Revision as of 15:19, 16 December 2008

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

Active alerts

User:Ohconfucius

Resolved – Tennis expert has left the project

This user for the last couple of months has repeatedly engaged in incivil and harrassing behavior directed toward myself and others. Examples (there are many others) can be found: (1) here, where he claimed that myself and certain other editors are "terrorists"; (2) here, where he felt compelled to criticize someone else's post with "ZZZZZZZ", as in "you're boring me"; (3) here, where he again felt compelled to criticize someone else's post with "BIG YAWN"; (4) here where he attacked myself and another editor for opposing someone's RFA; (5) here, which was a paragraph-long stream of incivility directed at myself; (6) here, where he accused various administrators of being communists and engaging in Stalinism; (7) here, where he criticized an editor's behavior as "defensive-aggressive"; and (8) here, where he accused me of asking a "stupid" question.

See this block of Ohconfucius in November for incivility, among other things. Tennis expert (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Quit twisting things around. You're making it look like you're the victim of my harassment. Truth is that it's the other way around. Date delinker (aka Ohconfucius)_{hard problems} 10:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Technically you're making it look like he's a victim of your harassment. If you remained civil at all times this wouldn't be a problem. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have found both User:Ohconfucius and User:Tennis expert to be knowledgeable editors and have had the pleasure of agreeing with both of them on various issues; this dispute is thus most unfortunate. This is, however, a wikiquette issue and as far as I see it the bottom line is this. The incivility from User:Ohconfucius linked to above is undeniable and undesirable. However, it is equally uncivil to act in a way that suggests ownership over certain pages and User:Tennis expert is guilty of this; his comportment over the MOS date debate is also regrettable. Thus, the incivility here is far from one way and Tennis Expert's filing is consequently disingenuous. I suggest a cooling off period and that you refrain from engaging with each other. There are plenty of others who will happily continue the all important datelink debate. Eusebeus (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not up-to-date about what is happening. I haven't "engaged" Ohconfucius in a long time, and since I was blocked in mid-November, I no longer edit articles. It is Ohconfucius who follows me around on discussion pages and RFAs and posts patently incivil and disruptive comments. I have not responded to any of them (not once) except in filing this alert. Tennis expert (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree to stay away from the tennis guy if he keeps away from my nose. I wouldn't have been anywher near him if he hadn't started harassing Lightmouse on, yes you got it- date delinking with AWB on WT:AWB, taking a side-swipe at yours truly while he was at it. There's no telling when I will sneeze because I have quite serious allergies. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Expert managed to "refrain from engaging" Ohconfucius for 4 minutes. See: Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Tennis_Expert. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

user:RolandR

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

I had made this edit , in which I removed unsourced material from the Shlomo Sand article. RolandR responded with this edit to my user page , in which he accused me of vandalism, and which had an edit summery saying: Caution: Page blanking, removal of content on Shlomo Sand

RolandR is a very experienced editor, and understands the import of accusations such as "vandalism", and "Page blanking." It seems clear that what he said is not only a lie, but also said with a vicious intent. It is clear that my edit was not vandalism, and more than clear that the page was not blanked. In my view this raises to the level of a blockable offense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I considered, and still consider, the edit in question to be vandalism, and not simply an editorial dispute. Having edit-warred for a while on the article, and denied the subject's notability, Malcolm then, without discussion or warning, completely removed the passage outlining the contribution for which the subject is most notable. He claimed falsely that the passage was unsourced, when in fact the source was clearly included under "external links" rather than as an inline citation. As I noted in my reversion, if he thought that the passage was poorly sourced, Malcolm could, and should, have placed a "citation needed" or "fact" tag rather than removing the passage. And, without that passage, it becomes far harder to establish the subject's notability, as Malcolm is demanding. Malcolm too is not a new or inexperienced editor, and he is aware of the existence and use of such tags. Under the circumstances, it seemed (and still seems) to me that removing, rather than tagging, this key passage in an article which he had already tagged for notability concerns was not an innocent editorial decision, but an attempt to prejudice discussion of the subject's notability.

My comment was not "a lie", and so to describe it is itself a breach of etiquette. RolandR (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever anyone thinks about Malcolm's edit being helpful or not, it wasn't vandalism.

Both of you, please stop these personal attacks on each other. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I already warned RolandR about that. Many editors mistakenly use the word vandalism for good faith edits they strongly dislike. Calling your edit vandalism was very unhelpful, as was saying you had page blanked (you didn't), but I wouldn't go so far as to say he was lying. Moreover, flinging talk like that about will only tend to stir things up even more. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but I did not notice the edit summery till today, and that accusation has no basis at all. RolandR is a very experienced editor (frequently reporting suspected sockpuppets , or vandals . So it is clear that he understands very well both the meaning and the seriousness of such accusations. What he did was with an intent to diminish the effectiveness of an editor who opposes him. There was a knowing and vicious intent, and I do not think just a warning is sufficient for an editor who is has lied to manipulate the system to his advantage. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, and despite the gentle warning from Gwen Gale above, Malcolm accuses me of lying. And then he has the chutzpah to calim that I am in breach of etiquette!RolandR (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of "blanking the page". If that is true, show the diff. See Duck test. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary was automatically generated by a bot. It related to "Page blanking, removal of content". What I accused you of, in the body of the edit, was removal of essential content. This complaint, days after the original incident, and following further relatively cordial dialogue between us on the talk page over this same issue, seems very odd and superfluous. RolandR (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Roland, Can you concede that calling the edit vandalism was wrong? (Full disclosure: that's kind of a pet peeve of mine.) IronDuke 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm. Stop it. RolandR seems to have heeded my (what I've indeed hoped have been friendly) warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont think I am inclined to stop. Your warning to RolandR may have been "friendly", but there was nothing friendly about him accusing me of "vandalism" and "page blanking" when he knew perfectly well what that means, and also knew that it was untrue (aka a lie). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he's showing signs of wanting to be friendlier, to settle things down. I think he was careless about calling your edit vandalism/page blanking and he shouldn't do that again but, as I said, lots of experienced editors mistakenly throw those words about, I see it every few days, at least. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are saying that a lot of experienced editors are careless about lying, and about vicious insults. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Roland could have made a better choice than {{uw-delete2}} to object to Malcolm's removal of a paragraph. That's a warning normally used for vandals, or suspected vandals, rather than someone you've already been in a reasonable conversation with. Still, Malcolm's further comments in this thread seem to violate WP:NPA, and I see no reason to keep this complaint open longer unless he will withdraw those remarks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Spare me, Malcolm. Anyone can tell he was miffed at the time but if you don't know the difference between a mistake and a lie, there's not much more I can say about it, other than to echo EdJohnston's comment that you're straying into blatant personal attacks now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Spare you? One of the big problems on WP is that WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks are treated as relatively ok infractions of the rules, instead of being treated as seriously as WP:3RR. Aside from me. If I said that about him, I suspect that you would be dealing with this differently. I really do not appreciate coming here with a valid complaint, and then being told to shut up.

And, if RolandR really had any change of heart, why has he refused to admit a mistake, much less apologize and refactor his edit? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To put this in context, I should also note that Malcolm had previously added to this article the false assertion that critics compare Sand to David Irving -- an assertion not borne out even by the highly partisan source that he cited, but which had also been added several times by a single-purpose vandalism account. It was not unreasonable under the circumstances to consider Malcolm's edits to be less than innocent. RolandR (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that seemed heavy handed, that also (if I remember correctly) removed sourcing. That was an editing disagreement. David Irving? I had never heard of him, and had not added anything about him. I am not sure what RolandR is trying to prove. When the issue was clarified, I did not object further to that part of the change.

But as can easily be seen, not only is RolandR unwilling to apologize and refactor, he will not even admit he made a mistake when he accused me of vandalism and page blanking. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you added a false, and probably libellous insinuation that Sand is a fascist, thar was not borne out by the source you included. If you had read the source, you should have seen that the assertion was untrue; if you had not read the source, you should not have restored something that had already been removed three times as unsourced. If you have not heard of David Irving, you should not have inserted a statement comparing Sand to him. And, given all this, you were on extremely shaky gtound to delete as unsourced an uncontroversial statement fully backed by the cited sources. Which is why I felt that this unjustified removal, after your reinsertion of an unsourced libel repeatedly inserted by a vandal, was also an act of vandalism. And I repeat, I accused you of "removal of content", not of "page blanking". RolandR (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, first off, please don't rehash the content dispute here. Leave it for the article's talk page. Second, Roland, I looked at the editor who you called a vandal, and see no warnings for him nor any blocks. Please understand, even the most egregious POV-pushing edit doesn't count as vandalism. For WP purposes, that is a very specific term, with a very specific meaning, and it is unrelated to content disputes. I think it would be good if you could acknowledge that the term is wrong (and a violation of WP:NPA when wrongly applied), and withdraw it. Is that doable? IronDuke 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I must make a distinction here between Malcolm -- who made an edit which I considered vandalism, but who is not in essence a vandal -- and the other editor, who is almost certainly, as can be seen from a study of the pattern of editing, another appearance of the Runtshit vandal. I could explain in detail the reasoning which leads to this conclusion, but this is not really the place. Had the account continued editing, I would indeed have made a sockpuppet ot check user report. In fact, I had tagged this as a suspected Runtshit sock and reported this at the BLP noticeboard before Malcolm reinserted the defamatory claim. RolandR (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RolandR, the community has made it quite clear - Malcolm's edit did not constitute vandalism. Misuse of the term is considered uncivil, and you may end up blocked if you do it again in the future. If you are unable to distinguish between vandalism and edits that occur in a content dispute, then it is best that you avoid using the term vandalism altogether for your own sake. The same goes to Malcolm for his claims about lying. Both of you need to resolve your content disputes through civil discussion, and if you are getting no where, then use a relevant dispute resolution process (such as Article RFC or mediation). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RolandR did the same with me because he disagrees with my interpretation (I am not sure it is just mine, by the way) of the word terrorism and WP:Words to avoid

After this thread, it is clear that if RolandR once again uses the word vandalism with a well-known editor, it will be considered as uncivil and a provocation and that he should be blocked. Ceedjee (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But you did vandalise my talk page by repeatedly posting personal attacks on another editor; and you then compounded this by posting my email address there and on your own page. You were quite rightly (and leniently) blocked for a week for this vandalism, and it is egregious to attempt to present yourself as the injured party here. RolandR (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Adding myself to the dogpile of "It wasn't vandalism, everybody chill out". Seriously, when everybody but you thinks you're wrong, that is usually a good indication that you might want to take a step (or two) back. --Ryan Delaney 11:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In any case, this is now marked as "stuck" as opposed to "resolved" in line with the instructions at the top of this page. If there are further concerns regarding the conduct (of either party) brought up in this thread, then it would be best to proceed in the next stage of the dispute resolution process (possibly RFC/U) rather than come back here. I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Urbanrenewal

One of the many things I like about Misplaced Pages is that it is not USENET - flames and personal attacks, hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet, is not only not the standard, but is strongly discouraged.

Here's the diff that lead me to post the comment at the top of this thread. Related is the initial response from User:Urbanrenewal on my talk page.

I acknowledged my incorrect interpretation of {hangon}, and tried to reconcile, but was rebuffed. Please note that I did state my intention to request arbitration if we could not reconcile.

As I stated in my comments, rudeness discourages participation. I would hope that unrepentent rudeness is strongly discouraged. Help would be appreciated.

Thanks --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've had a read through both user's talk page comments. It seems that Joe admittedly slightly misinterpreted the {hangon} tag and therefore Urbanrenewal's initial response seems quite civil and justified. After that I would say both sides did not help to diffuse the situation, by making accusations of personal attacks and overly sarcastic comments. However that all seems a bit irrelevant now as both sides have expressed a desire not to continue the disagreement, and as only Urbanrenewal is fixing on the article, they will not be forced into working together. I think this avoidance of each other would be the best course of action. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Expert

Tennis Expert reported on this page that he had a problem with User:Ohconfucius. The outcome was:

• 2008-12-12 21:11 User:Eusebeus says "I suggest a cooling off period and that you refrain from engaging with each other."
• 2008-12-12 21:42 Tennis Expert responds "You are not up-to-date about what is happening. I haven't "engaged" Ohconfucius in a long time, ... It is Ohconfucius who follows me around on discussion pages and RFAs and posts patently incivil and disruptive comments. I have not responded to any of them (not once) except in filing this alert."

Within four minutes of that response, Tennis Expert engages Ohconfucius

• 2008-12-12 21:46 Tennis Expert posts on Ohconfucius' talk page.
• 2008-12-12 21:53 Tennis Expert posts on Ohconfucius' talk page.
• 2008-12-13 06:17 Tennis Expert posts on Ohconfucius' talk page.

Can somebody please state whether "refrain from engaging with each other" includes "do not post on each other's talk pages"? Lightmouse (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly say so. Thats about as obvious as you can get —Reedy 11:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• He's taking it all too personally. I suspect it's a problem xhe has to sort out with the one xhe sees in the mirror every morning. As I said, I'll stay away from him if he stays away from me. There's no telling what could happen otherwise ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Even with the wink, that sounds far too much like a threat (and a personal attack) ... one might think of a little strikeout →BMWΔ 14:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tennis expert has - very regrettably - retired from this project, so frankly there seems little point to maintaining these as active. Eusebeus (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He's still actively editing. I wouldn't mark it as resolved just yet. (Removed for now) Wizardman 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• His undertakings are clearly not worth the paper they are written on - see this edit. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's strange seeing incivility like this from you on a page devoted to tackling uncivil behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:EuroHistoryTeacher

I've already posted here once before about EuroHistoryTeacher, and a message was posted on his talk page . But he is continuing to be abusive towards me because I am asking him to provide references, repeatedly accusing me of biased editing on the basis that I am a "hispanophobe", that I "don't have a clue what I am doing" (I wrote most of the British Empire article, by the way)

• - writing patronising "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"
• - writing that I am a "clear hispanophobe"
• - writing on someone's talk page "LOL go see what i did in ferrick's page" after he wasted Wikicommons resources uploading a map called "hahaharedhatofpatferric" and linking to it on my talk page to make a point.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am getting rather frustrated trying to get EHT to understand what providing references means. When I reverted an addition of his to the Spanish Empire page on the basis that a claim about something being "humiliating" required a reference, I got this by way of response : a copy and pasted extract from another Misplaced Pages article, on my talk page. He then preceeded to readd the material, without any inline reference, and put in the edit comment "I have provided references". I have asked him to read WP:V and WP:RS so many times now, and he clearly does not wish to. I just don't see how editors like this can be reasoned with... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You will of course let us know when you have advised them of this WQA entry? ♪BMWΔ 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies (I don't have to do this very often). Per your note on my talk page I see you have done it for me. BTW - one more (admittedly before the notice was placed on his talk page) where I am labelled an "extreme hispanophobe" The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

c'mon now show both sides of the coins Ferrick , you have accused about 3 (or perhaps more) times of sockpuppetry which i didn't like , so don't make youself look like a victim , ok? and many numerous insults which you know of very well--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on portions of the above, the actions of EuroHistoryTeacher appear to have been disruptive to the project. I recommend taking this to WP:AN or WP:ANI for a long-term solution. ♪BMWΔ 19:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As I know quite a lot about this topic (Spanish Empire), I suggest that we take this back to the talk page. I am happy to involve myself as a neutral party to see if we can arrive at a compromise. It is a VERY sticky issue (always has been) and I am not surprised that the temperature has risen. However, I suspect that we can arrive at a solution through the introduction of some cartographical nuance and a box of virtual crayons. If the parties are agreeable, that is. Eusebeus (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree ... to a degree. Edits 39/40 are disruption to cause a WP:POINT. Action should be taken. The rest can be dealt with on the talk page of the article. ♪BMWΔ 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The best action to take is for everyone to have a nice cup of tea and agree to try to work through the differences in a calm manner. Those edits are pointy, but accusations of sockpuppetry are also unacceptable. If editors can agree to set aside their past differences to make a concerted effort at compromise, then we can take that as a good departure point and leave everything else aside. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think an informal mediator is gonna help with the incivility, personal attacks and general lack of understanding of core policy here. This user is never going to be a productive contributor unless he/she understands WP:NPOV and WP:V and drops the prejudices he/she seems to have against certain editors. It seems clear to me, considering this users contributions, that he/she is an spa with a personal agenda.--neon white talk 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have stricken my comments accordingly. I didn't realise this was an SPA. Eusebeus (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that this user simply has an interest in this topic but alot of the edits seem to me to be trying to adjust the bias of the articles. It's essential that he/she understands NPOV policy and how to apply it to one's own edits. I think the major problem here is the personal attacks. I don't think it's possible to deal with the neutrality dispute whilst this editor is branding anyone who in opposition a 'Hispanophobe'. --neon white talk 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that this user has just come off a university undergraduate course specialising in Spanish/LatAm colonial history, so they clearly do have a valid interest in these topics. On the other hand, he does appear to have an issue with perceptions of "hispanophobia" at Misplaced Pages - see his reason for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Latin nationalism, where he is not attacking anyone in particular (until he later attacks me at the bottom). (The funny thing about him accusing me of it is that I am half Spanish myself) He also appears to believe that, because he has studied this subject at university, he knows more than anyone else and is excused of having to provide references. And he continues to not follow even simple things like learning how to indent posts on talk pages (see his response to my polite request on that - "I couldn't care less") So for me, the issue of personal attacks is just one manifestation of his inability to follow Misplaced Pages policies and conventions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is anyone can claim to have degree in anything, that's why we require verifiability. --neon white talk 23:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Eleland

This user has been referring to me as "idiotic" and that my eidts are "rank bullshit" (twice) and after a warning again, in the context of a run-of-the-mill content dispute. This user already has a healthy block log, and a history of extraoridanrily offensive remarks. Feedback welcome. IronDuke 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"In summary, the comparison you've drawn here is so odious, insulting, and idiotic that..." is making an observation, caustic as it may be, about the comparison you had made. That is not even remotely the same as referring to you as idiotic, as you claim above, i.e. "you are an idiot". Not sure how seriously a Wikiquette alert can be taken when it is so disingenuous right off the bat. Tarc (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this example, eg " I wasn't calling you idiotic, merely your edits" has been exploded many times already (and indeed, it is obvious why). I assume you're on board with Eleland on the use of the term "rank bullshit." IronDuke 03:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke, I still want you to stop wasting everybody's time with this kind of rank bullshit. <eleland/talkedits> 03:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Eleland's made my point better than I did. Anyone else want to comment? IronDuke 04:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the posts are not in compliance with WP:CIVIL. I have posted a note to Eleland's talkpage, asking him to please consider refactoring. --Elonka 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is not right. A part of the posts is not in compliance with WP:CIVIL. Most of the post was very polite. Eleland is upset because he has the feeling that Ironduke is not of good faith. He should keep cool but there is no reason to go further. Ceedjee (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The over-riding policy is "comment on EDITS not EDITORS". If you tell me something that is pure BS then I'm going to call it BS. That doesn't mean that you, personally, are BS. Likewise, I've made some idiotic comments in my life, but that does not make me an idiot. Just because you wear pink shoes does not make you a pinko. ♪BMWΔ 12:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this myself personally, I would say calling someone's edit "idiotic" is offensive and obviously not the way we're meant to communicate on here. It seems from his above post that he has no comprehension/regard of how WP:NPA works and if his behaviour continues I'd recommend administerial action (again it seems). Ryan4314 (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was saying above. People need to grow some thicker skin around here, and save WQ alerts for thr serious cases of derogatory comments actually made towards a user him/herself. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan4314 ... touching your tongue to a frozen pole is idiotic - it doesn't mean you're an idiot. Making a single dumb edit does not make you dumb (in fact, you might have been drunk, tired, angry, or even more drunk). A perfectly intelligent editor can make a boneheaded edit. Yes, it's a borderline case, but it's not officially contra-WP:NPA. ♪BMWΔ 14:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well... I am not sure I would not feel personnaly insulted if somebody would write that my comments are stupid.

That is a little bit easy.

Anyway, I could write "fuck off bastards" and this would not be against any etiquette.

The context matters more than the words taht are used. Ceedjee (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

BMW, even if that were the case, which it isn't (all of the words you used have more civil alternatives), this is clearly not the context in which Eleland was using them. He clearly meant to insult IronDuke, this is nothing new on Misplaced Pages, we all do it to each other by dressing it up as sarcasm etc, but he shouldn't be allowed to be this blatant with it. I maintain my suggestion; "It seems from his above post that he has no comprehension/regard of how WP:NPA works and if his behaviour continues I'd recommend administerial action." Ryan4314 (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This may not be a breach of NPA, but it is clearly not civil and it is not proper Wikiquette. Using his choice of words and tone makes the possibility of reaching consensus extremely difficult. If this happens once or twice, no administrative action (other than a warning) should be taken. But if it is repeated, action should be taken. Just my two cents...LedRush (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have said ... the words/actions themselves are not not contra-NPA. Tone and intent may be. ♪BMWΔ 14:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Keverich1

The user has a nasty habit of lashing out at other editors who don't share his opinion (see here, especially problematic here, here or here). Maybe some admin might like to have a word with him about it?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 16.12.2008 15:19

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution