Revision as of 05:11, 27 July 2012

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 discussions

Personal attacks and insults to multiple users by BScMScMD

• BScMScMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• UnQuébécois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MrBoire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• User talk:Jmajeremy (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - read edit summary
• User talk:BScMScMD (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - read edit summary

Apparently BScMScMD Thinks it's okay to refer to people as "morons" if they make a typo on a talk page. I and MrBoire have been involved with the user, and this seems to be retaliation for having been told that they were showing their ignorance, the state of being uninformed, about a subject. Perhaps there is a deficiency in language, as demonstrated by the user's comments, and this is at the root of the retribution. It is of note that in the contributors native language, the term fr:Ignorance is also used to describe a person who "does not know."--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

can you provide the relevant diffs as well IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

read edit summaries.

I didn't mean for me, I've already responded to the editor on their talk page. It can be handy for other editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, there was absolutely no typo on my user page. The message was strictly bitter and obviously did not have its place on a Misplaced Pages talk page. Having that said, before summarizing an issue to other editors, you, UnQuébécois, should be sure to include real facts, not bits and pieces of misleading information. --BScMScMD (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no one said there were any typos on your page. And the summary is exactly what it is, it highlighted the major points. I have tried to assume no ill intent, however after reading the response on your talk page I am not sure you understand the concept of etiquette.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe you have the "it" disease! --BScMScMD (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User is still at it, here, with their "nit picking" on talk pages. It's very frustrating behavior, and from the comments left on their own talk page, is On purpose.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have asked the editor not to do it and pointed out how uncivil it is. Not editing the comments of others is also policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dickhead

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

• Talk:Phallus (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Penis (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User talk:AndyTheGrump (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Phallus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I complained to AndyTheGrump that "remove image and explain why)" did not describe http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Penis&action=history. I also complained that he had written "I would take the suggestions of this 'contributor' more seriously were it not for their recent contribution history. Might I suggest that you'd make a better case if you didn't make a habit of spamming pages with pictures of people urinating?". This contradicts the idea of assessing edits, not editors. It is also wrong, as i had only added photographs of a man and a woman urinating to Urination and Talk:Urination, and a photograph of a penis urinating to Talk:Penis. Please try to be more accurate in the future." He wrote "If you don't like my comment, fine. Report it at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance or wherever." Subsequently in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3APhallus&diff=503393294&oldid=503391356 he wrote " I'd ask 93.96.148.42 to stop being such a dickhead. " and "l. If 93.96.148.42 wishes for policy to be revised to enable off-topic pictures of human genitalia to be added to whatever article he/she wants, on the basis that it is supposedly 'censorship' to do otherwise, this isn't the place to do it". I am not happy at this abuse.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see this contributors recent edit history, and the new thread I've started at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:93.96.148.42. I'm not interested in discussing matters of Wikiquette with people clearly out to cause trouble - and in the case of this contributor, my description of him/her as a 'dickhead' was not intended as a metaphor. I suggest the contributor should either grow up, or fuck off and troll elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Is 93.96's recent trolling style of editing good witiquette? Or should some further action be taken, maybe by an admin, to stop the disruption? Adding: I see that's just been done: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:93.96.148.42 —MistyMorn (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump created that complaint after telling me to fuck off here. No action has been taken by an admin.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Factually incorrect. I posted at ANI first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a board to discuss perceived incivility and work from there to resolve misunderstandings etc. It's not a place for enacting bans etc. Considering that things have escalated to ANI and AN (non-autoconfirmed) this thread has no further purpose. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmm...sandwich-pushing... WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a sensational essay! And yes, it does sum up the situation very well. Sometimes English has trouble encapsulating the silliness of a situation, but "dickhead" somehow fits the bill in this case—Misplaced Pages is NOTCENSORED so I can add dick pics on any article related (in my mind) to the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Threats made by Administrator

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

• User talk:RightCowLeftCoast (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fort Hood shooting‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Due to a disagreement with a reversiona reversion, done by myself at Fort Hood Shooting an Administrator threatened a reduction of editing privilege against myself and acted in, what I perceive as, an uncivil manor. I pointed this out to the administrator, which was meet of a response of, as I perceive, as continued incivility. After continued correspondence the administrator followed up with an additional threat and a threat to wikihound myself.

I am unsure if this is the appropriate place to bring up an administrator's actions towards regular editors, however I feel that the final posting of the editor warranted additional review.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I read John's post to you, I wasn't quite sure what was meant. It sounded like he was saying you wouldn't have the right to revert, but reverts and edits are pretty much the same thing. Regardless of the poor phrasing, the proper course of action is to discuss this content dispute on the Talk page of the article. I see that you guys are doing that now, and other than suggesting to John that he rephrase the 'threat' into a positive call for discussion, I don't think you have much to worry about at this point as long as the editors in question don't begin an edit war. One thing that might spur the participants to discuss more is temporary protection for the article, so that no edits can be made for a while. -- Avanu (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking here: , on the initial message there is no personal attack or incivility. Do not claim something is a personal attack or uncivil when you aren't sure, and avoid saying it to the individual anyway when you are sure, as it is needlessly inflammatory. Further, never revert another editor with BRD as your sole reason. Also, Assume good faith and avoid being inflammatory. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What I mean by this is, don't use make an accusation in the same thread, provide your reasonings quietly on their talk page in a new section, be sure to not be confrontational etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that there has been a misunderstanding.

I am not saying that incivility has occurred on the article Fort Hood Shooting, or its talk page. The subsequent discussion following the reversion has so far been civil regarding all parties involved there.

My concern was regarding the incivility that I feel occurred solely on my talk page, in regards to the reversion of the Fort Hood Shooting article.

As for myself being unsure, I was sure that the initial message left in response to the reversion was uncivil, and thus why I civilly reminded the administrator of the pillar. What I was unsure about was this was an appropriate noticeboard to bring up questionable actions of an administrator.

As for the initial reversion, the reason for it was it was blanking/deleting content that was verified from multiple reliable sources; it was done boldly, and thus subject to reversion. I believe that I stated as much in my following edits in regards to the reversion (specifically on the talk page) of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All of my response is aimed at what is covered at the talk page and what was said. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand this edit—why does it redirect to an AfD about another article?? However, it would be inappropriate for any admin involved in an editing dispute with you to revoke your privileges himself, but if he goes through the proper channels i.e. ANI then that's his prerogative. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@Betty: I think you just have a bad diff link, try http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fort_Hood_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=503477640

@Betty Logan, let me replace the diff. Thanks for pointing this out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I read John's comments at User talk:RightCowLeftCoast#July 2012 as messages that would be appropriate if rollback had been used. However RightCowLeftCoast does not have the rollback right, and did not use it. Perhaps John had his mind on something else and took the edit summary starting with "Reverted" as the standard rollback edit summary which is "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y" (his first comment includes "the reversion tool is to be used only in cases of vandalism..."). Having had a very quick look at the situation, I think it could be summed up as that John's comment would have been ok if rollback was involved, but was inappropriately phrased under the circumstances. However, I can see the point that if an editor (RightCowLeftCoast) is going to revert an edit which involved an edit summary linking to WP:MEMORIAL, they should discuss first rather than reverting less than half an hour after John (yes I know what BRD says, but something like a list of victims in an article on a shooting rampage should be justified in advance). RightCowLeftCoast focused on the threat part of the comment when really just an observation that in their opinion such a comment was inappropriate would be sufficient. Editors should be aware that idyllic niceness is not always possible, and after making a reply about the tone of someone else's comment, further discussion should be restricted to the topic (text in an article). Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump's accusations

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

• wp:Ani#gaming_of_my_1-rr_restriction_by_user_ankhmorpork

I am writing this complaint about AndytheGrump. In an ongoing debate at the linked article, I have been subjected to repeated and baseless accusations of being a meat/sockpuppet, a throwaway account, an SPA as well as other incivil comments. I have asked him to stop making these claims, yet he refuses to, and continues to behave in an insulting and degrading way.

I ask you to note his previous block, as well as repeated warnings and notes on his talkpage related to his attitude, and the above discussion on this very page. Because of these factors, I do not believe this behaviour will stop without this case being filed, his response to the message formally asking him to stop is proof enough that he has no qualms with incivility, even after being repeatedly told. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, the problem with that An/I thread you mention is far too many people lacking in common decorum. Andy was a part of the problem in that thread, but I see quite a few people in that thread with less than civil attitudes. I would suggest an admin politely remind the participants that calling people Single-Purpose-Accounts or Sockpuppets are extremely contentious accusations and there are probably much better ways to approach a debate than dragging it off track and using namecalling and ad hominem.

Andy knows full well that he needs to be civil, and I would say pretty much all the participants in that thread know that. So, either issue a perfunctort block for the lot of them that were less than civil, or let's all agree that civility is supposed to be inviolate here at Misplaced Pages, not an afterthought. As I say on my User page, the unfortunate motto of too many Wikipedians is "Using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you." (from this episode of South Park) -- Avanu (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Iamthemuffinman is a liar, as will become readily apparent if anyone asks for diffs for such 'repeated accusations' from me - I've only stated the obvious (once), which is that a 'new' user that jumps straight into an ANI thread and starts posting comments such as "I could not care less about what other editors see me as. Nor do I care for their opinions, or yours. I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" , and goes out of his way to disrupt discussions, is almost certainly someone's sock/meatpuppet (or possibly a troll), as well as being an obnoxious little turd. Clearly not here for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Will others seeing this please not bother to make further postings asking for me to 'be civil' in this thread - Iamthemuffinman states that he doesn't care about my opinion about him, so there is no particular reason to waste time on bogus politeness. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just starting to look at this, but one thing jumped out at me. Re: not asking you to be civil, Andy. I will never, ever stop asking you or anyone else to be civil. The basic logic of your argument (User X did Y so it is now OK for me to be uncivil) is flawed. I don't care if the other fellow calls you a Nazi Pedophile Bedwetter WikiVandal who thinks Battlefield Earth is the best movie ever made. You still must be civil. If you don't like it, 4Chan is that way. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet more personal attacks and accusations. I'm preparing the diffs now. I fully encourage any user with checkuser rights to run my account through the system to absolve me. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing these supposed diffs. Meanwhile, perhaps you'd care to disclose to us the previous Misplaced Pages account(s) you used while you became familiar with the inner workings of AN/I, checkusers and the rest? Or have you learned all this in the last few days? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Iamthemuffinman, how do you know, after two days on the project, what checkuser is, or that that's the name for it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please use civil discourse along with proof of any allegations of misconduct. WikiquetteAn/I is not the place to bring stident language or personal attacks (nor is anywhere in Misplaced Pages, for that matter.) -- Avanu (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Because I have been using this project as an IP for the best part of 5 years, and in my time reading the wp:signpost newspaper, especially the arbitration section, there were numerous tales of checkuser being used sucessfully. Obviously I wanted to know how this worked so I researched it. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No diffs than? As I expected.

Since Iamthemuffinman has singularly failed to demonstrate the validity of his assertions, can I ask an uninvolved person to mark this thread as resolved? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• The most recent public accusation

• Another insult (also repeated in the edit summary)

• The response to being informed of this topic, and the edit summary which is confrontational

I am currently compiling the rest which is difficult as I have to sift through endless disgusting comments you have made to find the ones solely related to me, which in addition to the opening comments from the lovely Andy, should build a very valid case for assistance. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse any delays, my arthritic fingers make using the keyboard and mouse quite difficult. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think that a diff of my response to you accusing me of "constant baseless accusations" and informing that you are opening this ridiculous thread is a justification for you opening it in the first place? Please add 'off your trolley' to the list of gratuitous (though entirely accurate) insults I've sent your way - or provide evidence that I'd made these "constant baseless accusations" at the time you posted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And they continue to roll in and they are defended. If this sort of outragous conduct and abuse is allowed, then it makes a mockery of the rules and blocking policies. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This is Wikiquette assistance - blocks aren't handed out here. You could try asking at AN/I - though if you do, I shall of course ask to see the diffs you use to support the claim you posted on my talk page accusing me of "constant baseless accusations". At which point, whether anything I've said is 'baseless' will of course become an issue, as well as your rather curious use of the word 'constant' - and no doubt your own behaviour in the four days since you opened this account. Likewise, your statement that you "...could not care less about what other editors see me as. Nor do I care for their opinions, or yours. I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" will also be taken into account. By the way, do you care? if so, perhaps you should think a little before saying that you dont. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Because, for some strange reason, I'd like this to be resovled without having to take it directly to ani, this is a chance for you to accept that your conduct as of late has been completely out of order, which explains why there is another complaint against you at the top of this page. If you cannot see that you have a problem when two out of three entries on this page are against you, then this is something that needs to be dealt with. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

...And because you've now realised that any complaint at AN/I will backfire spectacularly. Now, can you explain to me what you meant when you accused me of having "a vested interest in this matter" here . And what the grounds were for stating that I was "conducting in an almost obscurist and intentionally antagonistic manner" in the same post? And why, in the same post you also falsely asserted that an edit I'd described as a misrepresentation of a source was "word for word what is written in the article you linked to"? And then of course, there is this rather interesting earlier post of yours where you state that suggestions that sock/meatpuppetry is being engaged in by other people are 'baseless'. How could you possibly know whether people you have no contact with are meatpuppets?

(And in response to your off-topic comment about me being involved in two discussions on this page, I'd recommend you look into the history of the other one - the consensus seems to be that describing someone with an apparent obsession with posting multiple images of human genitalia over multiple articles as a 'dickhead' was entirely apt, if perhaps a little impolite. In any case, given that you were warned that your behaviour regarding Talk:Main Page within hours of you opening your account was likely to result in a block, pots and kettles come to mind). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As you point out, Andy, this is Wikiquette, and as such, we are here to try and resolve a dispute through patient discourse and fact finding. Wikiquette is optional, and if you don't wish to participate, you are free to decline. However, if you are going to interact here, please try to stay on target and focus on resolving the dispute. -- Avanu (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I regret to say that I feel that your comments are unhelpful. Iamthemuffinman has made specific claims regarding my conduct, but has failed to provide the necessary evuidence to back them up. These are the only 'facts' that are relevant here - if anyone is going off-target it appears to be you. I don't need lectures in civility from you (or at least, am unlikely to take much notice of them), and my major complaint about Iamthemuffinman's behaviour is that he has taken every opportunity to drag discussions off-topic. I'd appreciate it greatly if you would try to avoid dioing the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from the Ani Exchange linked at the top of the entry

Liar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC) - in response to my answer to his lop sided question.

I have to ask, because it is notable that several of those taking part seem intent on dragging discussions off-topic at every opportunity. I'd cite the section above as an obvious example, but it isn't the only one. Naturally, it isn't up to one individual or another to decide the flow of discussion, but comments like "I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" from what is almost certainly a throw-away account from a 'new' contributor (who seems very familiar with inner the workings of Misplaced Pages) appear to me to be intentionally phrased in such a way to distract from discussion of the underlying issues. If this is the case, it appears that ANI may not be the best venue for this discussion, and it might best be continued elsewhere. Clearly, a RfC/U on AnkhMorpork might be a starting point, but I feel we need to address the broader issues in some way too - as Zero suggested above, an extension of 1RR into the subject matter here might make sense, for a start. I think more needs to be done though, to find a way to systemically deal with coordinated POV-pushing and gaming the system in the ways evident in this thread and in relation to the articles concerned. Exactly where and how this should proceed I'm unsure - maybe others (amongst those that actually wish to see an honest and reputable Misplaced Pages) can offer suggestions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC) - A section he created, where an unfounded accusation is made.

His comments in this entry

User:Iamthemuffinman is a liar, as will become readily apparent if anyone asks for diffs for such 'repeated accusations' from me - I've only stated the obvious (once), which is that a 'new' user that jumps straight into an ANI thread and starts posting comments such as "I could not care less about what other editors see me as. Nor do I care for their opinions, or yours. I'll post to wherever I feel I want to, thanks" , and goes out of his way to disrupt discussions, is almost certainly someone's sock/meatpuppet (or possibly a troll), as well as being an obnoxious little turd. Clearly not here for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC) - Note the initial attack, and the combination of accusation and serious personal attack

Do you really think that a diff of my response to you accusing me of "constant baseless accusations" and informing that you are opening this ridiculous thread is a justification for you opening it in the first place? Please add 'off your trolley' to the list of gratuitous (though entirely accurate) insults I've sent your way - or provide evidence that I'd made these "constant baseless accusations" at the time you posted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC) - What you see here is that this user has absolutely no problems with carrying on his abuse, and will no doubt continue.

This is an indicator of the major problem we have with Andy. This is limited to the confrontation between me and him solely, however, a simple look through his history of contributions will reveal a long running campaign of incivility for which he was blocked. His continuing of the incivil behavour on this page is a more justification for this thread. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this topic is closed. You have singularly failed to provide the evidence I asked for regarding your original assertion that you were "subjected to repeated and baseless accusations of being a meat/sockpuppet, a throwaway account, an SPA" by me. I posted a single comment at AN/I after you wrote of me that "You clearly have a vested interest in this matter and are conducting yourself in an almost obscurist and intentionally antagonistic manner". I have asked you to explain what this supposed 'vested interest' is, and you have failed to do so. I fully stand by what I said in the post where I wrote that your behaviour was an example of a pattern in the AN/I thread, and I see no reason to change my earlier assessment that you were being intentionally disruptive.

The only remaining question for me is whether it is worth the bother of bringing your behaviour up at AN/I. You are of course welcome to bring my behaviour up there, but your failure to provide any evidence for your assertions here suggests that you may well regret doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable course at this point might be an interaction ban between the two of you. I'd like more editors to weigh in on this; I'd like to see a more positive outcome, but I am losing hope in that outcome. -- Avanu (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Frankly, I see all of this as a waste of time and server resources. The best solution is for everyone to stop commenting. It is natural for Andy to assume there is sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry involved when a new editor is taking part in behind the scenes meta areas of Misplaced Pages. The diffs outside of that were a bit gruff, but the only thing causing any problems is the continued discussion. Random article button is ← that way. Go improve one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ryan Vesey is correct. We all acknowledge that Andy should use calmer language, but the report is fatally flawed since it merely demonstrates that Andy's assertion is correct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• I endorse the above two comments. I am having tremendous trouble viewing this "new" user's actions here as anything but disruptive. But I would appreciate it if Andy could learn to not inflame situations with intemperate language. It just feeds this kind of nonsense. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, no, no, no! Andy needs to be civil even when the other fellow is being disruptive. Shame on all of you who are excusing clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on the basis that "the other fellow is disruptive". I expected better of you. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think both parties are being needlessly uncivil and inflammatory (particularly judging from the responses at ANI). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On the Theory that the Rules Don't Apply to Some Editors

Andy the Grump is the most reliable editor in terms of maintaining our BLP policy, and so protecting Misplaced Pages and living persons.

Everything else is secondary. I would ask that persons stop treating Andy without the respect he deserves. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

i fully agree on that.-- altetendekrabbe  17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. So now we have moved from "it's OK for Andy to be uncivil because the other editor was disruptive" (which he was) to "it's OK for Andy to be uncivil because he does good work on BLPs" (which he does). And we have now added the request that I "treat Andy with the respect he deserves" (meaning "say it's OK for Andy to be uncivil"). No. It's still wrong for Andy to be uncivil no matter how many of you say it's OK. I challenge any of you to point to anything in Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines that supports the assertion that it is OK for Andy to be uncivil for any reason. Again, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying that the rules don't apply to Andy.

Misplaced Pages:Five pillars says:

"Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.

Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Misplaced Pages etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 6,936,637 articles on the English Misplaced Pages to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, and never disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Be open and welcoming, and assume good faith on the part of others. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution."

Misplaced Pages:Civility says:

"Civility is part of Misplaced Pages's code of conduct and one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars. The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Misplaced Pages editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.

This policy describes the standards of behavior expected of users when they interact, and appropriate ways of dealing with problems that may arise. It applies to all editors and all interaction on Misplaced Pages, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."

What part of " It applies to all editors and all interaction on Misplaced Pages " is so difficult to understand? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What part of 'I'm done here, bring it to AN/I if you like' don't you understand? I have never claimed to be immune from any policy whatsoever, and am prepared to accept the consequences of my incivility. I think it might be better for Misplaced Pages though, if we actually considered the end product a bit more. Without peeking behind the scenes our readers won't see the bar-room brawls and custard pie fights that go on there, but they do read the articles - and presenting POV-pushing spin which casts an entire ethnic community in a bad light based on a blatant misrepresentation of sources as 'fact' is worse than 'uncivil', it is downright repulsive (and given the apparent residence of at least one of the contributors, possibly even illegal). Still, it seems to be par for the course on Misplaced Pages that we are expected to be 'civil' to ourselves, while we fill articles with vitriol, tittle-tattle and vacuous speculation about the significance of a maternal great-grandmother's religion regarding everyone else. If we can't be civil to the rest of humanity, why should we assume that we can treat each other differently? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We all must avoid unparliamentary language (follow the link). Expressing oneself without using unparliamentary language is more persuasive and helps to avoid other editors setting up this sort of discussion thread. TFD (talk)

It is kind of funny to me to see an appeal to respect one editor (who without question deserves respect for his positive contributions), but at the expense of disrespect for another editor. It is a two-way street guys. You don't get a pass on civility for your good works, you get civility and patience, and you probably get more patience if you're easier to get along with, but in no way does that entitle you to a pass. Andy, as much as you are grumpy, you are helpful. But the problem is bigger than just you. There are a lot of people who think it is ok to be uncivil as long as the final product is good looking. But our policy, our PILLAR, says otherwise. It says you don't get to have one and not the other. It says you MUST HAVE BOTH. I'm sure there are plenty of fine academic journals, professors, scientists, who get away with treating other people like shit all day long and those guys get a pass because they perform at a high level. While that is one reasonable model, it is not how Misplaced Pages is designed to work. There is no excuse for defending a culture of asshole-ism. So either we behave like civilized gents, or we find a new hobby. -- Avanu (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I actually have far less problem with your use of uncivil language than I have with those here who claim that this is OK because the rules don't apply to you. I would note that you never claimed that the rules don't apply to you. I consider your actual behavior to be rather minor, worthy of a stern "Tsk, Tsk, please don't do that" and nothing more. My issue is with the other editors who have claimed that it is OK for you to be uncivil if your target was disruptive (which he was) or because you do good work here (which you do). That's just wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicosia dispute

• Richwales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• E4024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

A dispute has arisen at Talk:Nicosia over:

• a remark by E4024 which other editors are complaining was inexcusably uncivil;
• whether I (Richwales) am taking sides by suggesting that everyone, as opposed to just one individual, should be careful in what they say and how they say it;
• whether I — either as an ordinary editor, or as an admin — should strike out or remove a negative comment made by one editor about a general group of other editors (per WP:RUC or any other policy or guideline);
• whether I can or should intervene as an admin in a civility dispute on this or related articles, given that I believe I am an involved editor here because I have participated heavily in discussions aiming at reaching compromise wordings regarding the division of the island of Cyprus in general, and the city of Nicosia in particular.

See Talk:Nicosia#More thoughts on status in infobox generally; and, specifically, this comment by E4024, and this subsequent exchange involving Dr.K., Athenean, and myself, in which I am being chided for my perceived inaction.

In retrospect, I should probably have been more sensitive to E4024's original comment and should have asked him to retract it right away, rather than letting it pass. However, I believe the general issues I've listed above should still be addressed by uninvolved outsiders. — Richwales 18:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please consider me excused from this. First let me make a clarification. Contrary to what Rich claims I had no intention to chide him for anything he did. If my remarks were construed by Rich as chiding him it is really unfortunate but that definitely was not my intention. If Rich feels strongly about in his view having being chided I would request of him that he gives me a diff on my talk, not here, explaining where the chiding occurred and I will retract it. I am not a filing party and although the issues raised by Rich in this WQA alert may or may not be valid and/or proper for a forum such as WQA, I don't think that it would be relevant or useful for me to participate in any discussion here. The dispute is also misrepresented as simply a single remark, whereas if one reads what I actually wrote it will become clear that this denigrating of Greek editors happens often in the remarks made by E4024. It is this repetitive quality of abusive remarks by E4024 which is really annoying. Nevertheless I never asked to be drawn into a noticeboard and I had quietly withdrawn from such verbal abuse by simply announcing that I would not participate further in the discussion at Nicosia. End of story. Coming to WQA for this was never my intention. So please consider me excused from these proceedings. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

E4024 has withdrawn the contentious remark in question and authorized me to remove it (which I have done). I would like to keep this WQA request open in order to get outside feedback regarding how to deal with this sort of situation if/when it happens again — as well as to give people an opportunity, if they wish, to examine and comment on the wider problem of which this specific incident is just one example. — Richwales 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with a repeat GA nomination for Krista Branch

• ColonelHenry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Krista Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:The Devil's Advocate nominated Krista Branch a few weeks ago. I reviewed the article and cited problems (see the GA1 review on Talk:Krista Branch). User:The Devil's Advocate did not do anything to rectify those problems and complained that they weren't specific enough for his tastes. User:The Devil's Advocate attempted to obstruct edits to rectify said problems. On 25 July 2012 I failed the GA nomination after several days where User:The Devil's Advocate did not respond to the GA review or edit the article to improve it per my review. On 26 July 2012, User:The Devil's Advocate renominated for GA. Personally, I believe it was intended to be spiteful and implied "I will ignore User:ColonelHenry's review and act as if it didn't happen." This behavior is disrespectful to other editors and seems to be an end-run designed to subvert the GA review process.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, seriously. Stop.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Colonel, being a GA reviewer is an important, and thankless job, and we very much appreciate it. I don't think TDA meant to disrespect you: people re-nominate articles all the time. If you feel that your suggestions aren't being given due consideration, start a discussion on the talk page and work toward forming a consensus. – Lionel 05:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at that GA review a while back and agree that TDA is trying to WP:OWN the article and not respond in a reasonable way to valid criticisms: he unduly personalized the discussion. He is currently under a 6 month topic ban under WP:ARB911. This response to a warning from an arbitrator was much worse: he referred to NewYorkBrad's statements as "incendiary" and then trotted out his own pet conspiracy theories as a "Macartythian reality". (Note that TDA is currently under a 6 month topic ban under WP:ARB911.) If he continues down this particular path, with issues which go way beyond wikiquette, he will in all probability come unstuck. Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution