tables in the pages I cited. These figures cannot be disputed with any rational weight of argument, butUser:Steinberger has repeatedly used arguments that don’t even address the issue of achieving lowest use to remove my text from the Harm Reduction page. I have put it back because it is 1. correct 2. relevant to the argument 3. brief and 4. Steinberger is a proponent of heroin trials, not a critic, and should not decide how critics put there argument if it is relevant, brief and correct.

Evidencing issue 2 is an entire UNODC document on Sweden’s drug policy of 100 pages which shows correlations between the introduction of their restrictive drug policy and steep drops in drug use. Seeing as User:Steinberger has frequently contributed to a subsection on Drug policy of the Netherlands section - 'Results of the drug policy' which assumes a causal relationship between their drug policy and their drug use statistics, it is disingenuous of User:Steinberger to question the very highly probable causation of evidenced drug policy in Sweden. Steinberger and Figs Might Ply can be observed on the Discussion page taking their objections to these to issues to absurd lengths, simply, it would seem, so they claim that there is no consensus and keep factual and correct text off the page. I will now progress this dispute by taking this issue of erroneous consensus definitions and tactical stonewalling and obfuscation to the appropriate forums in Misplaced Pages such that the guidelines are strengthened such that this does not continue to happen on Misplaced Pages. Its continuation will only harm Misplaced Pages’s credibility as a reliable information source. Also the use of block deletions to remove huge slabs of factual and carefully cited text for one small issue under discussion in the midst of the slab of text also needs to be questioned guideline-wise. Etiquette would demand that the rest of the factual and cited text remain while one sentence among the many is discussed. This was an issue with User:Rakkar, another member of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Drug Policy.

Incivility?

The current issue had its origins in a first deletion of a factual and meticulously cited paragraph on criticisms of injecting rooms on the Harm Reduction page dated 29 April 2010. The deletion was by user: Figs Might Ply, who notably is the one lodging the various grievances on this page. user:Figs Might Ply entered no discussion on the Talk page, but deleted highly relevant text for the following subjective reason as entered into the Edit Summary (→Safe injection sites: Deleted a bit. This paragraph seemed to have a pretty warped version of the truth. Can we replace it with something better?) I dispassionately wrote user:Figs Might Ply via their user page that there would need to be good and discussed reason for deleting my contribution. I will leave it with observers/adjudicators of this issue to determine the civility or good faith of this opening move by user:Figs Might Ply.

I believe that what any objective adjudicator must determine, then, is whether this complaint by user:Figs Might Ply, also on behalf of user:Steinberger, is a case of the aggressor crying foul when someone stands up to their inappropriate behaviours. Again the history of these behaviours can be tracked through the Talk:Harm reduction and Revision history of Harm reduction section 22.

Undue Weight

I am happy to support the criticism of undue weight, and have adjusted the Safe Injection Site accordingly.

Minphie

FMP Resurrects Matter

Minphie, I really do want to try and sort this out properly, and I hope you will appreciate that I have gone to the effort of resubmitting this matter as it had been archived and your response was subsequently not seen.

I seek to redress this issue in line with WP:Civility.B626mrk (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Could you explain what this line meant? I'm most confused as B626mrk has never been involved in editing drug related articles to my knowledge. I'll invite Steinberger to come and talk this over too.--Figs Might Ply (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Minphie, read and understand WP:OR. Not only the factual statistics in an argumentation should be verified, the whole argument should also be verified. You just can't take a figure from a source, such as you for example done from kingheathpartners.org

I'd also like to refer Minphie to our verifiability policy. The piece above about whether 2+2=4 makes it seem that Minphie has missed the point entirely. Misplaced Pages should say 2+2=4, not because a minority of editors know they are right and hold out fanatically against all opposition, but because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If problems persist, the next steps in dispute resolution would be user conduct RfC as it will focus on discussing conduct issues of this sort. But it might be easier to clarify how his conduct is affecting content by first using article RfC, formal mediation or informal mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Silesian metropolitan region and personal attacks in polish language

I proposed removing Silesian metropolitan region because of WP:SOURCES, WP:REDFLAG and original research. User:LUCPOL not only removed prod template from aritcle without giving proper argumentation on talkpage but also started to write aggresively in polish as described here. I'm looking for help and/or advice over what can be done in this situation.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I removal aggresive part of my post and apologized (before he announced here ). When it comes to template {delete}, this IP incorrect use of the template - first template, then the discussion with other users. Should be: first discussion with other users then template (if there was consensus). PS. This IP harassing me for a long time - therefore, I be angry, I'm only human. LUCPOL (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not harrassing you, it's your imagination. I only put objections to unreliable content, original research and your own opinions which you just happen to include in articles quite often and it looks like you get easily annoyed if someone shows it to you. Please don't try to act like you didn't do that.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing against the showing of irregularities, but you remove what you like (in particular the text, which you would prefer to hide), no waiting for the reviews of other users. You are not alone on Misplaced Pages. You behaving in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Trolling. LUCPOL (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolling, you say? Where?--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your whole behavior: conversation mode, erased data, insertion templates (in particular to the text, which you would prefer to hide), writing nonsense in the discussions, governance to Misplaced Pages as king, do not listen to the opinions of others users, no waiting for the reviews of other users ...and harassment. LUCPOL (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Writing like this you're only working for a ban. Please, show me where I treated you like that. I don't understand what you mean writing things like these above. It's only bad for you accusing me of things I haven't done. By now the only nonsense I can see is what you've just written.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quotation: "It's only bad for you accusing me of things I haven't done" - enough to trace your contribution and the relationship between us. You do not see what you are doing wrong. Bad. LUCPOL (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, nice chat, but seriously, what exactly you think I've done wrong to you? Cause this overall accusation works well only for your eventual ban. There's no "relationship between us", you're dreaming XD--83.242.88.168 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What is clear is that you are both edit-warring where blocking both of you would be appropriate. To resolve your content dispute(s), instead of edit-warring, please use dispute resolution - namely, article RfC, or request formal mediation or informal mediation. To LUCPOL, it is clear you need to discuss your reverts on the talk page if you wish to avoid revert restrictions. And to the IP, it is clear that you keep editing articles that LUCPOL is editing so you are probably correct in suggesting a ban is imminent - though not necessarily for LUCPOL. Ncmvocalist (talk)

OK, I've done edits on pages that LUCPOL edited too, but does that mean I shouldn't edit articles when I see clearly someone is forcing his own opinions and violates WP:NOR policy? Is that how care for reliability works on wikipedia? I think[REDACTED] community must consider what is more iportant for wikipedia. Just tell me, do you want it to work like this: anyone can register and than be protected when writing on own fantasies? That's all I mean.--83.242.88.168 (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You can make a bold edit, but these may be subject to a reversion if they are opposed - this is almost predictable whenever largescale changes are made by the way. When the edit is reverted, the matter needs to be raised on the talk page by one or both of you where the proposal will be considered, and you both discuss the matter. If you don't think there's enough input because only you are responding or only another editor is responding, then you can open an article RfC so that others can comment. If it's just a matter of communicating difficulties, mediation will help address the points you both agree on and the points that you need to work on before consensus can arise. However, if you are following an editor around, targetting their contributions for the purpose of intimidating or annoying them, that is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages's five pillars and that is when things happen. Similarly, if an editor is engaging in original research consistently, then they may also encounter problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Vranak - views on consensus and personal attacks

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.

Vranak (talk · contribs) removed article tags at Everquest, some I support, 1 oppose, but with a series of less-than-ideal edit summaries. One, here, has more than a whiff of wp:NPA-break. Editor strongly opposes use of article tags, and this post, to me, goes past "That was rude, and not ideal." and into "Stop the personal attacks. Now."

Since we don't agree about the wp:article tags, and the importance of wp:consensus, I think any further comment from me will only be inflammatory. The editor clearly understands wp:NPA and wp:consensus... but perhaps a few words from uninvolved editors might help the editor understand the WP community dependence on both. - Sinneed 16:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Meltdown

Melting.

editor redacted most of that.- Sinneed 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Me: "I see your vision for Misplaced Pages, but it conflicts with the vision outlined in wp:five pillars.- Sinneed 4:38 pm, Today (UTC−5)"

Reply: "Alright. I have no interest in these Five Pillars. I have an interest in Misplaced Pages being as good as possible. Where there is conflict, the Five Pillars must accede. Vranak (talk) 4:49 pm, Today (UTC−5)"

I don't think this is going to work out well for V.- Sinneed 21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion on the Reference Desk talk page that cites a number of rude comments by Vranak against the general public, including the implication that cancer is linked to moral defects. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

wp:PA here, wp:taunting (sorry can't find the real article) here - continuing. I hope this editor can be helped, but the editor seems to only be hearing from involved editors. Words from uninvolved editors may help the editor understand that this behaviour is disruptive and must end. - Sinneed 22:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LAz17

Alleged ongoing harassment by User:Nishidani

User:Nishidani, who has been reported here several times over the last few years,], ], ], is falling back on old habits. He and I have had an ongoing content dispute since February of this year, and as a result, I have been under near constant attack.

To document that this has been a long-standing and ongoing problem, please see:

• ] – “vulgar”
• ] – “you lie”

• ] – “unlike some others, I don't suffer from ADS"
• ] “I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”

• ] – “sheer momentum of the obtuse"

• ] - accused of “faking” evidence

• – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."

• ] Defends his behavior with "Consistent factitious editing raises hackles, that is all. "

• ] "Don't be so faux clunk-headed."

• ] "Oxfordian harping all about repetition.” “is what happens when textual evidence is decanted through incompetent interpreters"

This behaviour has continued despite repeated requests to stop the personal attacks and focus on editing. Earlier this week, I sought advice on a policy question ] concerning a different editor, after which Nishidani appeared and left this ], which he then amended with this over-the-top insult:

• ] "There's edit-warring and edit-whoring, and you practice both."

This has been going on, non-stop, for almost 5 months now. Can someone intervene?Smatprt (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope someone attentively reads those diffs, perhaps someone familiar with the huge amount of work Smatprt's highly erratic edits create for editors trying to rein in the proliferation of poor paraphrases and outright mistakes that characterize his 'work' here. It's taken me two hours today to correct the total mess made, including sheer fabrication, of several paraphrases of the work of Diana Price, and I can't even post it on the page he works, but in the other version sensible editors are trying to construct, where it is all provisory. As Tom Reedy said, people shouldn't be constrained to work like this, cleaning the Augean stables of an ideologically-motivated fringe theory pusher, who is now forum-shopping (see WP:Edit warring, yesterday ). Yes It's frustrating, particularly since the few diffs I checked don't even have anything to do with him (the one he calls 'vulgar' is a joke, not referring to him, but made for the eyes of a fellow editor who seems to have, unlike Smatprt, a sense of humour, something needed to cope with this war of attrition on behalf of the earl of Oxford aka Shakespeare by another name. Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nishidani is correct - some of the attacks above were indeed directed at other editors, as well (combined with continued ad hominem attacks). Not sure why that would be an excuse, as it merely shows his contempt for any editor that disagrees with him. Also not sure what he means by Forum shopping, as the edit-warring policy question I raised was not even concerning him. Smatprt (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating what I have repeated over the last few months. You continually misconstrue what I and others say, and books state. I made neither an 'attack' nor a a 'vulgar crack' at Tom Reedy. I made a joke that I hoped would tickle his humour, playing on the ambiguity of his edit. That is not, as you repeat here once more, an 'attack' on an editor. To the contrary, it was an attempt to inject a little light humour into things.

As to ad hominem attacks. I take it as an attack on my time and intelligence that it took me several days to get through to you that you did not understand the difference between 'myth' and 'legend', that you engaged in WP:OR violations in trying to twist words to make out that in antiquity what in modern times (after 1785) is called a 'mute swan' was responsible for the 'myth' you concocted out of Ovid. All the bored have to do is to keep clicking back on that diff. You refused to understand plain English, and caused me, in deference to WP:AGF to try to explain the concept of myth, the use of swan imagery in antiquity, the distinction between a whooper swan and a mute swan, the difference between Pliny, Aelian and Aristotle, the fact that the text you cite mistranslates the Latin olim. You kept succinctly rephrasing your edit, without altering its substance, in the face of my piling on of evidence you were, on several points, incorrect. I think, in the end, you just elided the whole grabbag of nonsense. But is is not a severe abuse of wiki etiquette, to keep up an edit in the face of grinding proofs you got it all wrong? It is, in my book, because you persist in the face of proof, do nothing to improve your understanding of the subject you raise, and you do this all over articles on Shakespeare, citing poor scholarship, which you frequently misunderstand, to push an ideological absurdity no one in the serious world of Elizabethan studies takes seriously. If, after dozens of edits to nudge you to try and understand what your interlocutor, and the broad world of scholarship, is saying fails, you think I am in breach of a rule of etiquette, well, perhaps, but only under extreme provocation. I am not used to obtusity, presume you are not dumb, and yet you persist in not understanding simple issues. Hence I wondered if your first language was English, after months of engaging with you. Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides being incorrect on numerous counts (and off topic), are you saying that this excuses your constant attacks, insults, and vulgarity?Smatprt (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ps.In your history of my appearance here, you appear not to be familiar with the history on[REDACTED] of the two people who, very briefly, complained here about me, to no effect. Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if you are trying to imply that you have no history of attacks and incivility, then please refer to these comments and decisions at ArbCom: ] Smatprt (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And your vulgarity is well known, as well: See edit summaries here] and here ].Smatprt (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt is probably the most exasperating editor at Misplaced Pages, as almost everyone who has ever tried to work with him can testify, but oddly enough no one has complained of his etiquette because most adult editors know that it's a waste of time and a distraction. He's addicted to complaining about his editors, their edits, and how everybody's picking on him. It's one way he wastes everybody's time in order to divert their attention away from his ongoing campaign to insert his pet POV into as many articles as possible before someone spots and reverts them. Complaining about impolite behaviour is probably one of the most-used weapons in the anti-Stratfordian arsenal; I don't know any of them who have not used it at one time or another, and in fact for them it rises to the level of genuine scholarly discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps no one has complained due to the fact that I don't engage in personal attacks and the kind of mudslinging that you and Nishidani are known for. We have content disputes. Big deal. There are lots of them here (and plenty that pale in comparison to ours). It's still no excuse for you] and Nishidani's behaviour. Smatprt (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your idea of "personal attacks" and "mudslinging" is anything you deem to be such. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Smatprt, please MYOB - what Nishidani says to Tom Reedy is not your concern. If Tom Reedy has a concern, he can raise it himself. Although some of the commentary is concerning, you appear to be exaggerating in calling it harassment.

• Nishidani and Tom Reedy, I appreciate that you might be dealing with a form of editing that frustrates the best of editors, but you need to stop drawing this sort of attention to yourselves. If an editor is repeatedly trying to push POV, edit tendentiously, etc., it is under one condition that you may try to deal with this by yourselves: that your conduct stays well above par. For most editors, this is close to impossible, and that is why Wikipedians are expected to utilize dispute resolution in order to deal with the problem. Most people either don't quite understand how it works or just don't have the patience because it "doesn't rise to the level of genuine scholarly discussion", but that excuse does not help your cause, even if this does one day end up in front of an ArbCom. If an editor is trying to push POV, open an article RfC - let others see why or how another editor's proposal/editing is problematic. If they can see what you see, and the editing is continuing, then open a user conduct RfC citing the most pertinent examples of the editing. Others will comment on the conduct to the point that the editor hopefully addresses his/her approach. If he/she doesn't, then you bring the matter to ANI where we can remove that editing from that part of the project, or if all else fails, there is the nuclear option of ArbCom. To cut the long story short, if you aren't ready to keep your conduct well above par and you aren't ready to utilize dispute resolution, you will soon find that this project might not be the place for you. You need to make a choice about how others will receive your contributions - this includes in the level of professionalism that others can see in your commentary and edit-summaries. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm just an editor, and scrupulous, and lack the patience of Job. I stick to the charge, that his editing is frequently 'fraudulent' (se below for this morning's example), and tests the patience of anyone who troubles to check it, as, once more, occurred today. Sure I deserve a rap over the knuckles for failing the sainthood test. Still, while on the intercom to Arbcom about that nuke strike my way, I hope you do glance at this. It may distract you just enough to make you stuff up on the coordinates, and hit Frisco instead! No hardf feelings, whatever the outcome. Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are well-taken, and you have my word I will do my best to comply with your suggestions, although I try to avoid arbitration myself as a waste of time that could be better spent editing. One foreseeable problem that concerns me is that he has opened so many complaints connected to this topic that hardly any editors will venture their opinions anymore, which decreases the likelihood of response when some real issues need arbitration, such as when our separate SAQ articles are juried, but I suppose we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope you won't be the only user who tries their best to do so...uninvolved users can only do so much. In any case, mrking it as resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack or Conflict of Interest

Hi, I am disturbed by what I consider a personal attack in this edit. I've sought a retraction but the editor insists it is a conflict of interest on my part. Can a third party please look at this and also cast their eye over NPOV issues in the article Rumble strip? Alex Sims (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In my view, Albertoarmstrong has not made a personal attack on Alex Sims. However, when Albertoarmstrong saw what he believed to be errors in content and method on Rumble strip he made the serious mistake of focusing on the person rather than the principle. As Alex Sims’s diff shows, on 11 May 2010 Albertoarmstrong made the following comments at Talk:Rumble strip:

3 months after Alex Sims' NPOV complaint he hasn't contributed to this article despite the wealth of information available on the internet. Prior to the start of my involvement on February 5, 2020, this article was grossly underdeveloped. It appears that Alex doesn't have personal interest in the subject as it isn't even listed on User: Alex Sims' page. Also, it appears from this page he has a background in Electronic Engineering and a MBA, so no technical background applicable to this subject. It also appears that he operates an IT company called Softgrow in Australia. For some reason he appears fixated on the New Zealand study …

Then, there are the frivolous basis for the the NPOV (as discussed above) which leads to the concern that Alex has very no understanding of this subject. After he realized his mistake of his "addition of controveries by a single editor" claim against me he then backtracks and then hides behind the "world view" spin.

Comments of a personal nature like this are Ad hominem and are not welcome at Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to edit Misplaced Pages. An edit must be judged solely on the technical merit of the edit. An edit must never be judged on the qualifications or perceived motives of the editor. Dolphin (t) 23:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dolphin's assessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

The above-statements are not completely clear to me as it is stated: "In my view, Albertoarmstrong has NOT made a personal attack on Alex Sims." but it is "ad hominem". Based on these, I just removed the ad hominem reference from the talk page.

I'm not completely familar with Wiki policy, so can a Wiki editor advise me what is the procedure to: 1) remove the NPOV banner from the Rumble Strip article; and 2) how do I contest what appears to be promotional material and exaggerated claims (i.e. New Zealand refenence) in the article? Thank you. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alberto. Thank you for responding here.

A personal attack on another User is a serious misdemeanour on Misplaced Pages. See WP:NPA. Personal attacks often result in the offender being blocked for a period of time. Alex Sims has raised a complaint that you made one or more personal attacks on him. My assessment of the facts presented by Alex is that you are not guilty of a personal attack on Alex or anyone else, and therefore you can be confident no disciplinary action will be contemplated as a result of Alex’s complaint.

You are new to Misplaced Pages and you made a mistake that many of us make early in our editing careers – you reacted to some of Alex’s edits by making comments on a Talk page about Alex himself, his knowledge of the subject, his prior involvement (or lack) with the article; even his educational qualifications and field of employment. These things are irrelevant to Alex’s edits and should not have been used in a way that is adverse to Alex. When you see one or more edits that you believe don’t add to the quality of an article the best thing to do is to be bold and delete those edits; and then go to the editor’s Talk page and explain why you deleted them.

When an NPOV banner, or some other similar banner, is placed on an article, and you believe the banner is inappropriate, I recommend you start a new thread on the article’s Talk page giving your view on the banner and inviting other interested Users to contribute their views. (I acknowledge you have made many good edits at Talk:Rumble strip#NPOV Feb 2010.) It will soon be clear whether the matter attracts little or no attention, or starts a long discussion among multiple Users. If there is no discussion, or there is some consensus about the inappropriateness of the banner, then you would be at liberty to delete it. If there is substantial opposition to deleting the banner, or any similar dispute regarding article content, it would be appropriate to request input from independent Users by raising the matter at WP:RFC. Also, see WP:Resolving NPOV disputes.

Misplaced Pages is supported by article Talk pages, User talk pages and a whole category of dispute resolution mechanisms to assist Users to participate without getting too frustrated by the actions of others.

Please don’t hesitate to comment further here on what I have written, or to make further enquiries about how to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. The Wikiquette alerts community is happy to provide advice and guidance to help keep Misplaced Pages running as smoothly as possible. Dolphin (t) 00:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dolphin, Based on your clarification, I have "toned-down" my comments on the Rumble Strip Talk Page. Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alberto. Thanks for making those edits. Dolphin (t) 11:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Volunteer team, thanks for your efforts here but the article concerned continues to suffer from original research (complete with photos), Synthesis of arguments and Ownership by Albertoarmstrong (talk) as well as a bias against Rumble Strips being generally evil due to their effects on cyclists and the need to build up readership of the article. We have both been trying to get another editor interested, but in the words of the most recent "new person", "I determined I have better uses of my time than this article". I think I've been welcoming and inviting to a new editor, but there is a continual "don't understand" with regards to basic policies and the pillars on which Misplaced Pages is based. Given this and the small number (two) of active editors for this article, probably the best path for myself is to worry about something else. Alex Sims (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lar and inappropriate edit summaries

The edit summary at appears to call me a "flapper." I don't feel that being called names in unretractable edit summaries and would appreciate a user who is uninvolved requesting that Lar refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying I was referring to you? Or that the term "flapper" is an insult? It was quite an honorable role in Laputia. I assure you it was meant as a compliment to those stalwart souls who stand ready to spring to WMC's aid, he being a terrifically important and busy fellow who doesn't always have time to mount a multiprong defense (or even answer simple yes/no questions). ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is an example of a consistent behavior problem: Lar often complains about "snarkiness" and sarcasm by others, but feels at liberty to engage in similar behavior himself (e.g., "you lack introspective ability", characterizing good-faith edits as "smokescreens" and veiled accusations of meatpuppetry, etc). Then when called on it, he complains that it's someone else's fault. Saying "and I mean that in the nicest possible way" or the equivalent doesn't excuse the behavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right, but he's by no means unique in that. I don't see any particular reason to single out Lar. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar is the only person who has called me a name today that I'm aware of. It would be helpful if someone who isn't involved in the underlying dispute could take a look-see.Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

At the very worst, he called you a "flapper". So what's the big deal? If that's the worst you get called today you'll have done well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Malleus is of course correct; the behavior is by no means unique. The relevance here is that Lar is basing his evaluations as an admin on a behavioral standard from which he exempts himself. If Lar were willing to model the behavior he expects from others there would be no complaint. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Lar is basing his evaluations as an admin on a behavioral standard from which he exempts himself". Just to be clear, that's what I was referring to as not being unique. Many other administrators do exactly the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

SBHB: Even if we posit that my comment was snarky rather than an apt description of events, I do not think you have standing to complain about snarkiness in others: (and there are many more such if one wants to dig a little). If you are suggesting that my behavior must be perfect before criticizing others, you need to put your own house in order first. Your behavior is sadly lacking. "But he does it too" isn't normally an excuse... Except when one implies one is lily white when one actually isn't, and then casts stones. I make no such implication. We are all of us imperfect. But not all of us realize it. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• The use of snarkiness in the heat of the moment, whilst not the most helpful approach that could be adopted, is of itself not actionable. AGK 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • ... except of course when it's done by a non-administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, no. I didn't say that, I didn't mean that, and I don't believe that. AGK 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Lar, the diffs cited in this thread are unimpressive. Whilst, as above, I don't see anything that is immediately actionable, many of your comments fall short of the standard we expect of our contributors—and especially of our administrators. If CC enforcement is getting the better of you, please take a break; in the long run that would be better for everybody. AGK 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I've given it serious consideration. If things continue on the recent promising trend I may well do so. But for a long time it seemed that my presence was desperately needed given the paucity of participation. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)It does seem that Lar has ongoing civility issues that he should address, lest sanctions be taken. Verbal chat

• Bzzzt. I saw some other reference to Swift a while ago. This is all rather silly. There are flappers in Castle in the Sky, too, which is derivative. I don't think this has anything to do with flappers and don't see how that would be an insult anyway. Jack Merridew 18:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• As a totally uninvolved editor here let me simply point out the following:

1. Being referred to as a "flapper" is not incivil. For example, compare that reference to the use of "bollocks" and "shite" described above in the section on Jack Merridew. Both of these terms are arguably vulgarities and yet they have been judged as not being incivil, hence the use of "flapper" should not be considered worse.
2. Hipocrite's description is misleading in that he uses "flapper" in the singular whereas the edit summary in question uses "flappers" in the plural. I don't know if that misrepresentation was intentional, or not. What is clear is that Lar was referring to a group and not Hipocrite specifically. Whether he considers Hipocrite a member of that group is, strictly speaking, unclear from the text of the edit summary and WP:AGF would demand that we give Lar the benefit of the doubt.

--FormerIPOnlyEditor (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

User:G8crash3r and personal attacks

Can a third party please remind User:G8crash3r that personal attacks such as calling fellow ediotrs "racist" (because my clean up efforts have only been on Philipine articles) and "unintelligent " are completely unacceptable and need to stop. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On 22 May Active Banana raised issues against G8crash3r at WP:ANI where it is now archived - see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615 and scroll down to Items 66 and 66.1 (heading SkyCable‎ article and User talk:G8crash3r‎ and User:Puppyph.) Dolphin (t) 03:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Anon IP user

An anonymous user (68.49.150.115, active since 26 April 2010) has been making repeated personal attacks against multiple editors, including myself:

• first example
• second example *

The user has also blatantly accused other editors of harbouring motives and/or bias:

• first example

Both myself and User:Tomeasy have asked said user to conform to proper conduct:

• first attempt
• second attempt
• third attempt

The second diff listed (marked *) is also a fair example of harrassment, with the IP commenting on an old (resolved) mediation case with which I was involved (simultaneously managing to attack both myself and the mediator). The user had earlier been warned against edit-warring by an administrator, and was evidently upset after I had requested page protection (albeit regarding a different dispute with which I was uninvolved). I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could intervene. Night w (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Reply from IP User 68.49.150.115

Actio non datur non damnificato - An action is not given to one who is not injured. I have not attacked you personally, but rather raised, with evidence, a valid concern of the existence of a conflict of interest. And while you (night w) may disagree with my conclusion that both you and the other editor you mention (with whom I have already worked out an agreement, I believe) have conflicts of interest, the assertion on my part that there is a COI - for which I supplied evidence - does not constitute a personal attack and is in fact proper under the rules of Misplaced Pages.

It is common, accepted, and expected in environments such as Misplaced Pages, where the highest standards of ethics are implied, and required, for the project to work, that anyone with a conflict of interest should step aside from arbitrating the agreement and allow neutral parties to decide. Any academic, journalist, or jurist with a conflict of interest is expected to step aside if there is a conflict of interest and Misplaced Pages editors are no different – this is, after all, an academic environment, as all encyclopedia’s are, and as editor you are acting as a final arbiter of sorts. The general rule is that such people should not only avoid impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. As such, it is only fair that where there is evidence of possible bias that it be raised – which I did and supplied evidence of (e.g. comments made by you and the other editor on you and their talk pages, and other editors with clear biases that you associate with). And if a bias either exists, or the reasonable appearance of it exists, then there is a conflict of interest. Bringing up a possible conflict of interest (on my part) was not an attack upon your character, or your person, or even your editing abilities. You may very well be able to set aside any prejudices/biases that you have and neutrally edit/comment on an article. That is not the point - the point of someone stepping aside when they have a conflict of interest, again, is not just to avoid impropriety - which no one has accused you of - but rather the appearance of impropriety. Furthermore, my assertion that there is a COI does not mean there in fact is one, it simply means that I, based on a reasonable reading of the facts, believe there to be one. A neutral arbiter can decide – although given the consensus on the issue that I think there now exists, this may be unnecessary. Again though, I do not see how raising an issue of COI, in an academic forum such as Misplaced Pages, and supplying evidence for as much, constitutes a violation of Misplaced Pages rules. On the contrary, I believe it is in keeping with the best spirit of this most ambitious of academic and human ventures.

Additionally, me thinks you are in pari delicto here – you do not speak with unclean hands. Your comments that I speak from bias (without evidence), that my arguments are “silly,” and other such aspersions are equally offensive if not more offensive than anything I’ve said. All in all I think this whole argument has escalated to a bit of a silly level. I have no desire to attack you or any other editor, my only desire is to see accurate well written Misplaced Pages articles crafted by neutral informed parties. There seems to be a consensus on the Wiki page in question, so further discussion may not be necessary on that topic, and on the topic of you and me personally – you can choose to pursue it further, or escalate it, but as for me I consider the topic dead, and will engage in it no further. Regards 68.49.150.115 (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Ouch! Talk about "wiki-lawyering"! My head hurts very bad now... Doc9871 (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

@IP, could you not just admit that some of your comments (I mean they are even cited!) were indeed personal attacks in a way we should not do it. Could you not just say that you will be trying hard to abstain from such behavior. And, if you said those words, would they not be indeed authentic and sincere - so we could move forward dealing with the issue itself ...

Just for the recorded, I did not not use the word silly or anything alike, nevertheless, you attacked me with the line "As for you Tomeasy, I'll repeat any argument I like as many times as I like if I feel it necessary to break through your clearly thick and obtuse skull." Do you talk like this in real life? It is just as inappropriate here. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Tom, it was I who used the word "silly". Night w (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I know. But it was the IP who insulted me and then tried to justify this insult because the word "silly" had been used. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what "evidence" you've relied upon to come to the conclusion that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. I certainly haven't had any brought to my attention, so naturally I've taken such an accusation as an unwarranted attack. As for the other user involved, declaring an interest or affiliation that is visible to everybody is an honest way of informing other editors of one's opinions or beliefs, things that every person possesses. It allows other editors to assess the user's edits and arguments with these declarations in mind. It does not mean that said user must automatically exclude himself from a related discussion. None of us are "arbitrating" the debate, we are party to it. If the user you speak of was acting as arbitrator, your complaints might be well placed, but as he is simply party to the discussion, your request that he step aside is neither applicable nor appropriate.

I have never accused you of being biased, and, again, I'd ask that you submit any evidence to the contrary you can find. I also did not say your arguments were "silly", that comment was made in reference to the continuing discourse on this issue, even after a mediation was held over it in 2008. I apologise if that came off as condescending to your own efforts. Night w (talk) 09:16, 24 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)

John Bessa

John Bessa has seen fit to turn his user and talk pages into billboards advertising his feelings and opinions about Knight of BAAWA and myself. The content disputes we have had with him are not relevant to this alert, though they do form the background of his complaints. I am bringing this matter here in the hope that someone will inform him, in a respectful but direct manner, that statements like "BAAWA's hate leads to paranoia, or is it his paranoia that causes his hate?" and "BAAWA spews hate disguised as anti-hate, which is believe to be a recent adaption by people who hate (or feel an need to use hate) to the successes of the very types of anti-hate movements that I worked with in my lifetime..." are not acceptable. Furthermore, he should be informed that user and talk pages are not designed to serve as blogs for original writing or for speculation as to the motives, emotions, or psychological make-up of other editors. This seems to me to be a clear violation of Wikiquette. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note there. Perhaps this can be resolved quietly... SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note for SHEFFIELDSTEELon his talk page. As I mentioned on his talk page, there are two issues, only one of which concerns WP; the other is a research issue. The research angle is a very important component of what the material on my personal page is about. It will be completed on another wiki, though the basis of the information is from WP. I also mentioned that I am very, very busy with work over the next two weeks (though I will probably have time after that) so there may be a delays to my responses and my attempt to bring the situation to a happy ending. But, sadly, the scope of the "BAAWA/RepublicanJacobite" issue is so vast that there is no way I can complete it quickly -- and then there is the research angle.

Thank you very much for reading my material (and I might add that I am seeking others' opinions on the psychological hypothesis mentioned there, which is working very well in real-life model testing).--John Bessa (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution